ML063330486

Revised - Final Environmental Impact Statement Related to Construction of Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 - March 1974

ML063330486
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	03/01/1974
From:	US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)
To:	US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)
References
Download: ML063330486 (333)

Text

-50 L,*-

REVISED FINAL related to constructon of SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNITS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY DOCKET NOS. 50-400, 50-401, 50-402 & 50-403 MARCH 1974 UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION DIRECTORATE OF LICENSING

i

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS This revised Final Environmental Statement was prepared by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Directorate of Licensing.

1. This action is administrative.

2. The proposed action is the issuance of a construction permit to the Carolina Power and Light Company for the construction of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 located on approximately 10,744 acres of land in Wake and Chatham Counties about 20 miles southwest of Raleigh, North Carolina.

The applicant proposes to employ four identical pressurized water reactors to produce 2785 1Wt each. Steam turbine-generators will use this heat to produce a net total electrical power capacity of 3600 MWe. A design power level of 2900 1Wt for each reactor is anticipated at a future date and is considered in the assessments contained in this statement. The exhaust steam will be cooled by closed cycle recirculation in a system of four natural-draft cooling towers with makeup water obtained from a 4000 acre reservoir.

3. Summary of environmental impact and adverse effects:

Construction of the plant, makeup reservoir, and auxiliary reservoir will result in the destruction of about 4500 acres of terrestrial flora and habitat and the likely destruction of benthos of streams to be impounded.

About three miles of Buckhorn Creek from the main dam to the Cape Fear River will be significantly altered or destroyed as an aquatic habitat.

Increased motor traffic, dust, noise, land erosion and stream disruption will result over the 8-yr construction period.

About 25 families will have to be relocated as a result of the project.

About 3500 acres of terrestrial habitat will be altered for transmission line facili.ties. Of this, trees and undergrowth will be cleared from about 2200 acres and only tall timber will be removed from 1300 acres. The applicant will permit multiple-use of rights-of-way, such as farming, up to towers.

ii

• The risk of accidental radiation exposure is very low.

No significant environmental impacts are anticipated from normal operational releases of radioactive materials. The estimated dose to the population within 50 miles from operation of the plant is 26 man-rem/yr, less than the normal fluctuations in the 180,000 man-rem/yr background dose this population now receives.

The chlorine and total dissolved solids concentrations in the plant discharge could, at times, result in an adverse impact on aquatic biota in the reservoir.

Potential recreational uses of the reservoir will be impaired, some perhaps severely, by the relatively large fluctuations in the water level.

4. Principal alternatives considered were:

• Purchase of power from other sources

• Alternative sites

• Use of fossil fuels as alternative energy sources Closed cycle mechanical-draft cooling towers, spray pond and once-through cooling using a 10,000 acre cooling lake as alternative heat dissipation methods.

5. Comments on the revised Draft Environmental Statement were received from the agencies listed below and have been considered in the pre-paration of the revised Final Environmental Statement. Copies of.

these comments are included as Appendix F and the comments are dis-cussed in Section 12.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce Department of Health, Education and Welfare Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of the Interior Environmental Protection Agency Federal Power Commission North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources

-North Carolina Department of Transportation Carolina Power and Light Company Department of the Army Corps of Engineers

iii

6. This Statement was made available to the public, to the Council on Environmental Quality, and to other agencies in March 1974.

7. The originally proposed Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant would have utilized a cooling lake which the staff found, on balance, to be the cooling alternative which was environmentally most attractive and thus best fulfilled the goals of National Environmental Policy Act (see Foreword). The staff still believes that the use of a cooling lake as originally proposed is, on balance, superior to the presently proposed cooling tower system. However, decisions by EPA and the State of North Carolina, in implementing their responsibilities under the FWPCA preclude the AEC from granting a construction permit based on the cooling lake design. In this current assessment, the staff finds that natural-draft cooling towers, which are mandated by requirements of other agencies, are, on balance, an acceptable but more expensive cooling alternative.

8. On the basis of the analysis and evaluation set forth in this statement and after weighing the environmental, economic, tech-nical and other benefits of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant against environmental costs and considering available alternatives, it is concluded that the action called for under NEPA and Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50, is the issuance of construction permits subject to the following conditions for the protection of the environment:

a. The applicant will not dispose of morpholine to the makeup reservoir. Alternative disposal methods or use of a different chemical acceptable to the staff will be adopted prior to the operation of the plant.

b. The applicant will conduct a comprehensive environmental sampling, monitoring, and surveillance program (biological, chemical, thermal, and radiological) adequate to determine an ecological baseline for measuring the operational impact of the station on land and water ecosystems. The program, which has been initiated, shall be continued throughout the construction period and for at least one full year after all four units are in operation.

c. The applicant will continue his onsite meteorological program and collect weather data with a minimum of 90% recovery. Prior to operation of the plant, at least one full year of data (covering all seasons) will be collected and analyzed to enable a complete description of the site weather so that accurate pre-dictions of the impact of gaseous releases to the surrounding area can be made for both normal and accident conditions of plant operation.

iv

d. The applicant will, as a design objective, provide for the control of the use of chlorine such that total residual chlorine concentrations in water discharged to the makeup reservoir do not exceed 0.2 ppm for intermittent discharge periods not to exceed a total of two hrs/day.

e. The applicant shall take the necessary mitigating action, including those summarized in Sect. 4.6 of this Environmental Statement, during construction of the station and associated transmission lines to avoid unnecessary adverse environmental impacts from construction activities.

A control program shall be established by the applicant to provide for a periodic review of all construction activities to assure that those activities conform to the environmental conditions set forth in the construction permit.

Before engaging in a construction activity which may result in a significant adverse environmental impact that was not evaluated or that is significantly greater than that evaluated in this Environmental Statement, the applicant shall provide written notification to the Director of Licensing.

Docket Nos. 50-400, 50-401 50-402, 50-403 ERRATA Revised Final Environmental Statement for Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant I. Insert the attached page 9-4(a).

2. Delete Section 9.1.3 that appears on page 9-4.

March 29, 1974

9.1.3 Power Resources A utility has certain resources at its command to meet its peak demand.

These are the sum of: generating capacfty, purchases (less sales),

and exchange power. The last of these cannot usually be counted on to deliver large amounts of peaking power unless the utility is on a large (geographically-speaking) interconnection which has noncoincidental time or seasonal peak demands. For Carolina Power and Light, the only viable long-term resources are company-owned generating capacity and net purchases.

The applicant has provided a detailed breakdown of both resources and demand for the period 1965-1977. These data are included as Table 9.2.

When summer peak demand (plus 18% reserve requirements) is compared with available resources (see Figure 9.2), the necessity for additional power generation is apparent. While the goal reserve margin of 18% was not met in 1972, there is no serious divergence between the resource 'and requirements. In 1978, however, the resource predictions diverge from requirements.

The critical period of 1978-1981 is highlighted in Table 9.3 (Page 9-7) with data available to the staff in December 1973 and in Table 9.3(A) that includes information taken from an assessment made by the applicant in March 1974.* Currently the applicant has contracts to purchase two blocks of power annually from neighboring utilities; however, one contract (100 MW) will be discontinued after 1979 and the other (52.5MW) will be terminated after 1980. The data in Table 9.3 (A) shows that an improvement has been made in the December 1973 forecasts due to recent committments by the applicant to install a 720 MW fossil plant in both 1979 and 1980.

Future resources will be reduced somewhat by the recent capacity evaluation which downrated existing fossil plants by 168 l94 so that the reserves in the March 1974 forecast will be still less than desired.

TABLE 9.3(A)

March 1974 Forecast of Resources, Load and Reserve with Shearon Harris Plant on Schedule 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 Resources (M) 8500 9220 10,740 11,588 13,388 Load (MW) 7943 8819 9,776 10,801 1.1,859 Reserve (MW) 557 401 964 787 1,529 Reserve (%) 7.0 4.6 9.9 7.3 12.9

• Evidentiary hearing before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 March 25-27, 1974.

V TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS . .i........................... .......

LIST OF FIGURES .................. .............................. x LIST OF TABLES ....................... .................... ... xii FOREWORD .

1. INTROLJCTION I.........................

-1 1.1 Current Status of Project ............... ...............-

1.2 History ..................... ... ........................-

1.2.1 Initial Application for a Construction Permit . -i 1.2.2 The Plant as Initially Designed ..... ......... .. 1-2 1.2.3 Staff Assessment of Initial Design ......... 1-4 1.2.4 Action by the Environmental Protection Agency . . 1-6 1.2.5 Action by the North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources .................................... 1-7 1.2.6 Revised Design ........... .................. 1-8 1.3 Applications and Approvals .......... ................ .. 1-8

2. THE SITE ............................................... 2-1 2.1 Location of Plant ...................................... 2-1 2.2 Prominent Natural Features .......... ................ .. 2-1 2.3 Regional Demography and Land Use .............. 2-1 2.4 Historic Significance ........... .................... .. 2-5 2.5 Geology ......................................... 2-7 2.6 Hydrology. 2-8 2.7 Meteorology 2-20 2.8 Ecology 2-24 2.8.1 Terrestrial ..................... 2-24 2.8.2 Aquatic ....................... 2-29 2.9 Radiological Characteristics .......... .............. .. 2-44

3. THE PLANT .................................................... 3-1 3.1 External Appearance.................... 3-1 3.2 Reactor and Steam-Electric System ...... ............ .. 3-1 3.3 Heat Dissipation Systems . . . . . ............. 3-1

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page 3.4 Radioactive Waste Systems ................. 3-8 3.4.1 Liquid Radwaste ..... ............. 3-10 3.4.2 Gaseous Radwaste ..... ............ 3-17 3,.4.3 Solid Radwaste ..... ....... ...... 3-22 3.5 Chemical and Biocide Systems ........ 3-23 3.5.1 Reactor Coolant Chemicals ...... 3-25 3.5.2 Secondary System Wastes 3-25 3.5.3 Water Treatment Wastes. ............ 3-25 3.5.4 Condenser Cooling System Output . . . 3-26 3.6 Sanitary and Other Waste Systems ........... 3-26 3.6.1 Sanitary Wastes .... ........ ..... 3-26 3.6.2 Other Wastes ....................... 3-27 3.7 Transmission Facilities ...... ............ 3-28

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION ............. .................... . . . . . . . 4-1 4.1 Schedules. ........ ............. i 4-1 4.2 Connmunity ....... .............. O 4-1 4.3 Terrestrial Ecology .... ........ O 4-1 4.4 Aquatic Ecology ..... ........... 4-3 4.5 Air Quality During Construction . . ...... ............ 4-4 4.6 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Effects During Construction .............. ...................... . . . 4-5 4.6.1 Applicant Commitmentss ..... .............. 4-5 4.6.1.1 Site Preparation ..... ............ 4-5 4.6.1.2 Construction of Transmission Corridors 4-6 4.6.2 Staff Evaluation ................ ....... 4-8

5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PLANT OPERATION ............ . 5-1 5.1 Land and Atmospheric Impact ..... ........... 5-1 5.1.1 Land Use ...... .... . . . ........ 5-1 5.1.2 Impacts on the Atmosphere 5-1 5.1.2.1 Plume ..... ................ 5-2 5.1.2.2 Fogging and Icing ........... 5-2 5.1.2.3 Drift ......... .... ........ 5-3 5.1.2.4 Synergistic Effects ......... 5-3 5.2 Water Uses ..... ........................ 5-3 5.2.1 Consumptive Uses ..... ....... ...... 5-3 5.2.2 Thermal Impact on the Reservoir . ... 5-5 5.2.3 Impact on Reservoir Chemistry ....... . 5-10 5.2.4 Impacts on the Cape Fear River and Other Water Uses. 5-10 5.2.5 Flood Control ...... .... ....... . .. 5-12 5.2.6 Impact on Ground Water ..... .... ..... 5-12 5.3 Terrestrial Ecology ......... ............... 5-13

vii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page 5.4 Aquatic Ecology ..................... 5-13 5.4.1 Water Intake Structures .......... .............. .. 5-13 5.4.2 Passage Through the Cooling System ............ .. 5-14 5.4.3 Chemical Releases .................. 5-15 5.4.4 Reservoir Drawdown .................. 5-17 5.4.5 Alteration of Buckhorn Creek ......... ............ 5-18 5.4.6 Cape Fear River .......... ................... .. 5-20 5.5 Radiological Impact on Man . ..........

. .............. .. 5-20 5.5.1 Liquid Effluents ............. .................. .5-20 5.5.2 Gaseous Effluents ............ ................. .5-24 5.5.3 Direct Radiation .............. ............... .. 5-25 5.5.4 Dose to the Population from all Sources ......... .. 5-25 5.5.5 Occupational Radiation Exposure ............... .. 5-28 5.6 Radiological Impact on Other Biota ........ ............. 5-28 5.7 Transportation of Nuclear Fuel and Solid Radioactive Waste. 5-31 5.7.1 Transport of New Fuel ........ .......... . ..... 5-31 5.7.2 Transport of Irradiated Fuel ..... ............ .5-31 5.7.3 Transport of Solid Radioactive Wastes ....... .... .5-32 5.7.4 Principles of Safety in Transport ........ ...... .. 5-32 5.7.5 Exposure During Normal (No Accident) Conditions . 5-33 5.7.5.1 New Fuel ........... ...... .......... .5-33 5.7.5.2 Irradiated Fuel ............... 5-33 5.7.5.3 Solid Radioactive Wastes .... ...... . . .5-34 5.8 Community . .......... .............................. 5-35

6. ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AND MONITORING ....... .............. .. 6-1 6.1 Baseline Ecological Surveys and Construction Monitoring . 6-1 6.2 Operational Environmental Monitoring ..... ............ .6-1 6.3 Staff Assessment of Applicant's Environmental Monitoring Program .......... .................... 6-2 6.4 Radiological Monitoring ............. .................. .6-2 6.5 Staff Assessment of Applicant's Radiological Monitoring Program ...... .......................... .. 6-3 6.6 Thermal Monitoring .................... .......... . . ..6-6 6.7 Staff Assessment of Applicant's Thermal Monitoring Program ..................... .......................... .6-6

7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS ................ 7-1 7.1 Plant Operation Accidents ....... ................. . 7-1

viii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page 7.2 Transportation Accidents - Exposures Resulting from Postulated Accidents ............. .................... 7-7 7.2.1 New Fuel .............. ....................... 7-7 7.2.2 Irradiated Fuel ....... ....................... 7-8 7.2.3 Solid Radioactive Wastes ....... 7-9 7.2.4 Severity of Postulated Transportation Accidents . . 7-9

8. CONSEQUENCES OF PROPOSED ACTION ........... ................. 8-1 8.1 Adverse Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided. . . 8-1 8.2 Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity . 8-1 8.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 8-2 8.4 Effects Related to Plant Decommissioning . . 8-2

9. ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES AND SITES ............. 9-1 9.1 Need for Power ....... . . * * " * * * *

• 9-1 9.1.1 Power Demand ... * * * * * *

• 9-1 9.1.2 Reserve Requirements 9-1 9.1.3 Power Resources . . . 9-4 9.2 Alternative Energy Sources . 9-4 9.2.1 Importing Power . . 9-4 9.2.2 Coal .............. 9-8 9.2.3 Oil .... .......... 9-9 9.2.4 Gas .... .......... 9-10 9.3 Alternative Sites . .... 9-10

10. PLANT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES .... ......... ....... ........... 10-1 10.1 Cooling Lake ....... ............. 10-1 10.1.1 Land Use .... ............ 10-3 10.1.2 Consumptive Uses and Thermal Patterns 10-4 10.1.3 Impacts on the Cape Fear River and Other Water Uses ......... ............... e 10-10 10.1.4 Flood Control ............. e 10-11 10.1.5 Impact on Groundwater . . . . . .... e 10-11 10.1.6 Terrestrial Ecology .. ... .... e 10-11 10.1.7 Aquatic Ecology. ............. 10-11 10.1.7.1 Entrainment and Impingement. . 10-11 10.1.7.2 Cooling Lake Biota ......... 10-11 10.1.7.3 Cape Fear River ....... 10-14

1ix TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page 10.1.8 Radiological Impact on Man ......... 10-15 .

10.1.9 Radiological Impact on Other Biota . . ..... . 10-15 10.2 Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers ............ .... . . 10-17

.10.3 Spray Ponds and Canals ....... ............. ..... . 10-18 10.4 Dry Cooling Towers ......... ............... ..... . 10-19 10.5 Once-Through Stream Cooling ......... ..... . 10-19 10.6 Summary Cost Comparison of Plant Alternatives. ..... . 10-20

11. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS ............... .....................

12. DISCUSSION OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE REVISED DRAFT ENVIRON-MENTAL STATEMENT ................ ....................... 12-1 REFERENCES .......................... ....................... .. R-l' APPENDIX A - EPA Letter to North Carolina Board of Natural and Economic Resources .............. .................. .A-1 APPENDIX B - Special Order - North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources ................. ............. ...... .B-i APPENDIX C - Certification of Proposed Wastewater Discharges .... C-l APPENDIX D - Modified Mercalli Intensity of 1931 ..... .......... .. D-1 APPENDIX E -Glossary .......... ....................... ..... E-1 APPENDIX F - Comments on the Revised Draft Environmental Statement ................ F-1

X LIST OF FIGURES Page 1.1 Originally Proposed Shearon Harris Reservoir System and Circulating Water Flow Path . 1-3 2.1 The Site and Surrounding Area ............ 2-2 2.2 Streams and Rivers in the Vicinity of the Proposed Shearon Harris Plant ........ ................. 2-6 .

2.3 Cape Fear River Average and Minimum Year Flow Duration Curves at Buckhorn Dam ..... ........... 2-13 .

2.4 Piezometric Levels and Locations of Site Borings. 2-19 2.5 Numerical Abundance of the Chlorophyta on Streams and the Cape Fear River ............. . . . . . 2-36 2.6 Numerical Abundance of the Chrysophyta on Streams and the Cape Fear River .............. 2-37 2.7 Numerical Abundance of the Cyanophyta on Streams and the Cape Fear River .... ......... 2-38 3.1 Artist's Rendering of Proposed Shearon Harris Plant 3-2 3.2 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Site Plan .... 3-3 3.3 Main Reservoir Mixing Area ...... .............. 3-5 3.4 Emergency Service Water and Cooling Tower Makeup Water Intake Structure ........ ................ . . . . . 3-6 3.5 Submerged Multiport Diffuser - Preliminary Design . . . . . . 3-7 3.6 Cape Fear River Water Inlet Structure ... ....... 3-9 .

3.7 Liquid and Solid Radioactive Waste Disposal System. . 3-11 3.8 Gaseous Waste Processing and Ventilation System . . . . . 3-19 5.1 Main Reservoir Isotherms - Adverse Winter Meteorological Conditions ....... ........... . . 5-7

xi LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Page 5.2 Main Reservoir Isotherms - Adverse Snmmer Meteorological Conditions .............. ................ .. 5-8 5.3 Exposure Pathways to Man ........ ...................... 5-22 5.4 Exposure Pathways for Organism Other Than Man ......... 5-29 9.1 Carolina Power and Light Company Service Area ............ .. 9-2 9.2 Projected Power Demand Plus Reserves Versus Power Resources for Carolina Power and Light Service Area ..... .......... .. 9-5 10.1 Streams and Rivers in the Vicinity of the Originally Proposed Shearon Harris Plant ....... ............. . . .. 10-2 10.2 Staff's Summer Critical Reservoir Surface Temperature Patterns ......... . .............. ...................... 10-6 10.3 Staff's Summer Average Reservoir Surface Temperature Patterns .i....... ....................................... 10-7 10.4 Staff's Winter*Critical Reservoir Surface Temperature Patterns .i............................ .................. 10-8 10.5 Staff's Winter Average Reservoir Surface Temperature Patterns .................................................. 10-9

xii LIST OF TABLES Page 2.1 .Cumulative Existing and Projected Population Distribution Centered on the Shearon Harris Plant Site .......................................... 2-3 2.2 Agriculatural Land Use for Counties Within a 40-mile Radius ............ ..................... .. 2-4 2.3 Estimated Monthly Average Flows at Buckhorn Creek . . . 2-10 2.4 Estimated Monthly Average.Flows in Cape Fear River at Buckhorn Dam . .. ................ ... .......... 2-12 2.5 Coincident Cape Fear River and Buckhorn Creek Drought Periods ................................. .......... 2-15 2.6 Return Periods for Coincident Cape Fear River and Buckhorn Creek Drought ............................... ...... 2-16 2.7 100-Year Return Period Droughts for Cape Fear River and Buckhorn Creek . ..................................... 2-16 2.8 Historical Monthly Average Cape Fear River Water Temperatures at Lillington, North Carolina ......... .. 2-17 2.9 Mean Monthly Air Temperatures ...... ............. .. 2-21 2.10 Precipitation Normals, Maximums and Minimums ........ .. 2-22 2.11 Annual Percentage Frequencies of Wind Direction and Speed, Raleigh, North Carolina ........... .......... ..... .2-23 2.12 Average Relative Humidities ..... ................. 2-25 2.13 Average Daily Solar Radiation in Langley Units.. .... 2-26 2.14 Results of Vegetation Mapping from Aerial Photograph Analysis of the Site, 1972 ...... ... ............... 2-27 2.15 Vegetation Analysis-Shearon Harris Area, October 1972 ................................................. 2-28

xiii LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Page 2.16 Wildlife Evaluation of Whiteoak Creek, Wake and Chatham County, North Carolina, October 1969 (Summary of Eight Sampling Stations) ....................... 2-30 2.17 Small Mammal Trapping Success .... ............ ... 2-31 2.18 Birds Seen on a Wildlife Survey Route .......... ... 2-32 2.19 Water Quality Characteristics of the Cape Fear River and Whiteoak-Buckhorn Watershed .... ....... .... 2-34 2.20 Whiteoak-Buckhorn Watershed Nutrient Concentrations . 2-35 2.21 Total Number of Benthic Organisms and Percent Immature Insects in Streams and River Riffles in the Shearon Harris Study Area ....... ...... ..... . .. 2-40 2.22 Total Number of Benthic Organisms and Percent Immature Insects in Stream and River Pools in the Shearon Harris Study Area ... ....... ............. 2-41 2.23 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Fishery Survey, Whiteoak and Buckhorn Creeks, August 1962 2-42 2.24 Fish Collected in the Buckhorn-Whiteoak Creek System and Adjacent Cape Fear River-1972 ... .......... ... 2-43 3.1 Estimated Annual Release of Radioactive Liquid Waste From Shearon Harris Plant, Units 1-4. . ......... 3-12 3.2 Assumptions Used in Calculating Releases of Radio-active Effluents from Shearon Harris Plant, Units 1-4.......................... 3-13 3.3 Waste Processing Assumptions for Shearon Harris Plant, Units 1-4 ........ ......... ................ ... 3-14 3.4 Estimated Annual Release of Radioactive Gases from One Unit of Shearon Harris Plant ..... .......... ... 3-20 3.5 Chemical Waste Discharge Estimates .... .......... ... 3-24 4.1 Schedules Dates for Initiation of Key Plant Features .............. ....................... ... 4-2

xiv LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Page 5.1 General Comparison of Water Consumption (cfs) Under Average Conditions .... ....................... .. 5-4 5.2 Average Monthly Temperature of Cooling Tower Blowdown Water for Adverse Meteorological Data ...... 5-6 5.3 Maximum Thermal Limits (LD-50) for Warmwater Fish. . . . 5-19 5.4 Bioaccumulation Factors for Radionuclides in Aquatic Species.. ..... ... .................... 5-21 5.5 Radiation Doses to Individuals From Effluents Released From the Four Units of Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant'. . 5-23 5.6 Cumulative Population, Annual Man-Rem Dose and Average Annual Dose in Selected Circular Areas Around the Shearon Harris Plant From Gaseous Releases ....... .. 5-26 5.7 Annual Dose to the Population Due to Liquid and Gaseous Releases from the Shearon Harris Plant .......... ... 5-27 6.1 Preoperational Environmental Radiation Monitoring Program for the Shearon Harris Plant. .. ......... ... 6-4 7.1 Classification of Postulated Accidents and Occurrences . 7-2 7.2 Summary of Radiological Consequences of Postulated Accidents ...................... ....................... 7-4 9.1 Carolina Power and Light Company Summer Peak Load. . .. 9-3 9.2 Carolina Power and Light Company Power Resources at Time of Summer and Winter Peaks 1965-1976 ............ ... 9-6 9.3 Carolina Power and Light Company Power Resources, Load and Reserves With and Without Shearon Harris Plant, 1977-1980 (Summer).................... 9-7 9.4 Solid and Gaseous Products From a 3600 MWe Coal-Fired Plant ................................................ 9-8 9.5 Combustion Products From a 3600 MWe Oil-Fired Plant ... 9-9

xv LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Page 10.1 Provisional Maximum Temperatures Recommended as Compatible with the Well-being of Various'Species of Fish and Their Associated Biota ............... ..................... .. 10-13 10.2 Radiation Doses to Individuals from Effluents Released from Four Units of Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant Utilizing an 8700 Acre Cooling Lake ........ . ..... ......... . i..10-16 10.3 Annual Dose to the Population Due to Liquid Releases from the Shearon Harris Plant Utilizing an 8700 Acre Cooling Lake ................... ........................... .. 10-15 10.4 Estimated Capital and Operating Costs for Alternative Designs ... ....... ............................ .. 10-21 11.1 Environmental Cost-Benefit Summary for the Shearon Harris Plant as Proposed - Natural Draft Cooling Towers . . . . . 11-2 11.2 Environmental Cost-Benefit Summary for Mechanical-Draft Cooling Towers Alternative ........... ............... .. 11-4 11.3 Environmental Cost-Benefit Summary for the Cooling Lake Alternative ............................................ 11-6 11.4 Environmental Cost-Benefit Summary for a Coal-Fired Alternative Plant ...... ......................... .. 11-8 12.1 Operational Penalties for Once-Through and Natural Draft Cooling Tower Installations ..... ............. .. 12-13

xvi FOREWORD This final statement on environmental considerations associated with the proposed issuance of construction permits for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 was prepared by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Directorate of Licensing (staff) in accordance with the Commission's regulation, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix D, implementing the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 states, among other things, that it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the Nation may:

Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations.

Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings.

Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environ-ment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences.

Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects in our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice.

Achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities.

Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.

Further, with respect to major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, Section 102 (2)(C) of the NEPA calls for preparation of a detailed statement on:

(i) The environmental impact of the proposed action, (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented,

xvii (iii) alternatives to the proposed action, (iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.

Pursuant to Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50, the AEC Directorate of Licensing prepares a detailed statement on the foregoing considera-tions with respect to each application for a construction permit or full-power operating license for a nuclear power reactor.

When application is made for a construction permit or a full power operating license, the applicant submits an environmental report to the AEC. The staff evaluates this report and may seek further information from the applicant, as well as other sources, in making an independent assessment of the considerations specified in Section 102 (2)(C) of NEPA and Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50. This evaluation leads to the publication of a draft environmental state-ment, prepared by the Directorate of Licensing, which is then circulated to Federal, State and local governmental agencies for comment. Interested persons are also invited to comment on the draft statement.

After receipt and consideration of comments on the draft statement, the staff prepares a final environmental statement, which includes a discussion of problems and objections raised by the comments and the disposition thereof; a final cost-benefit analysis which considers and balances the environmental effects of the facility and the alter-natives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects, as well as the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits of the facility; and a conclusion as to whether, after weighing the environmental, economic, technical and other benefits against environ-mental costs and considering available alternatives the action called for is the issuance or denial of the proposed permit or license or its appropriate conditioning to protect environmental values.

Single copies of this statement may be obtained by writing the Deputy Director for Reactor Projects, Directorate of Licensing, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C.. 20545.

Mr. William J. Ross is the AEC Environmental Project Manager for this statement. (301-443-6970)

1-1

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 CURRENT STATUS OF PROJECT This Final Environmental Statement is a revision of the Draft and Final Statements published in November 1972 and May 1973, respectively, and results from 'a complete reassessment of the environmental impacts associ-ated with the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. In July of 1973, a decision by the North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources precluded construction of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant as originally designed. The applicant, the Carolina Power and Light Company, redesigned the plant and submitted amendments to its Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) and its Environmental Report (ER) in October and November 1973, respectively. The changes in design were major and, in the view of the staff, required a complete reassessment of the considerations specified in l02(2)(c) of NEPA and in Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50.

This revised Final Environmental Statement constitutes such a reassessment.

1.2 HISTORY 1.2.1 Initial Application for a Construction Permit On September 7, 1971, the Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L or the applicant) submitted an application to the AEC to construct a four-unit nuclear power plant on an 18,000-acre site located in Wake and Chatham Counties of North Carolina. A Preliminary Safety Analysis Report was submitted as part of that application. An Environmental Report was sub-mitted on June 7, 1971 and was submitted in revised form on March 16, 1972. Amendment 11 to the license application which contained responses to staff questions regarding environmental considerations was submitted on July 24, 1972. Amendment 24 to the license application, consisting of additions and corrections to the environmental report, was submitted on April 3, 1973. Copies of the complete filing were sent to the Chair-oan of the Chatham County Board of Commissioners and to the Chairman of the Wake County Board of Commissioners. The Commission also distributed copies of the environmental report to:

• Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

• Council on Environmental Quality

• Department of Agriculture

• Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Department of Commerce

1-2

• Department of Health, Education and Welfare

• Department of Housing, and Urban Development Department of Interior

• Department of Transportation

• Environmental Protection Agency

• Federal Power Commission

• North Carolina Department of Air and Water Resources

• North Carolina Department of Administration

• North Carolina Utilities Commission.

A notice of the application was published in the Federal Register on December 7, 1971 (36FR 23262). Copies of the PSAR and subsequent documents related to the Shearon Harris Plant are available for public inspection in the AEC's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. and in the Wake County Public Library, 104 Fayetteville Street, Raleigh, N.C., 27601.

1.2.2 The Plant as Initially Designed The site of the proposed Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant is in a sparsely populated rural area of North Carolina characterized by gently rolling timbered hills. The proposed nuclear power units consist of four identical pressurized water reactors with a total net electrical power output of 3600 MW. Condenser cooling was to have been provided by water drawn from a cooling lake formed by the impoundment of Buckhorn Creek upstream from its confluence with the Cape Fear River. After certain design modifications introduced during the environmental review process, the 10,000-acre main impoundment would have consisted of an 8400-acre cooling reservoir, 1300 acres of which were to be thermally isolated, and a 300-acre auxiliary reservoir for emergency cooling (see Figure 1.1). Pumping management and water quality control would have been aided by a 400-acre afterbay reservoir to be located downstream of the main reservoir dam. Under normal operating conditions, the cooling reservoir would have functioned as a heat exchanger to transfer most of the plant heat to the atmosphere.

The principal source of water for the reservoir would have been drainage from the 80-square-mile Buckhorn Creek Basin supplemented as necessary by pumping from the Cape Fear River. The total consumptive use of water by the plant would have reduced the average annual Cape Fear River flow below Buckhorn Creek by about 70 cfs (2 to 3% of its average natural flow).

Instantaneous withdrawal of water from the Cape Fear River would not at any time exceed 25% of the flow at the point of withdrawal. This cooling concept is discussed more fully under Alternatives (Section 10.1).

1-3 ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER DISCHARGE t CH N

• HANNEL AUIIARY_ PLAN_*t AUILSITE3 IR RESERVOIR YTAKE ADIR AE

~~DIKE

• , CHANNEL

---. T*HERP

,Ae ISOLA

~LAKE NORMAL DK EL. 250 SADDLE """

• b~iN wWALL DAM NORFOLK

"*

• SOUTHERN

~SPILLWAY AFTERBAY DAM *

• C 42 BUCKHORN/ 0 ILWAYTHOUSANDS DAM OF FEET CAPE INDICATES CIRCULAT ING FEAR WATER FLOW PATH RIVER FIGURE 1.1 ORIGINALLY PROPOSED SHEARON HARRIS RESERVOIR SYSTEM AND CIRCULATING WATER FLOW PATH

1-4 1.2.3 Staff Assessment of Initial Design After receipt of the initial application, the staff performed an indepen-dent assessment of the considerations specified in Section 102(2) C of NEPA and Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50. The original Draft Environmental Statement prepared by the staff was based on information contained in the documents discussed in Section 1.2.1 and also took into account discus-sions held with representatives of the Carolina Power and Light Company and the North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources, during a visit to the site by the staff on June 13 and 14, 1972. Further, independent calculations and sources of information were utilized as a basis for the Commission's assessment of environmental impacts.

The Federal, state and local agencies listed in Section 1.2.1 were requested to comment on the original Draft Environmental Statement and their comments were considered in the preparation of the original Final Environmental Statement.

After issuance of the original Draft Environmental Statement related to the proposed 'construction of the Shearon Harris Power Plant, the applicant committed to making certain modifications in plant design, reservoir design and operating procedures to mitigate possible adverse impacts on the environmental which were identified and discussed in the original Draft Environmental Statement. Principally, the changes made by the applicant were: 1) the addition of dikes to isolate thermally 1300 acres of the 10,000-acre reservoir, thus improving the recreational potential of the site; 2) the adoption of additional limitations on the rates of withdrawal of Cape Fear River water, thus providing additional protection for the river biota; and 3) an augmentation of the basic gaseous radio-active effluent treatment system, thus reducing the release of radio-iodines to the environment. The original Final Statement reflected the staff's environmental evaluation of the then current design, including the above modifications.

As part of its final assessment published in May 1973, the staff considered various heat dissipation alternatives. Dry cooling towers and once-through stream cooling were found to be infeasible. Systems including a 7200-acre storage reservoir with either mechanical-draft cooling towers, natural-draft cooling towers or a spray pond were evaluated in considerable detail. The staff concluded that:

While use of one of the major cooling alternatives would result in somewhat less destruction of terrestrial flora and habitat, the increased water consumption and decreased recreational potential inherent in each of these alternatives renders them, on balance, 1

environmentally less desirable than the proposed cooling lake.

1-5 The staff further concluded that:

The use of a cooling reservoir at the Shearon Harris Plant appears to be superior to other condenser cooling alternatives on a life-of-the plant dollar basis. In terms of environmental costs, the loss of natural terrestrial productivity over the area of impoundment is sig-nificant but does not appear to be unreasonable considering the extent of similar local terrain. This cost would not be appreciably less for other cooling alternatives because of their need for water storage.

While the eventual development of the cooling reservoir as a recrea-tional resource capable of balancing or outweighing the loss of terrestrial productivity is not fully assured with the present plant design, the likelihood of realizing this recreational resource has been enhanced by recent design modifications, i.e., the thermal iso-2 lation of 1300 acres of the reservoir.

In discussing siting and recreational aspects of the cooling lake, the staff stated:

While the loss of about 10,000 acres of terrestrial productivity is significant, this effect is substantially mitigated by several fac-tors: .1) large amounts of similar terrain are present near the site and generally throughout this part of the state; 2) no unique species of biota will be endangered; 3) no substantial adverse effects will accrue off-site, e.g., groundwater, river or air quality degradation; and 4) a recreational enhancement of the site will occur.

The site, as it presently exists, offers limited recreational poten-tial confined primarily to the low to moderate pressure hunting of small game birds and animals; fishing is negligible. The proposed reservoir, as recently modified by the applicant, will include 1300 acres of thermally isolated area in which the development of a desirable aquatic community, including sport fishes, is probable.

While some doubt exists as to the ultimate recreational potential of the thermally affected portions of the reservoir, the applicant has committed himself "to a plan which will assure public enjoyment of the land and waters of the Shearon Harris Plant to the fullest extent consistent with the primary use of the site for generation of power". To this end, the applicant is cooperating with the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources in a task force effort.3

1-6 The staff assessed the cooling lake in terms of its compliance with the North Carolina water quality requirements and noted that:

Projected temperatures in the main section of the Shearon Harris reservoir would not meet the water quality standards in the absence of the grant of a variance from the appropriate State authorities.

The staff is advised that the applicant has applied for such a variance.4 In all other respects, the anticipated Shearon Harris Plant effluent dis-charge levels were found to be consistent with the applicable North Caro-lina water quality standards.

In the May 1973 Final Environmental Statement, the staff summarized the environmental impact and adverse effects of the then-contemplated Shearon Harris project. The more significant effects included:

Construction of the cooling lake will result in the destruction of about 10,000 acres of terrestrial flora and habitat and the likely destruction of benthos of streams to be impounded.

The planned chlorine concentration in the plant discharge could, at times, result in an adverse impact on aquatic biota in the reservoir.

Those portions of the reservoir which are not thermally isolated may be only marginally suitable for full recreational development. However, 1300 acres of the main reservoir and 5

the 400-acre afterbay will be amenable to such development.

The staff concluded that the action called for under NEPA and Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50 was the issuance of construction permits subject to conditions for the protection of the environment.

1.2.4 Action by the Environmental Protection Agency The original Final Environmental Statement was published on May 11, 1973.

After appropriate public notice, the required public hearing was scheduled to begin on August 6, 1973 (Public pre-hearing conferences had been held on January 30 and July 2, 1973). On July 10, 1973 a letter was transmitted from EPA, Region IV, to the North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources. This letter is included as Appendix A of this report.

1-7 EPA stated that "an exception to water quality standards is not justified for the Harris Project and is not consistent with the goals and require-ments of the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972 (P.L.92-500)." In this case the exception to water quality standards was required because the condenser effluent to the cooling lake would be greater than the 5*F above ambient maximum allowed by the water quality standards. EPA further stated ".... the plant must meet the requirements of Section 301 of P.L.92-500. Under this section, discharges from Harris Units 1 through 4 will be subject to "'best practicable control technology currently available" (BPCTCA) as each unit comes on line....".

While noting that the BPCTCA definition has not yet been promulgated, EPA stated that ".... the trend can be seen toward off-stream, closed-cycle, evaporative cooling" and "use of an impoundment of some 3,000 to 4,000 acres and natural-draft cooling towers would result in less consumptive water use by the project than does the proposed cooling lake.... ."

1.2.5 Action by the North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources On April 20, 1973, a public hearing was held by the Water and Air Quality Committee of the North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources to con-sider the request of the applicant for a variance from temperature standards applicable to the proposed impoundment. A Special Order was issued by the Board on July 19, 1973 denying the variance. This Special Order is included as Appendix B of this report.

Following a detailed listing of Findings of Fact, the Board concluded, in part:

5. Based upon the Finding of Fact that the public interest with respect to Water Conservation will be best served by granting the requested temperature variance and permitting the lake to be used as the condenser water cooling facility for the project, the Board has the power and authority to grant the variance.

6. In view of the conflicting position expressed by the Environmental Protection Agency and the potential delays which may result there-from, the Board, while not concurring with the position of the Environmental Protection Agency concludes that the overall interest of the public can best be served by denying the request for variance.

1-8 The Board ordered:

1. That the request for variance from temperature standards by Carolina Power and Light Company for the Shearon Harris cooling lake is hereby denied.

2. That the issuance of a Permit for the construction of the Shearon Harris reservoir system is authorized provided the following conditions are stipulated therein:

(a) Adequate onshore cooling facilities shall be provided to insure the maintenance for water quality standards within the reservoir system.

(b) Withdrawals of water from the Cape Fear River shall be limited to 25% of the flow in the river except that no withdrawals shall be made from the river when the flow is 600 cfs or less nor which will reduce the flow in the river to less than 600 cfs as measured at the U.S.G.S. Lillington Gauge.

3. The staff* is hereby authorized to proceed with the certification of this project pursuant to Section 401 PL-92-500 and in accor-dance with applicable regulations of the Board.

1.2.6 Revised Design Because of the EPA and State Water Board decisions, the use of a cooling lake as a supply for once-through cooling in conjunction with the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant was abandoned by the applicant. The applicant's redesigned cooling system makes use of a 4100 acre storage reservoir and four natural draft cooling towers. The redesigned system, described in Amendments to the Applicants PSAR and ER, (in particular Amendment Nos. 27 and 28) is assessed and evaluated in this revised Final Environ-mental Statement.

1.3 APPLICATIONS AND APPROVALS In addition to applying to the-Atomic Energy Commission for the requisite licenses under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Carolina Power and Light Company has applied for, or is preparing to apply for, other necessary Federal, state and local permits and approvals.

• Refers, in this context, to the staff of the North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources.

1-9 A Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant was received from the North Carolina Utilities Commission on February 29, 1972.

A certification pursuant to Section 401(a)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended in 1972, is required from the North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources before a construction permit can be issued. Such certification has been granted and is shown in Appendix C, together with the issuing resolution of the North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources.

2-1

2. THE SITE 2.1 LOCATION OF PLANT The site of the proposed Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant is situated on about 10,744 acres in the extreme southwest corner of Wake County, North Carolina, and the southeast Corner-of Chatham County, North Carolina. The location is about 20 miles southwest of Raleigh, the state capitol, and 40 miles north of Fayetteville, North Carolina. The site in relation to the surrounding area is shown in Figure 2.1. There are no other nuclear installations within 50 miles of the proposed site.

2.2 PROMINENT NATURAL FEATURES The area in which the Shearon Harris Plant is to be located is primarily a sparsely populated rural area characterized by gently rolling hills timbered with pines on the hill tops and hardwoods in the valleys.

2.3 REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHY AND LAND USE The population distribution within a 50-mile radius of the site is characterized by a rural environment with three major cities of over 50,000 and six other cities of over 10,000 population. The majo'r popula-tion. centers are: (1) Raleigh (123,793), about 20 miles to the northeast (2) Durham (95,438), about 25 miles to the north and (3) Fayetteville (53,510), about 40 miles to the south. The populations of smaller nearby communities are: Apex (2,192), Holly Springs (697), Sanford (11,716), Pittsboro (1,447) and Fuquay-Varina (3,572). The population density within 5 miles of the plant site ranges from 18 people per square mile in 1970 to an estimated 25 people per square mile in 2010.

Table 2.1 summarizes the existing and estimated population distribution within a 50-mile radius of the plant.

Most of the land within a 40-mile radius of the site is committed to agriculture or dairying. The land in the immediate area is sparsely farmed; its primary use is for lumber and pulpwood production for the paper industry. The distribution of land use within the 40-mile radius is shown in Table 2.2.2 The principal crops in decreasing order of acreage committed are: grain, soybeans, tobacco, hay crops, cotton, vegetables, and peanuts.

Within the 40-mile radius there is considerable dairy farming. About 15% of the state's milk supply is produced in this area. The applicant has estimated' that there are 11 dairy herds (625 cows total) within a 7-mile radius of the site. Two of these would be displaced by the project.

2-2 I I I I I I 0 10 20 30 MILES FIGURE 2.1 THE SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

2-3 TABLE 2.1 CUMULATIVE EXISTING AND PROJECTED POPULATION DISTRIBUTION CENTERED ON THE SHEARON HARRIS PLANT SITE Radius Interval 1970 1990 2010 (miles) (Census) (Proj ected) (Projected) 1 11 0 0 2 119 84 102 3 505 455 553 4 952 1, 039 1,263 5 1,391 1,592 1, 938 6 2,683 3,621 4,647 7 3,810 5,457 7,238 8 5,871 8,896 12,216 7,959 12,307 16,926 10 12,132 19,196 26,507 20 205,700 327,500 485,700 30 495,900 759,300 1,105,400 40 742,700 1,113,500 1,593,200 50 1,062,200 1,521,900 2,111,700

2-4 TABLE 2.2 AGRICULTURAL LAND USE FOR COUNTIES WITHIN A 40-MILE RADIUS(a)

(Area Shown in Thousands of Acres)

Percent Total Area of Total Agricultura Pastm*

Total Includebb) County Land Use Land County Area In Study Area Total  % Total  %

Alamance 276.0 217.6 78.8 69.9 32.1 32.6 15.0 Chatham 451.3 290.6 64.4 48.9 16.8 38.0 13.1 Cumberland 421.8 243.2 57.6 91.1 37.5 9.2 3.8 Durham 191.2 104.8 54.8 23.7 22.6 11.7 11.2 Franklin 315.4 276.9 87.8 86.5 31.2 14.7 5.3 Granville 345.9 294.3 85.1 71.0 24.1 23.7 8.1 Guilford 414.3 141.53 34.1 N/A (e) N/A Harnet t 386.3 290.0 75.1 112.5 38.8 11.8 4.1 Hoke 211.7 135.1 63.8 62.5 46.3 3.9 2.9 Johnston 506.3 460.7 91.0 193.4 42.0 15.1 3.3 Moore 482.2 236.8 49.1 53.6 22.6 12.2 5.2 Orange 254.5 175.9 69.1 43.4 24.7 22.4 12.7 Randolph 511.6 367.6 71.9 97.3 26.5 34.0 9.2 Sampson 616.1 464.9 75.5 186.6 40.1 12.9 2.8 Wake 552.1 344.4 62.4 108.7 31.6 20.6 6.0 (a) North Carolina 1970 Farm Census Summary 2 (b) Total acres for each tract of ten acres or more (c) Includes harvested and idle cropland of ten acres or imore used for soil improving crops and crop failures; excludes woods, waste, cutover, homesites, etc.

(d) Includes improved and unimproved open pasture of ten acres or more; excludes woods, waste, cutover, homesites, etc.

(e) N/A=Not available.

2-5 Soils in the area range from poor to good. They are characterized in the eastern portion by Triassic sediments which are good for raising tobacco, grains and vegetables. To the west of the Jonesboro Fault, which runs in a northerly direction, the soils are uplifted Piedmont sediments which are very poor for crop production.

Most of the small amount of industrial activity in the immediate vicinity of the site is concentrated in Moncure, about 7 miles to the southwest where approximately 750 people are employed in the manufacture of wood products, resins and synthetic fibers. Other industry within a 50-mile radius is concentrated to the northwest and consists primarily of tobacco processing and manufacturing inDurham county; textile manufacturing in Alamance and furniture manufacturing in Orange, Alamance and Guilford Counties. In addition, a staff of about 6,000 are employed in research related activities at the 5,000-acre Research Triangle Park located between the cities of Raleigh and Durham.

There is only a limited number of recreational areas in the vicinity of the site. The waters of the Cape Fear River behind the present Buckhorn Dam are used for water skiing and fishing. There are two state parks, Raven Rock and Umstead, within 20 miles of the site. There are, from time-to-time, large outdoor events at each of the population centers discussed above. For example, the North Carolina State Fair, held in Raleigh each October, draws average crowds of over 50,000 for each of its nine days of operation.

About 7 miles to the northwest of the Shearon Harris site, the Corps of Engineers plans construction of the New Hope Reservoir. This reservoir, while planned to allow recreational use, may be somewhat limited because of the potential for large drawdowns associated with downstream flow augmen-tation of the Cape Fear River. This reservoir will be in another water-shed adjoining the Buckhorn Creek Watershed, the proposed location for the Shearon Harris Plant (see Figure 2.2).

2.4 HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE The National Registry of Historic Places has no listed historic land-marks within 5 miles of the site. The North Carolina Department of Archives and History noted that, except for the ruins of an abandoned iron works which was used by the Confederacy during the Civil War and is located about 1 1/2 miles from the project boundary on the bank of the Cape Fear River, there are no nearby areas of historical or archeological importance. In answer to a request from the applicant to perform an archeological survey of the site, members of the Archeological Department of the University of North Carolina advised that such a study would be of little value.

2-6 0 5 10 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF MILES PROPOSED MAKEUP RESERVOIR FIGURE 2.2 STREAMS AND RIVERS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED SHEARON HARRIS PLANT

2-7 2.5 GEOLOGY The site is located in the southeastern part of the Durham Basin, which is the northern part of the Deep River Triassic Basin. Sediments that underlie much of the southeastern portion of the Durham Basin were deposited as alluvial fans and stream channel and flood plain deposits.

These are fine to coarse-grained sediments of the lower part of the Sanford Formation consisting of claystone, shale, siltstone, sandstone and conglomerate. Triassic sediments in the Deep River-Wadesboro Triassic Basin have been intruded by late Triassic dikes, sills and sill-like masses, ranging in width from a fraction of an inch to more than 300 ft and from a few feet to more than 7 miles in length and varying from a few inches to more than 200 ft in thickness. Their basic materials are commonly classed as diabase and occupy about 4% of the total area of the Deep River Basin. These intrusives are abundant in the southern parts of the Deep River Basin. However, in the southeastern part of the Durham Basin there are no known sills or sill-like masses and only a relatively few diabase dikes.

There are six major longitudinal faults and an abundance of minor faults in the Deep River Basin. The Jonesboro Fault is one of the six major faults and forms the southeastern edge of the Durham Basin. It is a northwest dipping fault with a vertical displacement of 8,000 to 10,000 ft and forms the contact between Triassic and older Paleozoic rocks for more than 100 miles. Its closest approach to the plant area is about 4 miles to the southeast. The Jonesboro Fault has been inactive since the end of the Triassic period or the middle of the Jurassic period.

Boring and trenching on the site revealed that below an occasional thin layer of alluvial sand and/or clay, there is from 0 to 15 ft of residual soil, derived from Triassic-aged sedimentary and igneous rocks of the Newark Group, and the soil ranges in quality from medium stiff to hard. The depth of weathering below this to sound bedrock generally varies from about 0 to 15 ft depending upon the type of underlying rock.

Bedrock is massive sedimentary rock consisting of siltstone and fine sandstone interbedded with shale, claystone and conglomerate facies.

These strata dip 5 to 20 degrees to the southeast and are intruded occasionally by diabase dikes.

Earthquake occurrence records in North Carolina have been kept for almost 200 years. Although a number of earthquakes have been reported during this period, all have been of minor to moderate intensity.

Sixty-nine shocks of Modified Mercalli Intensities V (1931) (see Appendix C) or greater have been reported within about 250 miles of the

2-8 site. Only three have been reported within 100 miles. Two of these occurred near the Virginia-North Carolina state line, about 80 miles north of the site; neither exceeded Intensity V. The third, Intensity VI, occurred in South Carolina, about 100 miles southwest of the site. Most of the earthquakes have been concentrated in four rather distinct areas; Charleston, South Carolina; Union County, South Carolina; Giles County, Virginia; and Richmond-Charlottesville, Virginia, and can be related to local geologic structures.

In addition to this, there are occasionally very small shocks in the region which cannot be related to known geologic structures. None of these shocks, however, have exceeded Intensity V.

The detailed geology, seismology, and seismic design criteria pertinent to the Shearon Harris site is discussed in more detail and evaluated in the staff's Safety Evaluation Report.

2.6 HYDROLOGY The applicant plans to impound Buckhorn Creek Csee Figures 2.2 and 3.3) just below its confluence witfr Whiteoak Creek to provide a lake which will become the makeup source of water for the cooling towers. The 4,000-acre impoundment will be supplemented as necessary by pumping from the Cape Fear River. An isolated 325-acre auxiliary reservoir will also be included for emergency cooling purposes. The drainage boundary of Buckhorn Creek together with the Jonesboro Fault form the hydrologic boundaries of the site.

Headwaters of the drainage system are near Apex, North Carolina, and follow a southwesterly course to join the Cape Fear River about 12 miles northwest of Lillington, North Carolina. A drainage area of 79.5 square miles is contained in the Buckhorn Creek Basin. Elevations range from 150 to 300 ft above mean sea level (MSL) in the general area of the site and up to 450 ft MSL at the Buckhorn Creek headwaters near Apex.4 A temporary U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) stream-gaging station has recently been installed on Buckhorn Creek to accumulate actual stream-flow records to assure that the applicant's streamflow model is at least conservative if not precise. In the interim, since there were no stream-flow records for Buckhorn Creek, records from a permanent station on Middle Creek, an adjoining watershed, near Clayton, North Carolina, have been used to simulate Buckhorn Creek flows. Runoff from 80.7 square miles is recorded at Clayton and the records are available from November 1939.

2-9 The applicant has assumed that, because of the immediate proximity and similar size of the two basins, the overall average flows.at Buckhorn Creek should correlate well with those of Middle Creek. Flow records for Buckhorn Creek were synthesized by the applicant by multiplying the Middle Creek flow record by the ratio of the two drainage areas.

Although this practice may be somewhat imprecise, the ultimate con-sequences of any errors introduced by this simple analysis are judged by the staff to be minimal because the Shearon Harris makeup reservoir has been designed to operate during low flow periods with supplemental pumping from the Cape Fear River, and because design grade of the plant will be well above the maximum water level caused by the probable maximum flood. To derive flows for Buckhorn Creek prior to November 1939, six other streams with long-term flow records and comparable drainage areas located within the same geographic region were analyzed and correlated with Middle Creek for the overlapping period of record. 5 , 6 While this overall procedure appears to be adequate for preliminary predictive purposes, the staff will require the collection and analysis of Buckhorn Creek streamflow data for verification; the applicant has agreed to the collection and analysis of such data. The USGS has installed and is 7

operating a temporary gaging station near the main dam site.

The best correlation with the coincident Middle Creek flow records was obtained by the applicant with the flow records for Little River near Princeton, North Carolina. Records for the Princeton station are available from 1930; consequently Middle Creek flows from 1930 through October 1939 were synthesized using the Little River flow data. The Deep River at.Ramseur and at Randleman alsu showed fairly good correla-tions with coincident Middle Creek records. Middle Creek flows for the period from 1924 to 1930 were synthesized by the applicant using the Deep River data for both stations and averaging those values where coincident records were available. The Buckhorn Creek flow records for the period 1924 through October 1939 were then obtained by multiplying the synthesized Middle Creek flows by the ratio of the drainage areas. 6 A summary of the synthesized monthly flows at Buckhorn Creek and tribu-tariec for the period January 1922 through September 1969, as prepared by the applicant, is presented in Table 2.3.8 The average Middle Creek flow at Clayton from the 30 years of record is 94.5 cfs, which corresponds to an average synthesized Buckhorn Creek flow of 93.5 cfs. If the 15 years of synthesized Middle Creek flow records (1924-1939) are included, the average Middle Creek flow over 45 years is 90.0 cfs corresponding to 88.6 cfs at Buckhorn Creek. 6 The lowest average Buckhorn Creek flow that occurs for seven consecutive days once every 10 years is estimated to be 9

less than 1.0 cfs.

TABLE 2.3 ESTIMATED MONTHLY AVERAGE FLOWS AT BUCKHORN CREEK 8 (Average 1924-1969 = 88.6)

(cfs)

Mean for October Hovember Septembe Water year December JanuarY Fe ruary March April -!ay June July Auultus 1922 21.7 62.1 1923 92.6 97.5 74.9 42.4 89.6 43.3 39.4 129.0 96.5 1924 15.8 30.5 90.6 94.6 94.6 99.5 86.7 50.2 74.9 39.4 86.7 72.8 50.2 1925 48.3 33.5 74.9 135.9 88.7 82.7 57.1 59.1 18.4 18.4 20.7 8.3 53.8 1926 6.5 14.2 24.0 90.0 98.0 87.0 84.2 24.0 26.6 60.1 38.4 12.8 47.1 1927 3.9 26.6 93.6 31.2 98.5 97.5 49.3 34.5 55.2 88.7 65.0 33.5 68.9 1925 101.5 44.3 108.4 65.0 96.5 84.) 110.3 96.5 75.8 50.2 96.5 141.8 78.2 1929 55.2 32.5 33.5 39.4 114.3 115.2 97.5 85.7 81.8 82.7 46.3 24.6 81.6 1930 92.6 91.6 98.5 95.5. 92.6 86.7 32.0 126.1 26.6 9.9 9.9 53.1 107.4 1931 6.9 11.8 41.4 70.9 49.3 56.1 124.1 157.6 37.4 136.9 25.0 58.1 85.9 1932 15.8 10.8 65.0 108.4 112.3 134.0 69.0 46.3 57.1 13.8 13.8 3.0 64.5 1933 16.7 53.2 146.8 157.6 163.5 91.6 122.1 36.4 10.3 11.2 24.0 15.2 70.7 1934 7.3 4.3 10.3 9.3 17.2 79.2 136.0 34.9 123.1 81.8 121.2 108.4 61.1 1935 28.6 49.3 212.8 172.4 96.5 137.9 141.8 95.5 25.6 82.7 16.7 104.4 86.5 1936 19.7 65.0 79.8 291.6 290.6 217.7 258.1 30.5 106.4 86.7 105.4 37.4 157.3 1937 109.3 119.2 235.4 273.8 262.0 152.7 230.5 68.0 37.4 85.7 115.2 .75.8 117.6 1938 28.6 34.5 45.3 78.8 49.3 52.2 93.6 40.3 170.4 90.6 36.4 153.7 78.9 1939 41.4 94.6 108.4 285.7 225.6 96.5 71.9 61.1 252.2 208.8 80.8 123.5 44.3 1940 28.6 31.7 40.8 68.0 124.6 138.2 132.5 52.1 20.4 7.9 36.2 12.5 60.0 0 1941 5.7 18.1 30.6 46.5 45.3 100.8 150.6 20.4 18.1 253.7 31.7 10.2 61.1 1942 9.1 6.8 53.3 31.7 71.4 148.3 64.6 60A0 68.0 37.4 146.1 118.9 68.0 1943 111.0 124.6 246.9 151.7 141.6 96.3 35. L 111.0 202.7 26.1 36.2 U13.2 74.8 1944 14.7 28.3 70.3 207.2 201.6 336.3 222.0 66.9 18.1 17.0 43.0 15.9 103.0 1945 117.8 48.7 118.9 90.6 165.3 124.6 66.9 39.6 12.5 26.0 186.8 320.5 109.8 1946 59..o 46.5 232.1 268.4 203.8 99.7 134.8 134.8 41.9 65.7 44.2 40.8 114.4 1947 78.1 70.3 155.1 64.6 88.4 93.0- 41.9 32.8 21.5 14.7 71.4 66.9 74.8 32.8 164.2 70.3 114.4 368.0 205.0 125.7 35.1 19.3 10.2 11.3 14.7 96.3 1948 1949 54.4 L68.7 208.4 139.3 185.7 103.0 76.0 216.3 96.3 8q.5 329.5 94.0 147.2 1950 37.4 73.6 61.1 90.6 80.5 82.7 43.0 63.5 23.8 109.8 13.6 15.9 57.8 1951 27.2 26.0 55.5 49.9 54.4 72.5 90.6 24.9 10.2 11.3 13.6 3.4 39.6 1952 2.3 6.8 19M3 47.6 109.8 346.5 79.3 44.2 20.4 18.1 u16.6 234.4 86.0 1953 35.1 113.2 80.5 193.6 243.5 115.5 139.3 49.9 38.5 17.0 11.3 5.7 94.0 1954 7.9 72.5 390.7 180.1 163.1 132.5 80.5 19.3 14.7 6.8 1.1 86.1 3.4 1955 15.9 19.3 52.1 61.2 115.5 88.4 78.2 14.7 10.2 26.0 130.2 479.0 86.1 1956 47.6 52.1 39.6 38.5 164.2 185.7 132.5 78.2 52.1 40.8 20.4 21.5 72.5 1957 91.8 122.3 70.3 135.9 178.9 77.0 79.3 177:8 22.7 45.3 47.6 97.5 116.6 1958 103.0 223.1 223.1 205.0 202.7 175.5 157.4 325.0 45.3 38.5 96.3 19.3 150.6 66.9 48.7 101.7 109.8 167.6 155.1 314.8 61.1 85.0 129.1 77.0 174.4 123.4 1959 103.0 169.9 382.8 231.0 200.4 108.7 27.2 60.0 104.2 46.4 152.9 1960 270.6 134.8 53.2 72.5 266.1 168.7 166.5 132.5 47.6 31.7 62.3 14.7 89.5 1961 55.5 32.8 73.6 178.9 128.0 173.3 201.6 27.2 32.8 171.0 44.2 14.7 88.3 1962 9.1 18.1 207.2 104.2 168.7 172.1 220.8 73.6 53.2 28.3 17.0 17.0 15.9 90.6 1963 13.6 165.3 191.4 171.0 195.9 35.1 15.9 9.1 23.8 58.9 94.0 1964 10.2 118.9 140.4 89.5 166.5 199.3 83.8 61.1 160.9 465.4 183.4 31.7 158.5 1965 268.4 55.8 168.7 27.2 24.9 69.1 192.5 188.0 61.1 122.3 63.4 14.7 14.7 19.3 67.9 1966 31.7 40.8 61.1 130.2 71.3 39.6 34.0 123.4 40.8 228.7 63.4 72.5 1967 15.9 22.6 158.5 189.1 63.4 90.6 62.3 31.7 23.8 31.7 4.5 1.1 57.8 1968 22.6 28.3 11.3 35.1 40.8 55.5 138.2 185.7 71.3 27.2 35.1 19.3 152.9 39.6 66.8 1969

2-11 Monthly average flows in the Cape Fear River at Buckhorn Dam were estimated by the applicant by adjusting the flow records from the Lillington station for the reduction in drainage area between the dam and Lillington. These estimated data are presented in Table 2.4 for 1924 through 1969.10,11 The average Cape Fear River flow at Buckhorn Dam is about 3200 cfs, and the lowest average river flow that occurs for seven consecutive days once every 10 years at Lillington is about 9

75 cfs.

Since the coincident, historical 1-year flow period that appeared to impose the most severe restrictions on the Shearon Harris Project was 1933-34, a flow duration curve for this period was developed by the applicant for use in studying the Cape Fear River as a potential makeup source for the Shearon Harris reservoirs. 12 Flow duration curves for this critical period and for the average year flow are illustrated in Figure 2.3.

The applicant has stated that the Harris makeup reservoir will have sufficient storage for the plant to operate during a drought of 100-year frequency without withdrawing any water from the Cape Fear River when its flows are less than 600 cfs, and, in addition, pumping will never exceed 25% of the river flow. The minimum water surface elevation under these restrictions and during the 100-yr drought is 205.7 ft MSL, which is 14.3 ft lower than the normal operating level.1 3 Since Figure 2.3 was developed for natural unregulated flows, it can be seen that unregulated Cape Fear River flow at Buckhorn Dam will exceed 600 cfs 42% of the time based on the critical year flow and 73% of the time based on the average year flow. This analysis assumes that there will be no further increase in upstream withdrawals from the Cape Fear River.

A review of the precipitation records from the Raleigh station for the last century indicated that the lowest annual precipitation, 29-9.3 in.,

occurred in 1933. Near record lows were experienced in 1930, 1940, ý1951, and 1965.7,114 Based on these precipitation records, it is conceivable that the runoff records for the Cape Fear River (dating bhack to 1924) may actually represent the lowest values dating back to 1867, the beginning of the precipitation data. The applicant's drought frequency analyses. thus, may be conservative, since the analyses were based solely upon the period that runoff records were available for the Cape Fear River.

Isolated drought periods of less than 4 months duration were not con-sidered by the applicant, and reasonably so, because of the storage available in the makeup reservoir and the pumping capability for makeup

TABLE 2.4 ESTIMATED MONTHLY AVERAGE FLOWS IN CAPE FEAR RIVER AT BUCKHORN DAM 10, 11 (cfs)

Water Hean For Year October November December January February March Ayrtl M June July Augus t Sept.ember 1924 1,262 3,860 5,390 3,960 4,360 3,260 1,630 4,420 2,335 4,130 3.458 1925 4.110 1,262 2,235 13,450 3,940 3,000 1,482 1,558 446 528 450 287 2.736 1926 130 442 650- 2,570 7,380 4,540 3,830 458 646 1,539 807 236 1,894 1927 73 249 1,986 1,190 3,985 5,730 1,768 656 1,042 970 1,922 3.195 2,285 1928 3,450 1,100 6,800 1,209 3,500 2,505 7,440 4.050 2,580 1,758 5,280 21,050 5,033 1929 2,205 848 a8s 1,270 6,370 15,200 4,190 3,820 3,630 4,170 2,325 970 3,806 1930 16,580 7,600 6,640 6,060 6,690 3,320 2,845 1,668 2,085 1,319 706 320 3,267 1931 92 362 1,840 2,360 1,061 1,968 5,000 4,800 743 1,310 6,740 519 2,251 1932 178 206 2,100 6,590 3,755 6,190 2,240 1,338 2,820 404 506 330 2.223 1933 2,910 3,560 8,560 4,830 5,150 2,545 3,100 1,035 486 305 1,126 735 2,855 1934 121 129 219 419 1,171 4,040 5,610 1,660 4.760 2,370 1,500 4,710 2,214 1935 972 1,860 5,150 4.320 4,000 6,150 6,920 2,770 740 1,085 278 2,770 3,120 1936 294 1,650 1,750 13,230 10,680 8,620 12,580 804 2,870 1.965 2,460 715 4,807 1937 3,430 975 5.840 13,500 6,110 3,630 5,460 1,882 911 1,029 3,555 2,425 5.872 1938 1,411 1,131 1,150 3,160 1,500 2,390 2,900 1,230 2.842 6,460 1,269 712 2,186 1939 317 1,602 2,870 3,120 12,800 7,710 3,125 2,700 1,102 2.300 7,960 975 3,832 1940 460 587 985. 1,968 6,210 3,660 3,540 1.460 1,578 659 3,495 578 2,081 1941 153 3,015 1.657 2,575 1,798 3,860 5,200 640 1,195 3,265 417 340 2,000 1942 108 98 569 521 3,040 5,340 1,409 2,685 2.185 662 1,855 1.890 1,689 t-1943 1,190 1,709 3,855 7,220 4,690 6,020 4,560 1,250 1,952 6,100 600 780 3,327 1944 192 356 858 4,920 7.210 10,300 7,300 2.170 4641 3,635 1,655 1,472 3,368 I-a 1945 5,860 1,861 2,975 3,265 7,540 3,520 1,943 1,405 410 2,825 1,742 22,450 4.602 1-1946 1,805 1,078 7,620 6,890 9.520 2,515 2,570 4,690 2,425 3,625 3,000 1,012 3,870 1947 1,930 1,962 1,560 8,840 1,921 4,125 3,925 863 535 627 471 2,985 2,492 1948 1,472 6,300 1,872 3,582 11,950 6,150 4,960 1,718 1,670 864 1,519 465 3,507 1949 1,948 8,420 7,850 5,180 6,160 3,215 3,260 5,340 931 2.925 5,430 2.355 4,408 1950 3.015 4,340 2,062 2,745 2,290 3,740 1,378 4,430 1,395 4,140 837 712 2,601 1951 823 576 1,998 1,318 1,852 2,940 5,380 845 1,141 542 680 156 1,515 1952 105 323 2.998 4,040 5,720 13,780 3,600 2,220 905 469 2,485 6,020 3.549 1953 552 3,930 2,375 7,810 8,840 8,560 3,640 1,540 1.545 478 232 480 3,296 1954 15O 160 1,651 9,700 2,580 4,540 3,860 1,742 631 342 256 137 2.151 1955 4,460 919 3,190 1,770 6.200 3,060 3,430 966 437 1,300 4,290 4,290 2,837 1956 1,892 932 614 629 6,140 5,300 3,455 2,065 986 1,880 610 1,869 2,180 1957 3,195 1,642 3,580 1,662 8,790 6,210 2,780 1,571 3,235 1,282 2,035 1,832 3.116 1956 2,170 7,300 3,270 7,720 5,970 5,040 9,080 7.880 1.168 1,448 993 274 4.498 1959 632 494 2,405 2,840 5,080 3,175 9,750 1,575 1.960 3,470 1,750 2,665 2.958 1960 5,960 2,790 3,290 4,680 15,700 9,290 8,660 2,620 910 975 1,912 956 4.771 1961 785 519 843 1,495 9,140 5,720 6,140 3,400 1,899 1,108 2.195 406 2,750 1962 164 285 2,375 9,180 6,160 6,360 7,970 879 4,290 2.001 798 540 3,321 1963 452 4,260 4.020 4,910 5,450 9,190 1,625 1,302 906 606 394 430 2,783 1964 347 1,900 2,685 6,200 7,010 4,650 5,840 920 686 920 2,055 3.575 3,046 1965 6,880 1,158 4,690 2,595 6,880 8.830 2,775 1,332 . 4,070 8,090 2,130 920 4.189 1966 1,110 610 499 1,892 8,160 7,980 1,450 3,250 1,008 388 886 803 2.305 1967 452 529 1,058 1.552 4,860 .542 1,092 1,462 542 496 4,010 799 1.514 1968 360 404 4,750 6.910 1,491 4,240 1,460 1.470 1,130 904 295' 83 1,975 1969 490 1,350 1,405 2,420 5,880 6,840 3,725 1,121 2,500 1,129 2,700 1,770 2.588

3000 2000 t-0 U..)

r-J cl I

1000 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PERCENT OF TIME FLOW GREATER THAN RIVER FLOW FIGURE 2.3 CAPE FEAR RIVER AVERAGE AND MINIMUM YEAR FLOW DURATION CURVES AT BUCKHORN DAM 1- ------ .-, '..."."ý--.-""- -'..

2-14 from the Cape Fear River. The average 4-month, 7-month, and 12-month minimum coincident flows on Buckhorn Creek and the Cape Fear River for each of the three critical 1-year flow periods are presented in Table 2.5.15,16 For the synthesized Buckhorn Creek flows, the worst 12-month drought period was from February 1951 through January 1952; however, the applicant did not analyze this drought period because coincident Cape Fear River flows were greater than in the three flow periods presented in Table 2.5.

Frequency analyses were used to estimate the return period in years for the 4-month, 7-month, and 12-month droughts for the three critical coincident 1-year flow periods. These values are listed in Table 2.6.17,18 The frequency analyses were also utilized to estimate 100-year return period droughts for the 4-month, 7-month, and 12-month durations. These data are presented in Table 2.7.17,18 The applicant has provided reservoir drawdown analyses for the three critical one year flow periods during 46 years of record. If~the plant were operating during an identical flow period to that from February 1925 through January 1926, the main reservoir water level would be drawn down to elevation 213.9 feet MSL, 6.1 feet lower than the normal reservoir operating level of 220 feet MSL. During the other two critical flow periods, March 1933 through February 1934 and May 1941 through April 1942, the resulting maximum drawdown would be about five feet.4 1 As stated earlier, a drought that recurs on the average' of once each 100 years would result in a drawdown of 14.3 feet.

In the opinion of the staff, the applicant has followed correct procedures in determining the probable maximum flood peak that would be expected to occur at the main and auxiliary dam sites prior to, and following completion of, the Shearon Harris project. Probable maximum precipitation data for the site, derived from the U.S. Weather Bureau Hydrometeorological Report No. 3319 (27 in. of rainfall in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />), were combined with unit hydrograph and reservoir routing procedures to yield the probable maximum flood hydrograph.

Prior to construction, the peak flow that would be expected to occur at the main dam site is about 45,300 cfs, peaking about 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> after the beginning of the storm.19a After construction of the Shearon Harris reservoirs, the probable maximum flood from the main reservoir would have a peak outflow about 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> after the storm starts and would have a magnitude of about 14,500 cfs. 2 0 The probable maximum flood surcharge in the main reservoir will be 19.1 ft above normal lake surface elevation or 239.1 ft MSL. The main and auxiliary dams have berm elevations of 260 ft MSL. Minimum plant grade has also been 2 1 22 established at this elevation. ,

2-15 TABLE 2.5 15 COINCIDENT CAPE FEAR RIYER AND BUCKHORN CREEK DROUGHT PERIODS , 16 Flow (cf s)

Period Cape Fear River Buckhorn Creek March 1933 through.'Februar2y 1934 Average 4-month minimum value 222 7.8 Average 7-month minimum value 436 11.7 Average 12-month value 949, 29.9 February 1925 through January 1926 Average 4-month minimum value 327 12.4 Average 7-month minimum value 419 15.8 Average 12-month value 1290 40.7 May 1941 through April 1942 Average 4-month minimum value 241 14.5 Average 7-month minimum value 728 30.6 Average 12-month value 1412 59.9

2-16 TABLE 2.6 RETURN PERIODS FOR COINCIDENT CAPE FEAR RIVER AND BUCKHORN CREEK DROUGHTS 17,18 Return Period in Years Critical Periods 1933-34 1925-26 1941-42 Average 4-month minimum values 35 11 23 Average 7-month minimum values 27 32 7 Average 12-month minimum values 47 22 9 TABLE 2.7 100-YEAR RETURN PERIOD DROUGHT FLOWS FOR CAPE FEAR RIVER 1 8 AND BUCKHORN CREEK 1 7 ,

Flow (cfs)

Period Cape Fear River Buckhorn Creek Average 4-month minimum value 178 4.1 Average 7-month minimum value 312 7.7 Average 12-month minimum value 770 26.0

WORT-2-17 TABLE 2.8 HISTORICAL MONTHLY AYERAGE CAPE FEAR RIVER WATER TEMPER.ATURES 23 AT LILLINGTON, NORT. CAROLINA Temperature, (ab)

Month CF)

January 42 February 42 March 50 April 62 May 70 June 78 July 82 August 81 September 76 October 66 November 56 December 45 (a) Temperatures averaged for the period of record, July 1959 to September 1967.

(b) Extreme temperatures observed were 96 0 F and 330 F.

2-18 Historical monthly average Cape Fear River water temperatures at the USGS Lillington stream-gaging station for the period July 1959 to September 1967 are presented in Table 2.8.23 A thin layer of unconsolidated surface materials and the underlying consolidated bedrock yields the region's present groundwater supplies.

Seepage and percolation to the groundwater table are slow because of low permeabilities in the surface materials and underlying bedrock formation.

The principal aquifer underlying the plant site, the Triassic rock formation, is regarded as only a minor aquifer. Wells in the area yield up to 20 gpm, but the overall average is only about 5 gpm.

Average specific capacity of area wells is about 0.03 gpm/ft of drawdoom. 24-27 The nearest communities to the plant site that use groundwater for public water supply are Holly Springs, 7 miles east, and Fuquay-Varina, 10 miles southeast of the site. Holly Springs has two wells that supply about 40,000 gal/day, and Fuquay-Varina has eight wells that supply about 400,000 gal/day. None of these wells are located in the Triassic Basin; the water is produced from a crystalline rock aquifer that does not exist in the immediate plant area. 2 8 A group of about eight houses in Corinth, 4 miles southwest of the site, has individual wells in the Triassic aquifer. Depths range from 62 to 140 ft, and production varies from 0.5 to 13 gpm. Specific capacities of all these wells are less than 0.10 gpm/ft of drawdown.

In the Triassic Basin, groundwater is principally stored in areas near diabase dikes that have intruded the Triassic sediments. At the Shearon Harris site, the dikes that have been encountered are small and heavily weathered with the result that little groundwater is con-24 2 5 tained in the dense clayey materials. ,

Little or no usable groundwater is produced from the thin layer of sandy clay and sandy loam soils that overlay the Triassic bedrock.

Existing hydrologic data indicate no direct hydraulic connection between the surface layer and the minor Triassic aquifer. Because of the low permeabilities of the surface soils and underlying materials, surface runoff is rapid and natural recharge to the Triassic formation is very 29 slow. The rate of groundwater movement is about 5 ft/yr.

Piezometric levels for the existing wells and locations of special borings in the plant site area are illustrated in.Figure 2.4.24 These contours indicate that groundwater movement is to the southeast toward Whiteoak Creek. In general, the piezometric surface follows the contours of the land, but local variations, caused by impermeable geologic layers and by Joint patterns in the weathered rock zones, are prevalent. The present piezometric surface slope in the area is about 9%. It is estimated that, after the Shearon Harris cooling reservoir is filled, the hydraulic gradient will be reduced to about 4%.29

• o!

24 FIGURE 2.4 PIEZOMETRIC LEVELS AND LOCATIONS OF SITE BORINGS

2-20 Piezometric data in the site area are being developed from 15 out of a total of 58 borings, as shown in Figure 2.4. The 15 piezometers are constructed from 1.25 in. slotted PVC pipe to allow the recording 2 9 , 30 of water levels.

To determine infiltration rates of the surface layers, five locations within the plant site area were selected, and a series of percolation tests was conducted. The locations of the test pits are shown in Figure 2.4. Observed percolation rates varied from 3.6 to 28.8 gal/day/ft 2 ,

which tends to confirm that the surface soils are fairly impermeable.

2.7 METEOROLOGY This site is located in a zone of transition between the Coastal Plain and the Piedmont Plateau. Climatological data is available at the Raleigh-Durham Airport which is about 20 miles NNE of the site. Only minor variations in climate between these locations can be expected and the Raleigh-Durham data may be considered as representative. A fairly moderate climate occurs in this region as a result of the moderating influence of the mountains to the west and the ocean to the east. The mountains partially shield the region from eastward moving cold air masses in winter, consequently, the mean January air temperature seldom drops below 20*F on individual winter days. The last freeze occurs around the first week in April and the first freeze in the fall about the first of November. Summer weather is dominated largely by tropical air which results in fairly high temperatures and high humidities.

Mean monthly air temperatures (Raleigh-Durham Airport) are presented in Table 2.9. The mean daily maximum temperature for July is 88.1 0 F. How-ever the mean daily minimum for the same period is 67.6*F, demonstrating the typical diurnal temperature cycle in summer: hot days and fairly cool nights.

Rainfall is well distributed over the year. On the average, July has the greatest rainfall and November the least. The monthly pattern of rainfall is variable from year to year. Also much of the rainfall in the summer is from thunderstorms which may be accompanied by strong winds, intense rains and hail. Approximately 45 thunderstorms per year are recorded at the Raleigh-Durham Airport. The site is far enough inland that the intense weather of coastal storms is greatly reduced.

Although snow and sleet usually occur each year, excessive amounts are rare. Additional information on the maximums, minimums and normals of monthly precipitation are presented in Table 2.10.

The site is sufficiently inland that there is only a slight tendency for the winds to shift during the day. The winds do shift seasonally with northeasterly winds in the fall and southwesterly winds in the spring.

2-21 TABLE 2.9 (ab)

MEAN MONTHLY AIR TEMPERATURES Maximum Minimum Normal Month (OF) (OF) (OF)

January 51.9 31.3 41.6 February 54.0 31.9 43.0 March 61.1 37.8 49.5 April 71.8 46.8 59.3 May 79.4 55.7 67.6 June 86.3 63.9 75.1 July 88.1 67.6 76.9 August 87.1 66.7 76.9 September 82.0 60.4 71.2 October 72.8 48.2 60.5 November 62.2 37.7 50.0 December 52.3 31.4 41.9 (a) Local climatological data; Raleigh, North Caroline, 1971, USDC, No. AA.

(b) Based on climatological normals (1931-1960).

Over the year the southwesterly wind direction predominates except for three months in the fall. Table 2.11 contains annual wind rose infor-mation in tabular form. The fastest one minute wind recorded at the Raleigh-Durham Airport was 73 mph (October 1954) as a result of hurricane Hazel. The full impact of hurricanes is not normally felt this far inland.

The diurnal pattern of winds has a higher frequency of low wind speeds (0.3 mph) in the early morning and evening and a higher frequency of high wind speed (13-24 mph) in the late morning and afternoon. However, there is an almost uniformly high frequency of occurrence (between 62%

and 70%) for the intermediate class of wind speeds (4-12 mph), demon-strating that moderate winds occur throughout the day.

2-22 TABLE- 2. 10 PRECIPITATION NO1MALS, =AXIMUMS AND MINIMUMS (al Normal Maximum Minimum Monthly*c)

Maximum in To tal.() Monthiy (ci 24 hr(*ol Month (in.) Year Year (in.) Year January 3.22 7.52 1954 1 .05 1956 2.79 1954 February 3.23 5.75 1961 1.20 1947 2.40 1946 March 3.35 4.94 1960 1.48 1949 2.51 1952 April 3.52 5.83 1959 1.51 1965 2.02 1958 May 3.52 6.69 1950 0.92 1964 4.40 1957 June 3.70 8.32 1965 1.12 1954 3.44 1967 July 3.49 10.05 1945 0.80 1953 3.89 1952 August 5.20 10.49 1955 0.81 1950 5.20 1955 September 3.85 12.94 1945 0.57 1954 5.16 1944 October 2.71 6.53 1959 0.44 1963 4.10 1954 November 2.77 8.22 1948 0.88 1960 4.70 1963 December 3.02 6.20 1945 0.25 1965 3.18 1958 (a) Local climatological data, Raleigh, N.C., 1971, USDC, No. AA.

(b) Based on climatological standard normals (1931-1960).

(c) Based on 27 years of data.

TABLE 2.11 ANNUAL PERCENTAGE FREQUENCIES OF WIND DIRECTION AND SPEED, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA(a,b)

Hourly Observations of Wind Speed (Mpli)_

47 & Avg Direction 0-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 25-31 32-38 39-46 Over Total Speed N 0.6 2.6 2.7 1.3 0.1 + + + 7.3 8.7 NNE 0.4 1.9 2.3 1.1 0.1 + + 5.9 9.2 NE 0.6 2.3 3.0 1.3 0.1 + 7.3 8.9 ENE 0.3 1.2 1.5 0.5 + +/- 3.6 8.7 E 0.4 1.9 1.8 0.4 + + 4.5 7.9 ESE 0.2 1.2 1.1 0.2 01- + + 2.8 7.9 SE 0.3 1.5 1.4 0,3 3.6 7.6 3.1 8.4  !

SSE 0.2 1.2 1.2 0.4 0.1 +

S 0.5 3.1 3.5 1.1 0.2 + 8.3 8.6 SSW 0.5 3.2 3.3 1.3 0.2 + + 8.5 8.7 SW 0.7 4.0 4.0 1.6 0.2 +/- 10.6 8.7

+

WSW 0.5 2.1 1.7 0.6 0.1 5.0 8.2

+/-

W 0.5 2.0 1.8 0.9 0.1 5.4 8.6 WNW 0.3 1.2 1.4 1.0 0.2 +/- + 4.1 9.9 NW 0.4 1.6 1.6 1.1 0.2 + + 4.9 9_6 NNW 0.3 1.3 1.5 0.7 0.1 + 3.9 9.0 CALM 11.2 11.2 TOTAL 18.0 32.5 33.8 13.9 1.7 0.2 + + + 100.0 7.7 (a) Local climatological data, Raleigh, N.C., 1971, U5DC, No. AA (b) Based on 7 years of data

2-24 The diurnal trends of relative humidity by month are summarized in Table 2.12. Relative humidityis greatest during the summer. In January, the range of relative humidity is 76% at 7:00 a.m. and 53% at 1:00 p.m.; in July the range is 91% and 61% for the same hours.

The solar radiation loads which can be expected are sunmarized in Table 2.13. These records are from Greensboro, North Carolina, which is a little less than 60 miles to the northwest and are indicative of the values which can be expected. The range is from about 200 langley/day in January tO 500 langley/day in July.

2.8 ECOLOGY 2.8.1 Terrestrial The pristine vegetation mosaic of the Buckhorn-Whiteoak basin con-sisted of an oak-hickory forest that occupied uplands and lowlands.

With the advent of settlement this forest was cleared. Today there are no remnants of the original forest. The present-day vegetation consists of a mosaic of farmland and cutover forest stands of various ages and ecological stages of succession.

As a result of clearing trees from the land for agriculture without provisions for reducing soil erosion, much of the mineral rich top soil has been washed- away- leaving unproductive acreage for crops but providing soil suitable for early colonization by weedy plants followed in a few years by loblolly or short leaf pines. If left undisturbed the pines mature in 20-30 years; providing a seed source is available, the pines in time would theoretically be replaced by an oak-hickory forest.

Elm, ash, maple, birch, beech and sycamore are moderate-sized hard-wood trees associated with the lowlands adjacent to stream channels.

An estimate was made by the applicant of the abundance of various groups of trees located on the proposed site in 1972. This estimate was developed from an aerial survey of the property and is presented in Table 2.14.

Habitat for wildlife consists c more or less mature upland and lowland forests, cutover forests in various stages of succession, agricultural fields and the edges or boundaries (ecotones) between these general habitat types. Results of vegetational surveys at two locations on the eastern part of the Shearon Harris site are given in Table 2.15. Although this later survey was conducted during the fall and winter, the "dormant" season, 170 plant species belonging to 55 families were identified. 3 1 As a habitat for game birds and animals, the Shearon Harris area is characteristic of poor soil and pine-hardwood forests. Deer and wild turkey populations are either nonexistent or too small to be regarded as

2-25

• TABL'E 2.12 AVERAGE RELATIVY HIM TIES (bL Mars (I~nea.'l Time) 01 07 13 19 Month. 6/0~~)(

January 70 76 *53 61 February 66 72 47 54 March 69 178 46 54 April 73 80 45 55 May 83 85 53 55 June 87 87 58 68 July 89 98 61 74 August 90 92 61 77 September 87 93 58 76 October 85 90 55 76 November 76 83 49 65 December 72 78 52 64 (a*) Local climatological data, Raleigh, N.C.,

1971, USDC, No. AA.

(b) Based on 7 years&of data.

2-26 TABLE 2.13 AVERAGE DAILY SOLAR RADIATION IN LANGLEY UNITS(A)

IMonth 1566 1968 1969 January 234 187 183 February 249 320 264 March 417 419 420 April 382 417 433 May 474 483 527 June 573 526 484 July 532 479 475 August 442 49o 435 September 368 427 343 October 318 292 301 November 235 201 224 December 185 182 183 Annual 367 377 356 (a) Based on data for Greenshoro, N.C., in Annual Climatological Summary, USDC, 1966, 1968 1969.

2-27 TABLE- 2.14 RESULTS OF YEWETATION MAPPING FROM AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH ANALYSIS OF THE SITE, 1972 Approximate predominAnt Types, Acreage  % Tota1 Acreage Pine 2,841 19.12 Pine-hardwood 2,832 18.94 Hardwood(b) 72 0.48 Bottomland hardwood(c) 455 3.04 Hardwood-pine 5,462 36.53 Cutover 2,063 13.79 Field 1,266 8.20 TOTAL 14,954 (a) Pine Pinus taeda loblolly pine Pinus echinata - shortleaf pine (b) Hardwood Acer rubrum - red maple Carya cordiformis - bitternut hickory Carya ovata - shagbark hickory Carya tomentosa - mockernut hickory Fagus grandifolia - beech Quercus alba - white oak Quercus falcata - southern red oak Quercus velutina - black oak quercus coccinea - scarlet oak Quercus]prinus - chestnut oak (cc Bottomland hardwoods Betula-'nigra -. rizver birch Dia PYTOs* virginiana -- persimmon

?raxitnus pennsylvAntca - green ash Juglans- nigra - Black walnut Liquidambar styraciflua - sweetgum Liriodendron tulipifera - yellow poplar Nyssa sylvatica - black tupelo Platanus occidentalis - American sycamore Ulmus americana - American elm Ulmus rubra - slippery elm

TABLE 2.15 VEGETATION ANALYSES - SHEARON HARRIS AREA, OCTOBER 1972 Relative Relative Absolute Density Density(b) Frequency Frequency . Plants/Hectare Species Area III Area IV Area III- Area IV Area III Area IV Area Ill Area IV Pinus taeda - Loblolly Pine 51 .250 7.500 39.0 7.0 85.0 20.0 352 45 u alba - White Oak 3.125 32.500 4.5 26.1 10.0 75.0 22 196 Li uida styraciflua - Sweet Gum 17.500 12.500 17.2 11.3 37.5 32.5 120 75 Acer rubrum - Red Maple 10.000 11.875 10.3 13.9 22.5 40.0 68 71 Quercus rubra - Red Oak 1.250 8.125 2.2 9.5 48 5.0 27.5 8 Carya tomentosa - Hickory 0.625 7.500 1.1 8.7 2.5 25.0 4 45 Oidendron arboreum - Sourwood 5.000 6.0 17.5 30 Quercus falcata - Turkey Oak 3.750 5.73 12.5 25 Quercus stTlla - Post Oak 3.125 1.250 5.73 0.9 12.5 2.5 22 8 Acer saccharum - Sugar Maple 3.125 3.5 10.0 19 Liriodendron tulipifera - Tulip Tree 2.500 1.250 3.4 1.7 7.5 5.0 17 8 Pinus echinata - Short Leaf Pine 2.500 0.625 2.2 0.9 5..0 2.5 17 4 30 Fagus grandiflora - Beech 2.500 2.6 7.5 15 Pinus virginiana - Virginia Pine 1.875 3.4 7.5 13 9uercus niar - Water Oak 1.875 3.4 7.5 13 Iex opaca - Holly 1.875 2.6 7.5 12 Cornus florida - Dogwood 1.875 1.7 5.0 12 Umus a-mierMicaa - Elm 0.625 1.1 2.5 4 Carpinus caroliniana - Hornbeam 0.625 0.9 2.5 4 Prunus serotina - Black Cherry 0.625 0.9 2.5 4 JunTperus virginiana - Juniper 0.625 0.9 2.5 4 Nyssa sylvatica - Black Gum 0.625 0.9 2.5 4 TOTALS 100% 100% 100% 100% 218.0 288.0 685 603 (a) Point-centered quarter method no. occurrences Frequency = no. of quadrants in which species occurred (b) Relative density =total no. measurements total no. of quadrats frequency/species Relative frequency frequency Absolute density = total density x relative density

2-29 a wildlife resource. There are scattered small populations of bobwhite, quail, mourning dove, squirrels, rabbits, raccoons, oppossums, skunk, mink and fox. These populations undoubtedly fluctuate from season to season and from year to year depending upon a host of envihonmental variables such as weather, migratory behavior, reproductive success, predation pressures, etc. A preliminary evaluation of wildlife in the White Oak Creek area, as based on a brief reconnaissance study conducted by the North Carolina Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, is shown in Table 2.16. Observations and mammal trapping studies conducted in the fall and winter of 1972-73 show 20 species of small mammals (Table 2.17). The hi!pid cotton rat was the most abundant during both time periods. Numbers of mammals, such as raccoon, cotton-tail rabbits and oppossums, that were observed over a 3 to 6 day study period were less than 5 individuals for each species.

At the present time, waterfowl use of the area is small. Woodducks are fotund along the streams and small ponds on the site. Waterfowl useage can be expected to increase with the filling of the reservoir.

Birds other than game species are found scattered throughout the-various habitat-types. 33 Bird surveys of the area conducted in October 1972 and January 1973 list 65 and 56 species in the fall and winter counts respectively. 3 1 Approximately 138 bird species are known to ozcur near the Shearon Harris site. The kinds and relative fall bird abundance are given in Table 2.18. The site is within the geographic range of birds with low populations, such as the southern bald eagle, pileated woodpecker and osprey. The red-cockaded woodpecker (Dendrocopos borealis), an endangered species, 3 3 was observed at the Shearon Harris site on surveys made October 25-31, 1972.32 This bird is rare because of the limited number of specialized nesting sites in old, living pines infected with red-heart disease, and the current trend in forestry 33 practice to eliminate such trees.

Although of apparently little direct sport or commercial value-,

various small mammals, reptiles, amphibians and numerous macro-and microinvertebrates are present and contribute in a variety of ways to the community as a whole.

2.8.2 Aquatic The Buckhorn-Whiteoak drainage system will he partly inundated by the water impounded in the Shearon Harris makeup reservoir. This stream system is comprised of five major tributaries with a total length of about 43 miles. 3 1 Their flows are highly variable, with some seasonally becoming nearly dry. The streams are characterized by

2-30 TABLE 2.16 WILDLIFE EVALUATION O)F WHITEOAK. CREEK, WAKE AND CHATHAM COUNTY, N.C., OCTOBER 1969 (s$nma~ry. of Eight Sampling Stations) Cal Hunting Wildlife Resoutce AbSrndaynce Prestur e Rabbit 'Moderate Moderate Squirrel High Low Quail Moderate Low Dove Negligible or None Negligible Waterfowl Low Low Deer Negligible or None Negligible Turkey Negligible or None Negligible Fox High Moderate Raccoon High Low Fur Bearers High Low (a) From Fish and Wildlife Evaluation Sheet, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.

TABLE 2.17 SHEARON HARRIS - SMALL MAMMAL TRAPPING SUCCESS 3 2 Total Number /Trapnight Species October 1972 January 1973 Blarina brevicauda - Short tail shrew 5/1080 - 1/216.0 5/720 = 1/144 Reithrodontomus humilis - Eastern harvest mouse 8/1080 = 1/35.0 4/720 = 1/180 Peromyscus leucopus - White-footed mouse 12/1080 1/90.0 4/720 = 1/180 P. nuttalli - Golden mouse 3/1080 1/360.0 '-

Neotoma floridana - Fastern woodrat 1/1080 1/1080 Oryzomys palustrus - Rice rat 1/1080 /10.80 Sigmodon hispidus - Hispid cotton rat 6751-0.8Ql 1(16.6 71720 1(103 Microtus pennsylvanicus - Meadow vole Pitymys pinetorum - Pine vole 11080

• 1/1080 Mus musculus - House mouse Total trapnights 1080 720 Total number mammals trapped U8 16 Total number mammals/trapnight 1(i1 1/45

2-32 TABLE 2.18 MAXIMUM NUMBERS OF BIRDS SEEN ON ANY ONE DAY ON A WILDLIFE SURVEY ROUTE IN THE SHEARON HARRIS STUDY AREA, NORTH CAROLINA, OCTOBER 25-31, 1972 Bird Species Seen A.M. P.M.

Rohin 174 153 Grackle 42 16 Starling 23 0 Yellow-shafted flicker 6 4 House sparrow 10 11 Cardinal 4 0 Song sparrow 3 3 White-throated sparrow 14. 1 Junco 25 8 Blue jay 6 0 Red-winged blackbird 20 0 Crow 2 Q Loggerhead shrike 1 1 Yellow-bellied sapsucker 4 0 Goldfinch 10 1 Chickadee 4 Q Sparrow hawk 1 0 Mourning dove 2 4 Red-tailed hawk 1 1 Pine warbler 1 1 Purple finch 6 0 Red-bellied woodpecker 1 0 Belted kingfisher 1 0 Great blue heron 2 0 Swamp sparrow 1 0 Ruby-crowned kinglet 1 0 Chipping sparrow 1 0 Meadowlark 31 3 Rusty blackbird 3 .40 Carolina wren 0 1 Towhee 3 1 Mockingbird 1 0 Wood duck 2 0 Fairy woodpecker 1 a

2-33 pools, runs and riffles, and have bottoms ranging from fine silts to gravel and bedrock. They drain a small well-defined basin, show little evidence of pollutiun and are of minor recreational or economic importance.

Some of the chemical characteristics of these waters are given in Tables 2 . 1 9 (a) and 2.20. These streams have low alkalinities and near neutral pH values. The measurements on pond water (Table 2.20) would suggest that the total phosphorus and nitrogen levels in the Shearon Harris reservoir would be on the order of 50 and 470 ppb respectively. Measurements given in Table 2.19 give higher average values for nitrogen (1200 ppb) and lower levels of phosphorus (280 ppb).

In either case, the quantity of phosphorus is high.

The chemical content of Cape Fear River water, which will make up the bulk of the water for filling and maintaining the water level during periods of drought in Shearon Harris reservoir, is generally higher than that of the Whiteoak-Buckhorn watershed. After stabilization of the reservoir, concentrations of 60 ppb phosphorus and 100 ppb nitrogen (total nitrite, nitrate and ammonia N) are predicted. 3 6 There will be an additional 200 ppb nitrogen, as dissolved organic nitrogen, that will 36 not be available for algal growth.

The existing populations of aquatic organisms in the Whiteoak-Buckhorn streams are of little value for-recreation. A recent limnological study of the Whiteoak-Buckhorn Creek drainage and the Cape Fear River near Buckhorn Dam was conducted in 1972-73.31 In the phytoplankton populations the green algae (Chlorophyta), yellow-green algae (Chrysophyta) and the blue-green algae (Cyanophyta) were the dominant groups present (Figures 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7). The chlorophytes and cyanophytes were dominant in the Buckhorn drainage in the spring and there were no clear cut trends in population densities within the creek watershed, or between the creek and the Cape Fear River. The common species are mainly benthic and diatoms predominate. Zooplankton populations were low, less than 100 organisms per liter, in both Buckhorn Creek and the Cape Fear River at all seasons and locations.

The dominant species were: Protozoa - Arcella, Astramoeba, Centropyxis, and Difflugia; Rotifera - Kellicottia and Karatella; and Crustacea -

Cyclops.

The dominant taxonomic orders of benthic invertebrates in the creeks and the Cape Fear River include beetles (Coleoptera), mayflies (Ephemeroptera), flies (Diptera), snails (Gastropoda), clams (Pelecypoda),

and worms (Oligochaeta). 37 Species composition and relative abundance (a) For a more detailed, month-by-month analysis over the period February 1972 to February 1973, see the applicant's Bnvironmental Report, as amended in November 1973, Table C.3-2.

TABLE 2.19 WATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CAPE FEAR RIVER AND WHITEOAK - BUCKHORN WATERSHED31 (February 1972 - February 1973) ppm Cape Fear River Whiteoak - Buckhorn Streams Whiteoak - Buckhorn Pond Mean Maximum Minimum Mean Maximum Minimum Mean Maximum Minimum COD 12 26 2 11 26 4 10 14 4 Total Solids 114 223 46 88 366 27 64 77 35 Total Volatile Solids 45 115 16 44 308 6 30 56 8 Total Suspended Solids 25 110 2 18 350 2 10 24 2 Total Dissolved Solids 90 204 42 70 361 11 54 84 20 Ammonia-N 0.38 1.22 <0.05 0.33 1.08 <0.05 0.43 1.05 <0.05 Nitrate-N 0.28 0.80 <0.01 0.06 0.57 <0.01 0.04 0.23 <0.01 Kjeldahl-N 0.78' 1.78 0.11 0.66 0.40 <0.05 0.74 1.40 0.11 Orthophosphate-P 0.48 1.88 <0.01 0.15 1.62 0.01 0.15 0.48 <0.10 Polyphosphate-P 0.19 0.76 0.01 0.19 1.24 0.01 0.16 0.71 <0.01 Total Phosphate-P 0.64 2.40 0.04 0.31 1.66 0.04 0.28 0.92 <0.10 Alkalinity 27 51 11 18 30 10 18 24 11 Chloride 11 32 3 7 24 2 6 15 1 Phenol 0.011 0.032 <0.011 0.011 0.065 <0.001 0.015 0.05 <(1.001 Sulphate 8. 20. 3. 5. 16. <1. 4. 10. 1.

Chromium <0.05 -- -- <0.05 -- -- <0.05 -- --

Copper <0.05 0.49 <0.04 <0.31 20. <0.04 <0.04 -- --

Iron 1.06 2.06 0.16 1.07 4.55 0.22 0.76 1.63 0.28 Magnanese <0.12 0.26 <0.01 <0.14 1.14 <0.01 <0.18 0.44 <0.10 Zinc <0.06 0.24 0.05 <0.05 0.18 <0.05 <0.05 -- --

Sodium 12.33 29.75 5.20 6.14 9.20 4.35 5.03 6.10 4.56 Magnesium 2.32 3.67 1.12 1.63 3.38 0.98 1.51 1.80 1.08 Calcium 5.83 11.13 2.00 3.75 7.45 1.88 3.34 4.06 2.50 Silica 10 16 6 0.5 18 4 5.7 10 <1.

Aluminum <0.063 0.13 <0.05 <0.069 0.16 <0.05 <0.054 0.07 <0.05

TABLE 2.20 WHITEOAK-BUCKHORN WATERSHED NUTRIENT CONCENTRATIONS, 1970 3 Nitrate Ammonia Total Reactive Unfiltered Filtered Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen Phosphorus Phosphorus Phosphorus jg atoms pg atoms pg atoms pg atoms pg atows pg atoms Station per liter ppb ner liter oob oer liter Dob per liter pob ner liter nDb oer liter ppb 4 0.41 5.74 5.73 80.2 17.24 241 0.65 20.2 1.20 37.2 0.85 26.4 5 2.54 35.6 5.01 70.1 25.39 355 0.85 26.4 1.80 55.8 1.70 52.7 6 0.60 8.4 1.79 25.1 26.49 371 0.58 18.0 2.20 68.2 3.33 103 7 1.40 19.6 12.25 172 18.76 263 1.27 39.4 9.10 282 1.85 57.4 8 12.80 179 2.94 41.2 33.27 466 0.58 18.0 4.15 129 2.50 77.5 9 3.06 42.8 2.13 29.8 20.84 292 1.00 31.0 2.20 68.2 1.27 39.4 10 (pond) 3.61 50.5 6.44 90.2 33.35 467 0.85 26.4 1.60 49.6 1.15 35.6 Mean 3.49 48.8 5.18 72.7 25.0 351 0.83 26.6 3.18 98.6 1.81 56.0

2-36 150 140 60 40 20 10 8

6 4

2 100 80 u*

60 40 6

4 2

1 7 6 5 4 3 2 iR R-2 P- 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 R-I R-2 STAT ION

• TRACE AMOUNT, IOOWL I TER R-I AND R-2 SAMPLES IN MARCH 1973 FIGURE 2.5. NUMERICAL ABUNDANCE OF THE CHLOROPHYTA AT STATIONS ON STREAMS (1-7) AND THE CAPE FEAR RIVER (R-1 AND R-2) IN THE SHEARON HARRIS STUDY AREA, NORTH CAROLINA AT PERIODS FROM APRIL 1972 TO JANUARY 1973

2-37 100 80 60 40 20 10 8

6 4

u~j 80 60 40 20 10 8

6 4

2 I

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 R-1 R-2 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 R-1 R-2 STATION

• TRACE AMOUNT, 100/LITER

• • R-I AND R-2 SAMPLES IN MARCH 1973 FIGURE 2.6. NUMERICAL ABUNDANCE OF THE CHRYSOPHYTA AT STATIONS ON STREAMS (1-7) AND THE CAPE FEAR RIVER (R-1 AND R-2) IN THE SHEARON HARRIS STUDY AREA, NORTH CAROLINA AT PERIODS FROM APRIL 1972 TO JANUARY 1973

2-38 300 200 40 20 10 8

6 4

Cýj 2

1

-. j 80 cr ui 60 cc 40 20 2O 10 b 5 44 3 2 1 R-IR-2 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 R-IR-2 STAT I ON

• TRACE AMOUNT, ,100/LITER

• • R-I AND R-2 SAMPLES IN MARCH 1973 FIGURE 2.7. NUMERICAL ABUNDANCE OF THE CYANOPHYTA AT STATIONS ON STREAMS (1-7) AND THE CAPE FEAR RIVER (R-1 AND R-2) IN THE SHEARON HARRIS STUDY AREA, NORTH CAROLINA AT PERIODS FROM APRIL 1972 TO JANUARY 1973

2-39 were dissimilar between sampling locations in the same stream. Peak abundance of organisms in the pools of the creeks and the Cape Fear River occurred in July and in April and July in the riffles (Table 2.21 and 2 . 2 2 ).(a) Some benthic groups such as caddisflies (Hydopsychidae) and snails (Pleuronectidae) were more abundant in the Cape Fear River than in Buckhorn Creek, probably because of their particular require-ments of current velocity and substrate type. The character of the present communities is expected to change radically with the modifica-tion of much of the present creek environment to that of a lake.

The polychaete worm, Manayunkia speciosa, was found in both the Buckhorn Creek drainage and in the Cape Fear River in 1972. Although unimportant in terms of abundance, this worm has only been reported once before3 1 in North Carolina, which is the southern extension of its range.

The Buckhorn-Whiteoak system is unique in that it has been isolated from immigration from the Cape Fear River since 1965. The water from the creek drops about 3 meters through the generator tubes of a decommissioned power station, near the mouth of the creek, before it enters the Cape Fear River.

Surveys to identify and enumerate the fish species in Buckhorn-Whiteoak Creek were carried out by the North Carolina Resources Commission in 1962,37 the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife in 196938 and Aquatic Control Ecological Consultants in 1972-73.31 In general, their findings show that no appreciable sport fishery presently exists in these streams. The 1962 survey (Table 2.23) identified Buckhorn Creek as a "dace trickle," with rosyside dace and bluehead chub as the dominant species. More recent surveys list 37 fish species in Buckhorn-Whiteoak and 21 species in the Cape Fear River (Table 2.24).

Several of the species found in the Buckhorn drainage have limited distribution or are fairly rare. The Cape Fear shiner is found in only three other streams in the area, and it has been suggested that it be added to the list of endangered species. The presence of the coastal shiner in Buckhorn Creek is an extension of the range of this species. It is well established locally, but seems to be limited to Buckhorn Creek. The swallowtail shiner in Buckhorn Creek is one of three known isolated populations in the Cape Fear drainage, and the possibility of eliminating the local habitat of this species through the impoundment of Buckhorn Creek is of special scientific interest. The speckled killifish is also rare and has a very limited distribution within the Cape Fear drainage.

(a) A detailed listing of species abundance by time and location is given in Reference 31.

TABLE 2.21 TOTAL NUMBER OF BENTHIC ORGANISMS AND PERCENT IMMATURE INSECTS IN STREAMS AND RIVER RIFFLES IN THE SHEARON HARRIS STUDY AREA, NORTH CAROLINA, APRIL 1972 - MARCH 197332 April July October January March (river)

Sampling Point TBO 71 TBO  % I TBO  % I TBO %I TBO  % I 1 1329 100 1355 91 351 100 10 100 2 675 100 229 82 234 10 263 92 3 22 50 389 95 248 71 327 84 4 3323 98 1074 82 1624 98 113 91 5 135 100 104 39 .533 16 340 0 6 297 100 1088 94 283 63 0 0-'S C>

7 1882 99 339 81 62 48 0 0 Average % Immature Insects (streams) 92 78 62 61 R-1 2075 88 5942 83 4113 88

• 540 83 R-2 3692 92 1182 78 2942 69

• 41 51 Average % Immature Insects (river) 90 81 79. 67 TBO - Total benthic organisms

% I - Percent immature insects

• - Due to high, swift water, sampling in the Cape Fear River was delayed until March 4

TABLE 2.22 TOTAL NUMBER OF BENTHIC ORGANISMS AND PERCENT IMMATURE INSECTS IN STREAM AND RIVER NORTH POOLS IN THE SHEARON HARRIS STUDY AREA, CAROLINA, APRIL 1972 - JANUARY 197332 April July October January Sampling Point TBO %I TBO TBO  % I TBO %I 1 2,263 100 20,878 95 7,482 89 817 58 2 2,174 96 6,432 25 1,161 52 3 2,617 98 13,560 78 1,161 37 2,496 3 4 1,021 100 10,330 89 1,290 93 86 100 5 88 100 31,685 74 7,376 10 5,939 15

• 0 6 221 100 9,039 88 3,784 32 1,376 91 7 443 90 1,291 23 129 129 33 Average % Immature Insects 98 67 52 50 R-1

• 5,639 3 4,558 6 I R-2

• 2,924 18 TBO - Total benthic organisms

% I - Percent immature insects

• - Due to high, swift water, no river pool samples were taken

• • - Lack of suitable substrateprecluded a pool sample in R-2.

la6z'ý'4- zvýA"!

2-42 TABLE 2.23 NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE RESO'RCES COMMISSION FISHERY SURVEY, WHITEOAK AND BUCKHORN CREEKS, AUGUST 196235 Per- Per-Total cent cent Total Wt Total Total Whiteoak Creek No. (grams) No. Wt Esox americanus - redfin pickerel 4 150 0.76 17.69 E. niger - chain pickerel 3 167 0.57 19.69 Chaenobryttus gulosus - warmouth 7 91 1.32 10.73 Enneacanthus g!oriosus - bluespotted sunfish 1 13 0.19 1.53 Lepomis auritus - redbreast sunfish 2 36 0.38 4.24 L. cyanellus - green sunfish 1 10 0.19 1.18 L. macrochirus - bluegill 8 51 1.51 6.01 Notropis alborus - whitemouth shiner 385 93. 72.78 10.97 N. procne - swallowtail shiner 36 10 6.81 1.18 Semotilus atromaculatus - creek chub 1 2 0.19 0.24 Erimyzon sucetta - lake chubsucker 1 136 0.19 16.04 Moxostoma robustum - smallfin redhorse 1 2 0.19 0.24 Noturus gyrinus - tadpole madtom 10 10 1.89 1.18 Anguilla rostrata - American eel 2 22 0.38 2.59 Aphredoderus sayanus - pirate perch 23 43 4.35 5.07 Etheostoma barratti - scalyhead darter 44 12 8.32 1.42 TOTAL 529 848 - -

Buckhorn Creek L. cyanellus - green sunfish 6 45 3.68 15.52 L. macrochirus - bluegill 3 10 1.84 3.45 Micropterus salmoides - largemouth bass 1 6 3.61 2.07 Clinostomus funduloides - rosyside dace 50 30 30.67 10.34 Hybopsis leptocephala - bluehead chub 63 64 38.65 22.07 Semotilus atromoculatus - creek chub 2 14 1.23 4.83 Noturus insignis - margined madtom 11 97 6.75 33.45 Etheostoma flabellare - fantail darter 27 24 16.56 8.28 TOTAL 163 290

2-43 TABLE 2.24 FISH COLLECTED IN THE BUCKHORN - WHITEOAK CREEK SYSTEM AND ADJACENT CAPE FEAR RIVER - 197232 Buckhorn - Whiteoak Drainage Cape Little Fear Buckhorn Cary Whiteoak Whiteoak Tom Jack Species River Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Lepisosteus osseus - Longnose gar WC Amia calva - Bowfin R iqiT5-rostrata " American eel 14C WC R Dorsoma cepemianum - Gizzard shad WC U Ao a iissima - American shad U Esox a. americanus - Redfin pickerel U U U U E. nijr7 - Chain pickerel R Clinostomus f. funduloides - Rosyside WC U U Cyprinus carpio - Carp U Nocomis lI. eDtocephalus - Bluehead chub - WC R NoemTg onus crysoleucas - Golden shiner - - R LC Notropisa. albeolus - White shiner - WC R R -

T6 us -Whitemouth shiner R U .U R -

N. amoenus - Comely shiner U U-N. a. analostanus - Satinfin shiner U U-N. c. cummingsae - Dusky shiner U WC LC WC N. hudsonius - Spottail shiner RR -R N. nius - Whitefin shiner R -

N. ýetersoni - Coastal shiner LC - R N. procne - Swallowtail shiner WC R R U N. scep-icus - Sandbar shiner R 'WC - -

N. mekistocholas - Cape Fear shiner R -

Semotilus atromaculatus - Creek chub R WC LC WC r1myzono. _ - Creek. chubsucker U U U R Moxos toma anisurum - Silver redhorse U M. m. macrolepidotum - Shorthead redhorse U - -

M. pappillosum - Suckermouth redhorse - R R -

M. robustum - Smallfin redhorse R -R Ictalurus brunneus - Snail bullhead WC R -

1. punctatus - Channel catfish U - -

Notuýri insignis - Margined madtom R R - -

Aphredoderus sayanus - Pirate perch - R U R U LC Fundulus rathbuni - Speckled killifish R R -

Gambusia affinis holbrooki - Mosquitofish LC -

Centrarchus macropterus - Flier - - LC pm uitus - Redbreast sunfish WC WC U U U -

L. cyanellus Green sunfish RR - - R L. gibbosus - Pumpkinseed P R - -

L. uL1su- Warmouth R - R C. macrochirus - Bluegill U WC - U WC L. microlophus - Redear sunfish - - R Micropterus salmoides - Largemouth bass U U R R -

Etheostoma olmstedi maculaticeps - Tessellated darter WC WC U -

E. serriferum - Sawcheek darter - R -

crassa -ergina Piedmont darter P U IJ R - R WC= widespread, common LC = local, common U = uncommon R = rare

2-44 Fishes considered important species in the Cape Fear include the American shad, chain pickerel, snail bullhead, channel catfish, redbreast sunfish, bluegill, and largemouth bass. 3 1 The snail bullhead is of greatest sport importance near the confluence of Buckhorn Creek and the Cape Fear River.

Centrarchids, the mainstay of most freshwater sport fisheries of the region are not abundant in the Buckhorn-Whiteoak drainage. Sport fishing is limited on the Cape Fear River from the Buckhorn Dam to about 13 miles downstream, near the town of Lillington, due to lack of access to the riverbank. Boat fishing in this section of the river is not practical because of the shallow depth and rough, uneven bottom. One of the few places accessible for bank fishing is immediately below Buckhorn Dam.

Apart from management practices that may be applied to Shearon Harris makeup reservoir if the maintainance of a desirable sport fishery is attempted, the seeding of the biota in this cooling lake will be from the Whiteoak-Buckhorn watershed, the Cape Fear River and other nearby surface waters. Forms that will be favored will be those that can adapt to the new lake environment.

2.9 RADIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS Preoperational background measurements have not been made by the applicant, however a nominal value of 145 mrem/yr has been established for background radiation levels for the state of North CarolinaP9

3-1

3. THE PLANT 3.1 EXTERNAL APPEARANCE Major plant structures will include four reactor containment buildings; two auxiliary buildings, each serving two units; two turbine buildings, each housing two turbine generators; one waste processing building; a diesel generator building; a service building; one common fuel-handling building; and four natural-draft cooling towers. Each of the contain-ment buildings will be a steel-lined reinforced-concrete structure in the form of a right circular cylinder capped with a hemispherical dome.

An artist's rendering of the proposed Harris plant is shown in Figure 3.1. The site plan is shown in Figure 3.2.

The applicant states that the containment and reactor auxiliary buildings will have a natural poured-concrete exterior finish while the fuel-handling building will have siding that will be compatible with the environment. The exposed steel areas of the turbine building will be painted a color to harmonize with the buildings.

3.2 REACTOR AND STEAM-ELECTRIC SYSTEM The nuclear power units will consist of four identical pressurized water reactors which will produce steam at about 900 psig for use in four steam driven turbine-generators. Ebasco Services, Inc. has been retained by Carolina Power & Light Company to provide engineering services for the Shearon Harris project. The nuclear steam supply systems used in the plant will be provided by the Westinghouse Electric Corporation and will be similar to those used in other pressurized water reactor nuclear power plants in the United States. The total design power rating for the four units is 11,600 MWt with a net electrical power output of 3600 MW.

3.3 HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEMS The thermodynamic process by which steam-electric generating plants produce electricity yields large quantities of exhaust steam which must be condensed. The condensation process requires that heat be removed. This process occurs in the main condenser and the heat is removed by the circulating water system.

At the Shearon Harris Plant, the circulating water, after passing through the condensers, will be routed to four natural-draft cooling towers where the heat will be dissipated to the atmosphere.I These towers will have a diameter of about 430 ft at the base and will be approximately 480 ft high. Under normal operating conditions with the 3600 MWe capacity on line, a water flow rate of approximately

FIGURE 3.1 ARTIST'S RENDERING OF SHEARON HARRIS PLANT

• 1t ik MEt

.7

,2! . ", mS

• ~JILIUVMP Lil 0~

sL",

.It -. 0 K 3*

r7E~~r I 1.1

', FIGURE 3.2 SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SITE PLAN

/.

3-4 4300 cfs will be circulated. through the condensers. During normal full load operation, approximately 2.7 x 1010 Btu/hr of waste heat will be removed from the four units, and the resulting water temperature increase across the condensers will be about 28 0 F.

As shown in Figure 3.3, the applicant is planning to operate one makeup water reservoir and one auxiliary reservoir. During drought conditions,

'the streamflow in Buckhorn Creek and the Cape Fear River is not sufficient to provide makeup water to the cooling towers; a makeup water reservoir is thus necessary. The auxiliary reservoir is the preferred source for emergency cooling water.

The main reservoir will have a normal water surface elevation of 220 ft MSL (Mean Sea Level) and a surface area of about 4000 acres. Because of the inundation of several small tributaries, the niakeup reservoir will be irregularly shaped and will be about 8 miles long with a shoreline length of 74 miles. 1 The total storage volume in the makeup reser-,oir at Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) stage (elevation 239.1 ft MSL) will be approximately 175,000 acre-ft. At normal stage (elevation 220 ft MSL), the reservoir 2

volume will be about 73,000 acre-ft.

An earthen dam with a berm elevation of 260 ft MSL will impound the makeup reservoir. The maximum depth of the makeup reservoir at the dam will be about 50 ft. 3 The length of the dam will be about 1215 ft including the spillway.4 The auxiliary dam will also be an earth-fill structure and will be about 3900 ft long including the spillway. This dam will have a berm elevation of 260 ft MSL and will have a maximum height above the stream bed of about 50 ft. Under normal conditions, the auxiliary reservoir will have a water surface elevation of 250 ft MSL, a surface area of about 325 acres, and a storage volume of approximately 5 6 4400 acre-ft. '

Cooling tower makeup water will be withdrawn from the Thomas Creek arm of the makeup reservoir south of the plant through an intake structure as shown in Figure 3.4. Water will pass through traveling intake screens which will have a 3/8 in. mesh size. At design low water (204.4 ft MSL), the approach velocitq of water near the traveling screens is expected to be 0.5 fps or less. Blowdown of the cooling towers will be necessary to control dissolved solids in the closed-cycle cooling system. This heated effluent, about 15 cfs on the average, will be discharged to the central part of the makeup reservoir through two 14-in. diameter pipelines and submerged multiple-port diffusers as shown in Figures 3.3 and 3.5.9 Average water velocity

3-5 FIGURE 3.3 MAIN RESERVOIR MIXING AREA

FIGURE 3.4 EMERGENCY SERVICE WATER AND COOLING TOWER MAKEUP WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE

LPIPES ERED PORTS (TYP) 1EL VAR IES 1 '-6 (MýINI ORIG INAL GROUND FIGURE 3.5 SUBMERGED MILTIPORT BLOWDOWN DIFFUSER, PRELIMINARY DESIGN

3-8 through the pipe will be about 7 fps and will be about 6 fps through the diffuser ports. Water will be lost from the makeup reservoir by forced evaporation from the cooling towers, natural evaporation from the lake surfaces, and seepage. Insufficiency of natural makeup (precipitation and run-off) will have to be replaced by pumping from the Cape Fear River to the makeup reservoir. Water will be with-drawn from the river through an intake structure shown in Figure 3.6.

Vertical traveling intake screens that have a 3/8 in. mesh will be provided. At design low water (the crest of Buckhorn dam-158.15 MSL),

the approach velocity of water near the traveling screens will be 0.5 fps or less.

If the cooling towers and associated components are not available, the preferred emergency cooling water source will be the auxiliary reservoir.

However, in the. event of accidental water loss from the auxiliary reservoir, the main reservoir will serve as the backup heat sink for plant shutdown and cooldown. 1 0 The auxiliary reservoir will be completely isolated from the main reservoir under normal operation as indicated in Figure 3.3.

Creek inflows above the auxiliary dam, augmented by pumping from the main reservoir, will maintain a minimum auxiliary reservoir water surface elevation of 250 ft MSL. The auxiliary reservoir has been designed with capacity adequate to permit simultaneous emergency shutdown and cooldown of the four units. During such an emergency, the auxiliary reservoir would act like a cooling reservoir in that the emergency cooling water would circulate through the auxiliary reservoir and transfer heat from the surface to the atmosphere.

3.4 RADIOACTIVE WASTE SYSTEMS During the operation of Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, radioactive materials will be produced by fission and by neutron activation reaction of metals and materials in the reactor coolant systems. Small amounts of gaseous and liquid radioactive wastes will enter the effluent streams, which will be monitored and processed within the plant to minimize the radioactive nuclides released to the atmosphere and into the cooling lake at low concentrations under controlled conditions.

The levels of radioactivity that may be released during operation of the plant will be in accordance with the Commission's regulations as set forth in i0 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 50.

The waste handling and treatment systems to be installed at the plant are discussed in the applicant's Preliminary Safety Analysis Report and Amendments, and in the applicant's Environmental Report and its Appendix, Supplements, and Amendments.

l FIGURE 3.6 CAPE FEAR INTAKE STRUCTURE

3-10 In these references, the applicant has prepared an analysis of his treatment systems and has estimated the annual effluents. The follow-ing analysis is based on the staff model, adjusted to apply to this plant, and uses somewhat different operating conditons. The staff's calculated effluents are, therefore, different from the applicant's; however, the model used results from a review of available data from operating power plants.

The Shearon Harris Power Plant will have two identical waste process-ing systems, each of which will handle the wastes from two identical reactors.

The staff has concluded that the liquid, gaseous, and solid radwaste systems are acceptable; the evaluation is presented below.

3.4.1 Liquid Radwaste The liquid radioactive waste system will consist of the process equip-ment and the instrumentation necessary to collect, process, monitor, store, and dispose of radioactive liquid wastes. Treated wastes will be handled oi. a batch basis as required to permit optimum control and release of radioactive waste. Prior to release of any treated liquid wastes, samples will be analyzed to determine the type and amount of radioactivity in a batch. Based on the analysis, these wastes either will be released under controlled conditions via the circulating water discharge system or retained for further processing. Radiation moni-toring equipment will automatically terminate liquid waste discharge if radiation levels are above a predetermined level in the discharge line.

The liquid waste treatment system is divided into three main parts:

the boron recycle system (BRS) which includes a boron thermal regen-eration system for turbine load-follow operation, Waste Channel A which will collect all aerated wastes from equipment leaks and drains, and Waste Channel B which will collect and process floor drains, equipment drains containing non-reactor grade water and liquid waste from the laundry and hot showers. A schematic of the system is shown in Figure 3.7. A list of assumptions used in evaluating the system is given in Table 3.2 and 3.3. Releases estimated by the staff are given in Table 3.1.

The boron recycle system is an integral part of the chemical and volume control system (CVCS) and will be used to control the reactivity of the core by changing the concentration of boron in the reactor coolant.

The CVCS will provide a bleed-and-feed stream of approximately 60 gpm

/UIT TURBINE_

2 REACTORS STEAM GENERATORS SECONDARY COOLANT LOOP(3 UNT CONDENSER PRIMARY COOLANT LOOP (3/UNIT)

FA. '900 MW( (3/UNIT)

EL BORON THERMALESSTE SYSTEM i [BLOWDOWN CHEMICAL AND VOLUME ATPORATOR E V EM CONTROL SYSTEM - U-RIFICATION

{*IDMINERALIZERS I I/UNlTO W OLU-E CONTRO L GAS O.fASTE SYSTEM -* M"AKrE-UP BORON RECYCLE SYSTEM U TTANK WAT .

' 1PROCESSINGL "lSYSTEM /

COMMO TOTH GUNIT'S- 1,14I"IUNI ___ __

WA T WAST To CEVHANNEL RTCADNNHFEED DE510E'nA ZIE-

{DEMINERALIZERS ETEM A CONDENSATE FILTER pI) ,

(2) J EVAPORATOR

" "1 .'* PACKAGEI "'

DEAERATED WASTES: L ( 2)

• 4%/BORICI EQIMN RIE+ ALLEKFFS RECYCLE I I s qS(pr I---CONCENTRATESI -1/4'ACIDTlANK i----l EUPMENSO FILTERS() ()HOLDUP )

REACTOR COOLANT DRAIN TANKS (PATANK E2) 3E0N0 gaALlER 284000* 5ol o

- TO WASTE GAS SYSTEM

• X)ING AERATED WASTES: "t I

)WEIRS

• '* +l WSTE AT l CONDENSATE I REACTOR COOLANT DRAIN TANKS EQUIPMENT DRAIN HEADER

-- OLUP L

TANK,,I'I ]/EVAPORATOR PACKAGE M ,, J .ICONDENSATE DEMINER=AL'ZERFI,....

LZ TANKS (2)

--- L,.)

125-000li1 15 ,pr, _ T,Io 1000 . to...

. I,-.

CHANNEL 8:

AUXILLARY BLDG SUMPS FLOOR I "

FLOOR DRAIN HEADER DRAIN OSMOSIS WASTE TANK WASTE MONITOR DEMINERALIZER -TANKS(12)

LOW ACTIVITY LAB DRAIN -TANK 2,.II,9,.

2)f-7U N2u'!.U 25,00 QI 0 &a

-1 6 I

CONTAINMENT SUMPS LAUNDRY a HOT SHOWER DRAINS SHOWER DRAIN UNIT DEOSMOSIS MINERALIZER a HOT SHOWER

.ONE LAUNDRY SYSTEM FOR 4 UNITS) TANK(2) 5 gp- WATER STORAGE TANK 25,000 gal tA TER0 I FO DR IT TANKDISHAR GE ALL FLUSHABLE CEMINERALIZER SPN-RSN TRAEDRUMMING J- *SOLID LSTORAGE WASTEAND C/ ,,.STRUCTURE STRUCTURE .

DISPOSAL **~HARR IS LA K E-'-*--.---.

......... .INCONCENTRATETANK BOTTOMS FROM WASTE EvPORATORS (I)

LEGEND ECO 5000 gol FLOW D RPRINCIPAL

... NGUENCY FLOW RCONTI FIGURE 3.7 LIQUID AND SOLID RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM

3-12 TABLE 3.1 ESTIMATED ANNUAL RELEASE OF RADIOACTIVE LIQUID WASTE FROM SHEARON HARRIS PLANT, UNITS 1-4 Ci/yr/unit Ci/yr/unit Cr 51 2 x 10-5 Te 129m 3 x 10-5 Mn 56 3 x 10-5 Te 129 2 x1 Fe 55 2 x 10-5 1 130 1 x 10-4 Fe 59 1 x 10-5 Te 131m 2 x 10-5 Co 58 2.1 x 10-4 I 131 4.9 x 10-2.

Co 60 3 x 10 Te 132 4.0 x 10-4 W 187 3 x 10-5 1 132 1.3 x 10 Br 82 2 x 10-5 1 133 2.9 x 10-2 Br 83 2 x 10-5 Cs 134 5.9x 10 Y 91 1 x 10-4 1 135 4.6 x 10-3 Mo 99 2 x 10-5 Cs 136 9.2 x 10-4 Tc 99m 2 x 10-5 Cs 137 4.4 x i0 4.2 x 10 -3 Ba 137m Total (excluding tritium) 0.1 Ci/yr/unit Tritium 350 Ci/yr/unit Note: Radionuclides less than 5 x 10-6 Ci/yr have not been listed.

3-13 TABLE 3.2 ASSUMPTIONS USED IN CALCULATING RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENTS FROM SHEARON HARRIS PLANT, UNITS 1-4 Reactor Thermal Power, 2900 MWt Plant Factor, 0.80 (292 full power days/yr)

Total Steam Flow, 11,830,000 lb/hr Number of Steam Generators, 3 Steam Generator Blowdown Rate, 7100 lb/hr Failed Fuel, 0.25%. This value is constant and corresponds to 0.25% of the operating power equilibrium fission product source term.

Primary Coolant Letdown Flow, 60 gpm Primary Coolant Shim Bleed, yearly average, 1.44 gpm Shim Bleed Gas Decay Time, 90 days Containment Volume, 2.5 million ft3 Containment Purge, 4 times/yr Leaks Turbine Building, steam leak, 1700 lb/hr Containment, 40 gal/day Turbine Building, condensate leak, 5 gpm Auxiliary Building, 20 gal/day Primary-to-Secondary Coolant, 20 gal/day Partition Coefficients for Iodine (Gas/Liquid)

Steam Generator Internal Partition, 0.01 Turbine Steam Leak, 1.0 Condenser Vacuum System, 0.0005 Primary Coolant Leakage to Containment, 0.1 Primary Coolant Leakage to Auxiliary Building, (average) 0.005 Decontamination Factors for Iodine Condenser Vacuum System, 100 for 2 charcoal adsorbers in series Containment Purge, 10 for charcoal adsorbers Auxiliary Building Exhaust, 10 for charcoal adsorbers Containment Airborne Radioactive Removal System, 50 for two 10,000 cfm charcoal adsorbers operated 16 hr prior to purge Dilution Flow Rate for Liquid Effluents, 7,000 gpm total for 4 units

TABLE 3.3 WASTE PROCESSING ASSUMPTIONS FOR SHEARON HARRIS PLANT, UNITS 1-4 (One of Two Identical Waste Systems, Each Serving Two Reactors)

Fraction of Waste Primary Days of Decay Fraction Volume Coolant Durinp of Volume Decontamination Factors for Individual Nuclides Type of Waste q Activity Collection Processing Discharged Process Step I Rb - Cs Mo - Tc Y Others Boron Recycle System Shim-bleed, Equipment 4.620 1.0 15 19 0.1 Demineralizer (mixed 100 2 1 1 100 Drains and Leakoffs bed)

Recycle Evaporator 100 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Anion Polishing Demineralizer 10 I 1 Plateout in System 100 10 Overall Factors 100.000 2,060 100,000 10,000 100.1000 Waste Channel A Equipment Drains, 400 0.01 25 0.1 Waste Evaporator 1,000 10,000 10,000 lO,00 10,000 Leakoff and Sump Polishing Demineral-Leakage. izer (mixed bed) 10 10

• I 1 I0 H Plateout in System I I 100 10 1 Overall Factors 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 100,000 100,000 Waste Channel B Floor Drain Waste 1,600 0.083 12 9 1.0 Reverse Osmosis 30 30 30 30 30 0 0..1 Evaporator 1,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Blowdown 40,800 Polishing Demineral-10 I izer (mixed bed) 10 10 Plateout 1 3 i00 10 Overall Factors 30)0,000 3,000,000 30,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 Plateout in System 1 1 100 10 I Evaporator 1,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 I0,000 Polishing Demineral-izer (mixed bed) 10" 10 I 1 10 Overall Factors 10,000 100,000 1,000.000 100,000 100,000

3-15 which will continuously pass through one of two mixed bed and intermit-tently through a single cation bed purification demineralizer where ionic impurities will be removed from the reactor coolant. For load-following operation the letdown flow will be routed through the boron thermal regeneration system. This system contains boron-saturated ion-exchange resins whose difference in capacity between the operating temperatures of 50° and 1400 provides the boron increment for control of load-follow transients. This system provides a considerable reduc-tion in the amount of primary coolant which would otherwise be processed by the recycle evaporator. Dilution of boron to compensate for fuel burnup during normal (base-load) operation will be accomplished by diverting a small fraction of the CVCS stream to the BRS via the recycle evaporator feed filters, demineralizers, and recycle holdup tanks. The liquid will be stored in the recycle holdup tanks (84,000 gal, 1/unit) until a sufficient volume has accumulated for efficient operation of the recycle evaporator. The deaerated equip-ment drains and valve leakoffs are also routed to the recycle holdup tank. The reactor coolant drain tank is normally routed to the recycle holdup tank but may be routed to the waste holdup tank. The gross activity of these liquids will be reduced significantly by decay of radionuclides during storage.

The recycle holdup tank liquid may normally be sent either to the boron recycle evaporator after passing through a gas stripper where radio-active gases and other non-condensables will be discharged into the waste gas system, or may be routed to Waste Channel A. The recovered boric acid, and the condensate (further purified by passing through an anion exchanger), may then be stored for reuse in the CVCS. The staff assumed that 240 gpd per unit of deaerated drain and leakoff water, and 2070 gpd per unit of shim bleed for boron control will be processed through the BRS. Of this stream, 90% will be recycled and 10% released.

The staff estimates that less than 0.01 Ci/yr/unit will be released from this source.

Waste Channel A will collect reactor grade water in the waste holdup tank (25,000 gal, one for 2 units) and process the wastes through a filter, a 15 gpm evaporator, and a mixed bed demineralizer. The purified water will be returned to the CVCS for reuse via the waste evaporator condensate tanks (10,000 gal, I/unit) or released. The staff assumed that 200 gpd per unit will be processed and that 90% will be reused and 10% released.

Bottoms of the waste evaporator will be routed to the waste evaporator concentrate tank (5,000 gal, one for 2 units) to be drummed, or if radio-activity and chemical content permit, returned to the boric acid tanks for reuse. The staff estimates that less than 0.01 Ci/yr/unit will be released from this source.

3-16 Waste Channel B consisting of the floor drain subsystem and laundry and hot shower drain subsystems will collect and process non-reactor grade water wastes including floor drains, sink drains, and laundry and hot.

shower drains. The floor drain tank (25,000 gal, two for 2 units) wastes may be processed through the reverse osmosis unit and the waste tank demineralizer before entering the waste monitor tanks (25,000 gal, two for 2 units) and discharged after monitoring or sent to one of the waste evaporators for processing. The staff assumed 800 gpd per unit will be processed by the reverse osmosis unit, waste evaporator, and the waste tank demineralizer, analyzed, and 100% discharged. The staff estimates that less than 0.01 Ci/yr/unit will be released from this source.

Low activity waste originating from laundry and hot shower drain will be collected in the laundry and hot shower tank (25,000 gal, two for 4 units). There will be one laundry and hot shower drain system for the four units. The wastes may be processed by filtration, the laundry system's reverse osmosis unit, and the demineralizer, before entering the laundry and hot shower water storage tank (25,000 gal, one for 4 units). The tank will be analyzed and discharged or sent to the floor drain system for additional treatment. The radioactivity released from the laundry wastes are expected to be negligible.

The chemical drain tank (600 gal, one for 2 units) will receive labora-tory wastes consisting of samples taken from various parts 6f the plant. These are likely to contain high activity as well as chemicals used for laboratory analysis and will be sent to the waste solidification system and packaged as solid waste.

When the plant is operating with little or no primary-to-secondary leak, the blowdown water will enter a heat exchanger and be dis-charged. During plant operation with primary-to-secondary leak, the blowdown water will be processed by an evaporator and mixed bed demineralizer, and collected in the sample tanks. The liquid will then either be recycled, reprocessed, or discharged. The staff assumed a blowdown of 7100 lb/hr processed by evaporation and demineralizer, 90% of the distillate recycl.ed and 10% dis-charged. The staff estimates that less than 0.01 Ci/yr/unit will be released from this source.

Turbine building condensate leaks may be a source of untreated radioactive releases. The staff estimated a 5 gpm condensate leak in theturbine building which is included in the source term. The staff estimates that the release from this source will be approxi-mately 0.06 Ci/yr/unit and accepts this source without treatment.

3-17 The staff estimates that less than 0.1 Ci/yr/unit (excluding tritium) will be discharged to the cooling lake. To compensate for treatment equipment downtime and expected operational occur-rences, the values listed in Table 3.1 have been normalized to 0.1 Ci/yr/unit. The applicant has estimated 0.053 Ci/yr from the 4 units. Based on operating experience of other PWRs, the staff has estimated that tritium releases will be approximately 350 Ci/yr/unit. The applicant has estimated 508 Ci/yr for the 4 units.

The staff estimates that the whole body dose to individuals from the liquid effluents will be 12.6 mrem/yr (see Section 5.5). The applicant is, however, proposing to use state-of-the-art technology. The calculation model considers several dose pathways, and assumptions based on limited operating data. Even though the calculated dose exceeds the "as low as practicable" guidelines, the staff finds the calculated dose of 12.6 mrem/yr acceptable for this plant.

To assure that the actual dose will not exceed the "as low as practicable" guidelines, the applicant will be required to provide a monitoring program in the surrounding environs. This program will be delineated in the Technical Specifications and will relate to measuring liquid radioactive releases in the reservoir. Should the actual measured releases result in a calculated dose exceeding twice the design objective dose rate of 5 mrem/yr, averaged over any calendar quarter, the applicant will be required to make necessary modifications to the plant to reduce these releases so that the dose rates will be less than 5 mrem/yr as delineated in the Technical Specifications.

The staff concludes that the liquid radwaste system is acceptable and will be capable of processing effluents so as to meet the "as low as practicable" guidelines.

3.4.2 Gaseous Radwaste During power operation of the facilities, radioactive materials released to the atmosphere in gaseous effluents include fission product noble gases (krypton and xenon), halogens (mostly iodines),

tritium contained in water vapor, and particulate material includ-ing both fission products and activated corrosion products. The primary source of gaseous radioactive waste will be from the degassing of the primary coolant during letdown of the cooling water into the

3-18 various holding tanks. This is principally from the chemical and volume control system (CVCS) volume control tank, and the CVCS recycle evaporator and reactor coolant drain tanks. Additional sources of. gaseous waste activity include ventilation air released from the auxiliary buildings, waste processing building, and the open turbine buildings, venting of the condenser mechanical air ejectors, and purging of the reactor containment buildings. Gaseous waste processing and ventilation systems are shown in Figure 3.8 and thereleases estimated by the staff are listed in Table 3.4.

Most of the gaseous radioactivity received by the gaseous waste processing system will be from the degassing of the primary coolant during letdown of the cooling water into the CVCS volume control tanks and from the CVCS recycle evaporators. These gases (mostly hydrogen with small amounts of entrained noble fission gases) will enter a circulating nitrogen stream. The resulting mixture of nitrogen-hydrogen-fission gas will be pumped by one of two compressors to one of two hydrogen-oxygen recombiners. Enough oxygen is added in the recombiner to form water vapor. The water vapor will be removed by a moisture separator. The resulting gaseous stream (consisting mostly of nitrogen with small amounts of the noble fission gases) will be circulated through one of eight gas storage tanks and back to the compressor suction to form a circulating loop and thus no gaseous radwasces need to be released to the environment. By alternating use of the storage tanks, the accumulated activity will be contained in eight approximately equal parts.

During cold shutdowns, when the residual fission gases and the hydrogen contained in the reactor coolant must be removed, the gaseous waste processing system will be operated in the normal manner until the coolant fission gas concentration is reduced to the desired level.

Then hydrogen addition to the volume control tank will be stopped, and most of the remaining hydrogen in the primary coolant will be stripped by maintaining a nitrogen atmosphere in the volume control tank. Also at this time, the operating gas storage tank will be valved off and one of two storage tanks reserved for shutdown use will be placed in service between the compressor discharge and the H2 -0 2 recombiner. The circulating gas leaving the moisture separator will return to the compressor suction to complete the loop. After the first unit shutdowm, the gas in the shutdown tanks will be reused as the nitrogen cover gas in the volume control tank.

3-19 r - - - -- - - --~1 UPEN IURBINE BUILUING TO ATMOSPHERE MECHANICAL AIR EJECTORS

• L.

EACHUN P - PREFFLTER A-HIGH-EFFICIENCY PARTICULATE FILTER C-CHARCOAL ADSORBER

-NORMAL FLOW

--- SHUT DOWN OPERATION Ll i (8) STORAGE TANKS-600ft, CVCS VOLUME CONTROL TANK CVCS RECYCLE EVAPORATOR REACTOR COOLANT DRAIN TANKS L-b m"" COMBINER S"EPARATOR COMPRESSORSI. _

I -- --- > SHUT DOWN

-120 ft L

LOr1 0 1".I TANKS ABOVE GROUND 600 1tO-EACH GASEOUS WASTE PROCESSING SYSTEM (ONE FOR EACH TWO UNITS)

P

- BLOWER i 20000 45,000 cfm VENT STACK CONTAINMENT EACH UNIT (EACH UNIT)

AUXILIARY BUILDING (ONE FOR EACH TWO UNITS)

BLOWERS WASTE PROCESSING PA C PE BUILDING -P A C BLOWERS (ONE FOR FOUR UNITS) 3.8 GASEOUS WASTE PROCESSING AND VENTILATION SYSTEM

Table 3.4 Estimated Annual Release of Radioactive Gases from One Unit of Shearon Harris Plant (Ci/yr/unit)

Auxiliary Containment Turbine Gas Processing System Condenser Vacuum Isotope Bldg. Purge Building Degassification System Total (90 days decav) 2 1 3 85m,,r 8 8 16 85 mKr 6 13 770 6 795 87 8 Kr 4 4 88 14 14 28 Kr W

7 2 4 7 20 11Xe 15 1.0 15 30 133 mXe 1150 190 2 I 1160 2500 I 1 2 1

135mx 23 23 46 15Xe 137 1 i 2 Xe 138 3 3.0 6 Xe 131i 0.0076 0.00079 0.033 0.0011 0.043 133~ 0.01 0.00058 0.022 0.00072 0.033 i

3-21 The gaseous waste processing system has been designed to hold up gases from the volume control tank, recycle evaporator, and reactor coolant drain tanks for the lifetime of the plant. The staff estimate of releases has used a 90-day release period. The staff estimates that approximately 770 Ci/yr/unit of noble gases and negligible amounts of iodines will be released from this source.

The ventilation systems for the auxiliary buildings (one for 2 units),

and waste processing building (one for 4 units) have been designed to insure that air flow is from areas of low potential to areas having a greater potential for the release of airborne radioactivity. The exhausts from the auxiliary buildings and waste processing buildings will be processed by prefilters, HEPA filters, and charcoal adsorbers.

The staff estimates that about 1200 Ci/yr/unit of noble gases and 0.008 Ci/yr/unit of 1-131 will be released from this source. Because of the open turbine buildings, steam system leakage which may occur in the turbines and/or ancillary equipment will be released directly to the atmosphere without treatment. The staff estimates that about 2 Ci/yr/unit of noble gases and 0.033 Ci/yr/unit of 1-131 will be released from this source.

Off-gas from the condenser air ejectors will be processed through a chiller/condenser and two charcoal adsorbers in series and released to the atmosphere. The staff estimates that approximately 1200 Ci/yr/unit of noble gases and 0.001 Ci/yr/unit of 1-131 will be released from this source.

The blowdown rate may be increased to 37.5 gpm if needed to control the iodine concentrations in the secondary system and reduce the effluents from the turbine building and main condenser air ejector exhaust. This would reduce the total iodine source term by a factor of two.

Radioactive gases may be released inside the reactor containment building when components of the primary system are opened to the building atmosphere or when leaks occur in the primary system. The reactor containment atmosphere can be purged through prefilters, HEPA filters, and charcoal adsorbers and discharged to the unit vent.

Prior to purging, the containment airborne radioactive removal system (2 units at 10,000 cfm each) can reduce the iodine and particulate activity by recirculating the containment atmosphere through prefilters, HEPA filters, and charcoal adsorbers. The staff estimate of releases from the containment purge assumes a 16-hr operation of the airborne radioactive removal system before purging. The staff estimates that approximately 200 Ci/yr/unit of noble gases and 0.001 Ci/yr/unit of 1-131 will be released from this source.

3-22 The staff estimates that approximately 3500 Ci/yr/unit of noble gases and 0.043 Ci/yr/unit of 1-131 will be released from Shearon Harris.

The applicant estimates 6,300 Ci/yr of noble gases and 0.026 Ci/yr of 1-131 will be released from the four units.

The staff estimates the whole body dose to individuals at the site boundary from the noble gases to be less than 10 mrem/yr and the calculated dose to a child's thyroid through the pasture-cow-milk chain where a cow could be located to be 28 mrem/yr. The applicant is, however, proposing to use state-of-the-art technology to reduce iodine releases. The model used to calculate the estimated iodine releases from the plant include limited available operating data which are scant and contain a large number of uncertainties. In addition, staff assumptions on average meteorology, deposition, plate-out and partition factors for iodine, and species of iodine released may yield an overly conservative value. Even though the calculated thyroid dose to a child through the pasture-cow-milk path appears to exceed the "as low as practicable" guidelines, the staff finds the calculated dose acceptable for this plant because the results are based on the uncertainties in operating data and the built-in inherent conservatism used in the calculations.

To assure that the actual dose will not exceed the "as low as practicable" guidelines, the applicant will be required to provide an extensive monitoring program in the surrounding environs. This program will be delineated in the Technical Specifications and will relate to measuring the iodine releases from the plant. If, on the basis of the applicant's post-operational monitoring program, a thyroid dose in excess of 7.5 mrem/quarter is calculated, the applicant will be required to make the necessary modifications to the plant to reduce these releases as delineated in the Technical Specifications.

The staff concludes that the gaseous radwaste system is acceptable and will be capable of processing effluents so as to meet the "as low as practicable" guidelines.

3.4.3 Solid Radioactive Wastes Each waste system, serving two reactors, will have a separate, identical solid waste handling facility,. The system will be designed to collect, monitor, process, package, and provide temporary storage for radioactive solid wastes prior to offsite shipment and disposal in accordance with applicable regulations. Solid wastes are grouped under two categories.

3-23 Wet solid wastes will consist primarily of spent demineralizer resins, evaporator bottoms (concentrates), chemical wastes, and filter sludges.

These wastes will be dewatered or solidified and packaged in 55-gallon steel drums or other containers that meet the requirement under Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The containers will be filled and sealed securely by remote control, and will be shipped in accordance with AEC and Department of Transportation regulations.

Dry solid wastes consisting of air filters, contaminated rags, paper, gloves, and protective clothing from contaminated areas will be com-pacted into 55-gallon drums by a hydraulic baling machine. Irradiated reactor components, such as spent control blades, fuel channels, in-core chambers, and large pieces of equipment, will be stored in the spent fuel storage pool for sufficient radioactive decay before removal to in-plant or offsite storage.

The staff estimates that approximately 250 drums of spent resins, filter sludges and evaporator bottoms at approximately 20 curies per drum and 600 drums of dry and compacted waste at less than 5 curies per drum will be shipped offsite each year from each unit.

The staff concludes that the solid radwaste system will be able to package and store radioactive wastes according to existing regulations and that the system will allow handling of the wastes so that doses to operators of the system will be in accord with existing regulations.

The system is, therefore, acceptable.

3.5 CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE SYSTEMS Waste water produced by the Shearon Harris Plant will be discharged to the make-up reservoir together with the cooling water blowdown. Annual discharges of chemical wastes from the plant, as estimated by the applicant, are listed in Table 3.5. As a result of evaporation from the reservoir, dissolved matter in the water will concentrate over a period of time.

The concentration of these materials dissolved in the water would reach a steady state providing the input and output of the reservoir remained constant. At constant flow rates indicated by the staff in Table 5.1 and assuming that all units start operation at the same time and that no chemicals are removed by chemical or biological means, the concentrate would reach about 95% of the steady state value in 15 yr.

In reality, the input and output will not be constant; therefore, the eventual concentration will fluctuate around an average value that would be near to a steady-state level computed from average input and output values.

TABLE 3.5 CHEMICAL WASTE DISCHARGE ESTIMATES(a)

Volume Chemical Quant tity Effluent (b)

Water Type Source (Gals/yr) Content (Lbs) /yr) Concentration Reactor Coolant CVCS 240,000 Boric Acid 2x10

-3 ixlO -3 ppm Non-recoverable Chromate, 5

Water WPS 204,000 Dirt, Detergent 5x1O- ppm Detergent Waste WPS 480,000 Dirt, Detergent 40 10 ppm Secondary Wastes LO bO 6

Blowdown Steam General tor tor 2.6x10 Hydrazine %0.4 0.02 ppm Ammonia "'10 0.5-1.0 Morpholine %200 4-40 Phosphate %200 10-40 Drains Turbine Bldg. 250,000 Oil, Dirt, 20 10 ppm Regeneration Makeup Water Solution (Neut) Treatment System 8x10 7 Sulfate Salts 8x106 12,330 ppm Backwash Water Pretreatment 7 Plant Filters 2.74x10 Particulates 1000 .5 ppm Sludge Blowdown Pretreatment 5 Plant Coagulators 438,000 Lime, Alum 4x10 100,000 ppm (a) Chemical cleaning solutions are not considered in this listing since this cleaning is a one-time occurence.

(b) Released to the circulating water.

3-25 A discussion of the various waste streams and the anticipated concen-trations of the waste constituents in the reservoir is presented below.

3.5.1 Reactor Coolant Chemicals Boric acid is added to the primary coolant as a shim control measure for reactor operation. Processing of the primary coolant in the chemical volume control system for recovery of most of the boric acid produces a dilute boric acid waste that will be discharged at times to the circulating water. The estimated daily discharge of boric acid is 2 x 10-3 lb and the estimated steady state concentration of boron from this source in the reservoir is 8 x 10-9 mg/liter.

3.5.2 Secondary System Wastes The discharge of steam generator blowdown and condensate and feedwater drainage will release small quantities of hydrazine, ammonia, morpholine and phosphate to the reservoir. These chemicals are used in the secondary system for water quality and corrosion control. The estimated annual discharges of hydrazine, ammonia, morpholine and phosphate are approximately 0.4, 10, 200 and 200 lb/yr, respectively. The estimated average steady-state concentrations in the reservoir would be 1 x 10-5, 2 x 10-4, 5 x 10-3 and 5 x 10- 3 mg/liter, respectively; however, it is anticipated that chemical and/or biological action would reduce the actual amounts dissolved in the water from these sources.

Floor drains in the turbine building and other areas where oil leaks might be expected will discharge to an oil trap and catch basin. There the oil and water will be separated and the water discharged to the circulating water system. Periodically, the oil will be removed from the trap for disposal.

3.5.3 Water Treatment Wastes Water treatment wastes consist of demineralizer regenerant waste, filter backwash and sludge blowdown from the pretreatment plant coagulators.

Demineralizer regenerant waste cntributes the largest fraction of the total dissolved salts discharged from the plant to the reservoir. The estimated average daily discharge of sulfate salts, largely sodium sulfate, is about 23,000 lb. The estimated steady-state concentration in the reservoir from this source would be about 200 mg/liter. This concentration would be added to that naturally present in the reservoir water. The total dissolved solids (TDS)

3-26 naturally present in the water under steady-state conditions will be approximately 360 mg/liter based on a concentration of 70 mg/liter TDS concentrated by a factor of 5.1. The estimated steady-state TDS in the reservoir from both natural and plant sources would be about 560 mg/liter.

3.5.4 Condenser Cooling System Output Circulating water in the cooling tower systems will be periodically chlorinated to control the growth of slime and algae in these systems.

It is anticipated that chlorination will be required for one thirty-minute period per day except during the summer when two thirty-minute periods per day may be required. During the period of chlorination, the blowdown from the cooling tower system will be terminated and the system will be operated with a chlorine residual of no more than 0.5 ppm. Upon termination of chlorination, blowdown from the system will resume. The chlorinated blowdown will be blended with unchlorinated blowdown from the other three systems to reduce the chlorine residual by dilution and by reaction with chlorine demand constituents of the dilution water. The expected chlorine demand will range from 2 to 5 ppm, and an estimated average of two tons of chlorine will be required per day to control fouling. The applicant states that free chlorine residuals in the blowdown to the lake will be limited to concentrations that will meet applicable water quality standards.

Sulfuric acid will be added to the circulating water of the cooling tower systems to control scaling. An estimated 3 tons/day of 660 Be sulfuric acid will be used in each system for a total of 12 tons/day for all four systems. Based on an average blowdown of 15 cfs, this quantity of sulfuric acid will increase the sulfate concentration of the blowdown by 290 mg/liter. The maximum steady-state sulfate con-centration which might be attained in the reservoir from all sources is estimated to be 490 mg/liter; however, this value will undoubtedly be decreased through loss of sulfate by precipitation and through the flushing actions of excessive water inflow.

3.6 SANITARY AND OTHER WASTE SYSTEMS 3.6.1 Sanitary Wastes The domestic waste water treatment system for the plant will be designed to achieve a tertiary level of treatment. The system will consist of an extended aeration aerobic digestion plant, chemical coagulation, granular filtration and a chlorine contact chamber. The effluent will be returned to the main reservoir. Although the system has not been fully designed, it will function as described below.

i

3-27 The plant domestic waste water will enter the extended aeration plant, in which solids will be retained for a sufficient time to undergo aerobic digestion. The effluent will then pass to the chemical contact tank, where coagulants will be added to further remove solids and nutri-ents. The effluent from the chemical tank will be filtered and then treated with chlorine before it is discharged to the reservoir. Sludge will be removed at regular intervals for disposal. Neither the size of the system nor sludge disposal practice has been determined by the applicant at this time. Assuming operation of the system as described, no ad'erse impact of the effluent upon recreational uses of the reservoir is anticipated by the staff.

3.6.2 Other Wastes Chemical combustion products will be released to the atmosphere as a result of the operation of auxiliary boilers and the occasional testing of emergency generators. These releases will be made in compliance with applicable air quality regulations.

The Shearon Harris Plant will employ six diesel engines for emergency use. Each will be rated at 4500 kW-5500 kW and will use No. 2 diesel oil. While these diesels have not yet been purchased and the exact operating characteristics are not known, the following characteristics are considered typical: 1) combustion efficiency at full load is about 96.5%; 2) fuel consumption is about 1900-2000 lb/hr; 3) air intake is three cfm per rated horsepower; 4) average exhaust temperature in exhaust manifold is about 752 0 F. The No. 2 diesel fuel oil has a maximum allowable ash content of 0.02% and a limiting sulfur content, according to ASME Classification of Diesel Fuel Oils, of 0.7% by weight.

The expected annual total use ir all six diesels is approximately 312 full load hours. This is based upon the fact that no more than two engines will be tested simultaneously, once a week. Therefore, two engines will be operating simultaneously on an intermittent basis for a total of 156 hr/yr.

Based on these operating characteristics the estimated annual emissions are as follows:

tons/yr Particulates 5 SO 2 CO2 2 1000 C8 9

x

3-28 3.7 TRANSMISSION FACILITIES The location selected for the Shearon Harris Plant is between three of Carolina Power & Light Company's largest load centers: the Raleigh-Wake County area, the Dunn-Clinton-Cumberland County area and the Sanford-Southern Pines-Rockingham area. The power generated at the Shearon Harris Plant will be distributed to these areas using six 230 kV lines and two 500 kV lines. Both 500 kV lines will be placed on new 180-ft wide rights-of-way (about 120 ft of which will be cleared).. One of these proceeds from the Shearon Harris Plant about 85 miles southwest to a substation in the vicinity of Hamlet and the other proceeds east about 38 miles to a substation a few miles east of Raleigh. For the most part the 230 kV lines follow existing rights-of-way to substations near Asheboro, Fayetteville, West Raleigh and Erwin. The total acreage assigned to the additional right-of-way is expected to be 3672 acres.

The applicant notes that about 2700 acres of new rights-of-way (including the 500 kV lines) would be required by the late 1970's with or without the Shearon Harris Plant. The exact routing of the new lines has not been decided, however bands of land a few miles wide are under study for line placement.

Concerning its efforts to avoid electrical interference effects between 11 transmission lines and communication systems, the applicant has stated:

"Carolina Power & Light Company's standard practice is to obtain a crossing permit from any railroad crossed by a transmission line. Permits for all railroad crossings for the lines out of the Shearon Harris Plant will be obtained before construction of the lines begins. Generally, the transmission lines will cross perpendicular to the railroads in order to minimize any possible interference between the railroad signal and communication circuits and the transmission line. If it is necessary to construct a 500 kV line parallel to a railroad, then adequate clearance will be provided between the railroad and transmission line to prevent any interference between the power line and communications circuit. If a complaint should arise concerning the integrity of railroad signals or communication circuits as a result of a transmission line in the vicinity, CP&L will make changes as required by the contracts between the railroad and CP&L."

Materials removed from rights-of-way will be harvested and sold if economically feasible. Other materials may be chopped and left for natural decomposition or piled. Burning is only infrequently used for disposal and would be performed in compliance with appropriate regulations.

3-29 Carolina Power & Light Company's standard overhead 230 kV construction consists of wood H-frame structures. This type of construction has proven to be very reliable on the Carolina Power & Light system. If a permanent fault should occur, however, replacement parts are readily available and the outage time would generally be between 1 and 24 hr.

For 500 kV lines wood is not a feasible structural material due to the increased structural size and loadings and size required for electrical clearances. Therefore, the company has adopted steel lattice type towers as standard structures for 500 kV construction. This type of construction provides a high degree of reliability and also requires a minimum repair time in the event of a permanent fault.

In addition to abiding by the Federal Power Commission's Order No. 414, "Guidelines for the Protection of Natural, Historic, Scenic and Recrea-tional Values;" Order No. 415, "Implementation of the National Environ-mental Act;" and the U.S. Department of Interior and Department of Agriculture Publication, "Environmental Criteria for Electrical Trans-mission .Jystems;" the applicant has committed himself to the following special considerations:

Wood structures will be treated with dark agents, producing a soft color which will blend into the vegetative background.

Reclearing and additional clearing is to be done only as necessary to construct and properly operate the lines and to minimize the impact of reconstructing the lines.

Any damage to underground drainage, culverts, drainage ditches and drains will be restored after construction so as not to impede existing surface and subsurface drainage patterns.

Strict and careful supervision of selective clearing will be followed. This will require use of competent personnel that in addition to knowledge of transmission line construction, are also knowledgeable about plant material, and who can designate the trees and other plant material to be removed.

In surveying the line route, engineering survey crews will be carefully instructed not to damage areas that have been planned for selective clearing.

In selectively cleared areas, all brush cuttings will be removed from the site and damaged plant material properly trimmed.

3-30 In the selectively cleared areas, proper and careful procedures will be established in order to insure that future maintenance operations do not destroy the original design concept.-

Shorelines of major streams will be left in their natural state with absolute minimum disturbance by construction operations.

Tree tops may be trimmed which would endanger line operations.

Selective clearing will be practiced a reasonable distance back from the top of stream embankments.

In the routes under consideration, some farms are crossed and agricultural activity can continue. Land which has been cleared for the transmission lines can be converted to agricultural use. The rights-of-way through the forest area will of necessity require clearing of the trees. Some land owners prefer to clear their land of useable trees before releasing for transmission line placement.

Forest fires in this region are a constant threat and can cause extensive damage to the forest and wildlife. The right-of-way provides a fire-break to help limit and confine forest fires to the immediate area. The right-of-way also provides a ready means of access for fire fighting equipment to more easily reach the fires in the area.

The applicant will continue to cooperate with state and local agencies, property owners and other individuals in creating recreational and wild-life opportunities along portions of the right-of-way. The applicant will also continue to prepare the land, in cooperation with the property owners for other uses such as pasture and agricultural uses. Maintenance of the rights-of-way will be accomplished by cutting and trimming. No use of herbicides is planned.

4-1

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION 4.1 SCHEDULES Schedule da tes as proposed by the applicant for various stages of con-struction of the Shearon Harris Plant are given in Table 4.1. No schedule for installation of transmission lines was yet available to the staff.

4.2 COMMUNITY During the construction period of about 7 years, a work force of about 3500 will be employed. It ispresumed that the town of Sanford (population 11,716) and the city of Raleigh (population 123,973) will supply craft workers and will accommodate housing of transient workers.

The ease with which local schools will be able to absorb additional students is not known. However, more than a year will have passed from the announcement time of the project to arrival of a significant number of workers. This lead time should permit planning for the needs of additional students. County taxes which will be paid by Carolina Power & Light and increased local payrolls as a result of the Shearon Harris project should compensate for temporary inconvenience brought about by the presence of the construction force.

The major highways in the area will be affected only slightly. Several local roads will necessarily be dead-ended near the site; however, no private property owners will be denied access to their property. A portion of the mainline of the Norfolk Southern Railroad will be relocated.

The effects of excavation, disposal of debris, dust, increased traffic, noise and heavy equipment hazards will be generally confined to the site and will have negligible impact on the surrounding communities.

4.3 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY The construction activities at the site will result in a permanent loss to biologic productivity from the 95 acres needed for buildings, cooling towers, roadways, sidewalks, etc. Another few acres will be severely, modified and biologic productivity will be replaced by ornamental plants and bared areas seeded to perennial cover to prevent soil erosion.

TABLE 4.1 ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE DATES FOR INITIATION OF KEY PLANT FEATURES Unit No. 1 Unit No. 2 Unit No. 4 Unit No. 3

1) Receipt of AEC Construction Permit 10-74 10-74 10-74 10-74

2) Start Construction 10-74 10-74 10-74 10-74

3) Initial Core Loading 4-79 4-80 4-81 9-81

4) In-service (commercial)

Operation 10-79 10-80 10-81 3-82

4-3 The construction of the Shearon Harris makeup reservoir will necessitate the removal of trees from the area to be inundated with water and terrestrial productivity will be replaced by aquatic productivity.

The construction of the dam, development of "borrow" areas and the filling of the reservoir will destroy or displace the terrestrial biota.

Some of the larger more mobile animals will move into the adjacent habitats causing stresses in the existing populations. After a time it can be expected that a more or less stable population will develop in harmony with the changed environment. Although there will necessarily be a substantial loss in terrestrial productivity due to the large size of the inundated area, no known terrestrial species are on the site that face extinction as a result of the reservoir.

Where transmission lines are to be installed on new rights-of-way, trees will be removed to make way for construction equipment and towers. The removal of trees will result in an alteration of habitat for a few species. Since there is a great deal of similar habitat available, this is expected to be a temporary and insignificant effect.

4.4 AQUATIC ECOLOGY The principal impact on the aquatic ecology of the construction of the Shearon Harris Plant is expected to be associated with impoundment of the cooling-water reservoir. In the process of readying the area below about the 220-ft elevation for the reservoir, the benthic organisms in existing streams will, in all likelihood, be destroyed.

The makeup pumping structure on the Cape Fear River will be equipped with vertical traveling screens having a 3/8 in. mesh and will be designed to limit the maximum intake velocity to 0.5 fps. During the initial filling of the makeup reservoir, withdrawal of water from the Cape Fear River will be limited to 25% of that flowing at the point of withdrawal and will be such that the flow at Lillington will not be reduced below 600 cfs.

The applicant has stated that construction practices will be employed which will minimize discharge of silt to the Cape Fear River during the construction of the plant. Early construction of the auxiliary and main reservoir dams will create sediment basins which will trap most of the silt resulting from erosion of the remainder of the con-struction sites. Most of the erosion from construction activities will settle in the main reservoir which will reduce the amount of

4-4 sediment reaching the Cape Fear River. During construction of the dams, smaller sediment traps, collection ditches, and intercepts will be used to reduce the silt load. Controlled grading and clearing will reduce erosion exposure. Only those areas needed immediately for construction will be cleared; grading will be limited to areas that can be handled by erosion control practices. In clearing the reservoir, the root-mat will remain except in the area between the low water level and a zone just above the normal water level. In this area, stumps will be cut flush with the ground or they will be removed and the area rough graded. However, this zone will not be cleared or graded until the dams are constructed.

Runoff from upland areas will be prevented from crossing construction sites by bench terraces and diversion ditches. Downspouts will be paved or vegetated when practicable. Brush plug dams, burlap fenches, or log dams will be used in ditches to trap sediment and reduce the silt load to the river.

Areas outside the reservoir which involve grading or the construction of embankments, spoil areas, ditches and channels will be stabilized by the re-establishment of a vegetative cover as soon as practicable.

Mulch will be used to protect these areas until the vegetation is established.

4.5 AIR QUALITY DURING CONSTRUCTION According to the applicant, special attention will be paid to the minimization of construction effects during the construction period.

All debris from lumbering, trees, limbs, logs, brush, vegetation, stubble, surface trash, loose stumps, and other perishable matter shall be piled for burning. This shall be done in such a manner and' in such location as to cause the least fire risk. Unburned debris and ashes from the burning operation shall be buried in pits, under a minimum of three ft of earth cover at locations at or below low water level in the indicated areas of the reservoir as determined by CP&L.

Burning operations shall comply with all Federal or state and local laws, Ordinance and Regulations and in accordance with "Rules and Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution" adopted by the Board of Water and Air Resources, Department of Water and Air Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.

4-5 4.6 MEASURES AND CONTROLS TO LIMIT ADVERSE EFFECTS DURING CONSTRUCTION 4.6.1 Applicant Commitments The commitments made by the applicant to protect the terrestrial and aquatic ecology during the construction of the plant and associated transmission facilities have been summarized in Sections 3.7, 4.4, and 4.5. In this section, these commitments are tabulated as a checklist to facilitate identification of potential areas of impact. Reference is made to those sections of the applicant's Environmental Report that describe the mitigating action planned to control these impacts.

4.6.1.1 Site Preparation

a. Provisions will be made for all needed facilities and equipment for the efficiency and safety of workers. (ER Page 3.8-1)

b. Efforts will be made to minimize disruption of wildlife habitat and to develop a wildlife management area adjacent to the reservoir.

(ER Page 3.8-1)

c. Road dust will be minimized. (ER Page 3.8-2)

d. Excavations will be safeguarded against possible cave-ins.

(ER Page 3.8-2)

e. Erosion and soil runoff causing contamination of surface water will be minimized. (ER Pages 3.8.-l and 3.8.-2)

The silt load discharge to the Cape Fear layver resulting from construction of the Harris Plant will be minimized by use of standard erosion and sediment control measures.

Early construction of the main dam will create sediment basins which will trap most of the silt resulting from erosion of the remainder of the construction sites. During construction of the dam, smaller sediment traps, collection ditches, and intercepts will be used to reduce the silt load.

Controlled grading and clearing will reduce erosion exposure. Only those areas needed immediately for construction will be cleared; grading will be limited to areas that can be handled by erosion control practices. In clearing the reservoir, the root-mat will remain except in the area between the low water level and a zone just above normal water level. In this area, stumps will be cut with the ground or they will be removed and the area rough graded.

4-6 Runoff from upland areas will be prevented from crossing construction sites by bench terraces and diversion ditches. Downspouts will be paved or vegetated when practicable.

Brush plug dams, burlap fences, or log dams will be used in ditches to trap sediment and reduce the silt load to the river.

Areas outside the reservoir which involve grading or the construction of embankments, spoil areas, ditches and channels will be stabilized by the re-establishment of a vegetative cover as soon as practicable.

f. After construction is completed, every effort will be made to eliminate all temporary construction effects that degrade the aesthetics of the area. (ER Page 3.9-1) 4.6.1.2 Construction of Transmission Corridors

a. Prime consideration will be given to the aesthetics and other environmental factors so that the transmission lines will have a minimum impact on the area being traversed. (ER Page 3.11-2)

b. Areas or features of particular environmental value will be avoided. (ER Page 3.11-21)

c. Applicable guidelines of governmental agencies will be followed.

(ER Page 3.11-2)

d. Special considerations will be followed during construction.

(ER Pages 3.11-3 and 3.11-3a)

1. The standard Carolina Power & Light Company structures, which embodies simple minimum silhouette design, low profile, and good reliability will be used.

2. Wood structures will be treated with dark agents, producing a soft color which will blend into the vegetative background.

3. Reclearing and additional clearing is to be done only as necessary to construct and properly operate the lines and to minimize the impact of reconstructing the lines.

4. Any damage to underground drainage, culverts, drainage ditches and drains will be restored after construction so as not to impede existing surface and subsurface drainage patterns.

4-7

5. Strict and careful supervision of selective clearing will be followed. This will'require use of competent personnel that in addition to knowledge of transmission line construction are also knowledgeable about plant material, and who can designate the trees and other plant material, to be removed.

6. In surveying the line route, engineering survey crews will be carefully instructed not to damage areas that have been planned for selective clearing.

7. The selective clearing procedures as shown by Figures 3.11-1 through 3.11-4 will be followed.

8. In selectively cleared areas all brush cuttings will be removed fromthe site and damaged plant material properly trimmed.

9. Where economically feasible CP&L will market the timber removed from the right-of-way. Other methods of disposing of the timber are as follows:

(a) Natural decomposition.

(b) Chopping or chipping material.

(c) Brush rows along edge of right-of-way.

(d) Burning.

10. The burning of cleared material is not normally practiced by CP&L. However, if material were burned the appropriate air quality regulation would be met.

11. CP&L does not presently use any herbicides, either in initial clearing or for maintenance.

12. In the selectively cleared areas, proper and careful procedures will be established in order to insure that future maintenance operations do not destroy the original design concept.

13. Shorelines of major streams will be left in their natural state with a minimum disturbance by construction operations. Tree tops may be trimmed which would endanger line operations.

Selective clearing will be practiced a reasonable distance back from the slope of stream embankments.

4-8 4.6.2 Staff Evaluation Based on a review of the anticipated activities and the expected environ-mental effects, the staff concludes that the measures and controls committed to by the applicant are adequate to ensure that environmental effects' will be at the minimum practicable level with the following additionaJ precautions:

a. Prior to construction of the main dam, the applicant should be especially watchful that erosion of the construction area does not result in siltation of the Cape Fear River.

b. Landscaping, including seeding and sod cover, should be initiated as early as practicable to minimize long-term erosion of cleared and excavated areas.

5-1

5. ENVIRONMENTAL IPACTS OF PLANT OPERATION

.1. LAND AND ATMOSPHERIC IMPACT 5.1.1 Land Use About 500 acres of the 10,744-acre site for the proposed Shearon Harris Plant is farmed. Of this, about 200 acres will be inundated by the cooling reservoir. The average annual gross value of crops from the land to be inundated is about $50/acre which may be compared to estimates of

$100-200/acre crop yield for other land within a 40-mile radius of the plant. This loss of farm land from production is not considered significant, either in terms of acreage, production or dollar value.

About 3200 acres of marketable timber land will be inundated by the main and auxilliary reservoirs. The actual yield of saw timber, plywood and pulpwood from this land in either volume or dollar value is not known by the staff. However, in Wake County, the annual growth of non-improved forest land averages about 50 ft 3 /acre/yr, whereas managed forest land averages approximately 160 ft 3 /acre/yr. Of the 14,000 acres involved in this area, approximately one-fourth (about 3500 acres) was previously owned by paper companies. Thus, on the order of 800,000 ft 3 /yr of forest products may have been produced prior to acquisition of the land by the applicant. The applicant estimates the average annual gross value of pulpwood crop from this land to be about $16/acre. The present stand of marketable timber on the land will be harvested during construction. Although the amount of similarly timbered land within a 40-mile radius is not known quantitatively, the amount of similar appearing land noted during a visit to the site by the staff was extensive. The applicant noted that approximately 50% of the land in the project area is owned by five companies which manage the land to produce pulpwood and other wood products. Because of the extensive wooded areas nearby, the staff concludes that removal of that portion of the site for formation of a reservoir would be unlikely to cause an important impact on the forest industry.

5.1..2 Impacts on the Atmosphere The design for the proposed Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant includes four natural-draft cooling towers, each 480 ft high with a base diameter of 430 ft. Most of the waste heat evolved in the process of power generation will be dissipated from those cooling towers in the form of heated water vapor released directly to the atmosphere.

5-2 5.1.2.1 Plume With a natural-draft cooling tower the most obvious atmospheric impact is the visible plume in the sky. The plume can be expected to be most persistent under conditions when the capacity for the atmosphere to hold additional water vapor is lowest. This occurs when the relative humidity is high and/or the air temperatures are low.

The height of natural-draft cooling towers (480 ft above grade) combined with the buoyancy and momentum of the plume leaving the top of the tower will enable the plume to penetrate low-level inversions. The plume rise will vary up to 3000 ft above the towers. Observations on plume lengths from other natural-draft towersI agree with the applicant's estimates of low plume persistences: 6% at I km and 0.08% at 3 km distance from the site. Observations of a number of cooling tower installations in central Pennsylvania show that, under certain limiting meteorological conditions, the visible plume may extend for 2 miles. 2 Some observers indicate, how-ever, that under restricted conditions plumes could possibly extend down-wind a distance as great as 20 to 30 miles. 1 -7 The plume, again under specific conditions, could have a maximum width of about 2 miles and a maximum depth of about 1000 ft. In the staff's Judgment, the plume would infrequently, if ever, reach the vicinity of the Raleigh-Durham Airport (20 miles NNE), and, if it did reach that far, would not interfere with normal operations because of its height and low density.

Cooling tower plumes have not been associated with detrimental climatolog-ical influences. 8 A few qualitative observations of minor precipitation attributable to cooling tower plumes have been reported. However, precipitation does not appear to be a common occurrence.

5.1.2.2 Fogging and Icing Based on estimates made for the natural-draft cooling towers at Beaver Valley Power Station located in Western Pennsylvania, the visible plume from the Shearon HarriB towers would be expected to occur less than 3%

of the time at 100 ft below the top of the tower. 9 Observations have shown that despite some theoretical predictions to the contrary, natural-draft cooling tower plumes rarely, if ever, reach ground level. 0 No ground interaction of the visible plume is expected based upon reported observations from other natural-draft cooling towers. 2 In the staff's judgment, ground intersections of the plume will be very rare, if they occur at all.

5-3 5.1.2.3 Drift Entrained in the plume are a number of small droplets of the cooling water. These will either evaporate or fall out in the near vicinity of the tower. The major impacts of these droplets, called drift, are related to icing potential, and to the emission of impurities into the atmosphere followed by deposition on the ground and other surfaces.

The maximum drift will be on the order of 250 gpm/tower.

Since this drift is composed primarily of cooling water from the tower, it has the chemical and mineral composition of the cooling water. These chemicals will be released into the atmosphere when the droplets evaporate.

It is estimated that the maximum deposition will be at a time rate of 100 lb/acre/yr at 1500 ft from the tower. The relatively heavy rainfall in this region is expected to prevent any buildup of surface concentrations.

5.1.2.4 Synergistic Effects No synergistic effects of cooling tower operation at the site location have been identified. Gaseous effluents will be released from the plant from rooftop vents approximately 120 ft above grade. None of these vents release significant amounts of heat; therefore, there will be only a small plume rise. As stated previously the cooling tower plume will be at a much higher elevation. If the two plumes eventually mix, it would be well downwind where any water droplets in the cooling tower plume would have evaporated and the gas concentrations in the plant effluent plume would be well diluted.' 1 No detrimental synergistic effects resulting from interaction of cooling tower effluents and other airborne polluiants have been substantiated in highly industrialized areas such as central Pennsylvania. In the absence of airborne pollutant sources in the vicinity of the Shearon Harris. Plant, no such effects are expected.

5.2 WATER USES 5.2.1 Consumptive Uses Average consumptive use of water as a result of the Shearon Harris Plant is illustrated in Table 5.1. The tabulated values as presented both by the applicant and the staff are averages, and do not reflect extreme conditions. The applicant's estimate of average forced evaporation (68 cfs) from the cooling towers is comparable to the staff's estimate (65 cfs).

The staff used the commonly accepted value of 1.5% of circulating water flow. 1 2 -14 The staff is of the opinion that forced evaporation from the makeup lake by the heated blowdown will be negligible, except possibly

5-4 TABLE 5.1 GENERAL COMPARISON OF WATER CONSUMPTION (cfs) UNDER AVERAGE CONDITIONS (a)

Applicant Staff

1. Forced Evaporation (towers) 68 (b) 65(c)

(b) 22(d)

2. Natural Evaporation (reservoirs) 19

3. Seepage 5 (e) 2 (f)

4. Gross Consumption (1 + 2 + 3) 92 89

5. Reservoir Inflow(g) 91 (b) 93

6. Natural System Outflow (71 square miles) 79 79

7. Inundated Land Evapotranspiration (5-6) 12 14

8. Net Consumption(g) ( 4 - 7 ) (h) 80 75

9. Net Flow From Reservoir (5-4) -1 4 (b) (b)

10. Desired Release From Reservoir 19 19

11. Needed Pumpage From River (10-9) 20 15 (a) The values presented in this table are averages and do not reflect extreme conditions.

(b) Applicant's estimate.

(c) Staff's estimate based on commonly accepted "rule-of-thumb" of 1.5%12-14 which is based on average nationwide meteorology that is not site dependent.

(d) Based on 4425 acres of reservoir surface (auxiliary reservoir -

325 acres; main reservoir - 4100 acres at normal operating level, 220 ft MSL).

(e) Applicant's estimate for originally proposed 10,400 acre reservoir system and retained for presently proposed 4425 acre system.16 (f) Prorated based upon reduction in reservoir system area.

(g) The sum of surface run-off from noninundated land and direct precipi-tation on the lake surface. Drainage from the land surface is based upon the applicant's average flow rate estimate for the Buckhorn Creek drainage. The staff believes the estimate to be high and has required the applicant to install a stream flow gage on Buckhorn Creek near the main dam site to verify the average flow rate estimate.

(h) Equivalent to the average reduction in the downstream flow of the Cape Fear River due to the operation of the plant.

5-5 during drought conditions. Staff analysis of the average natural evaporation from the surface areas of the reservoirs (22 cfs) compares favorably with that of the applicant (19 cfs). The staff used a value of 42 in./yr lake evaporation over a lake surface of 4,425 acres (325 acres in the auxiliary reservoir and 4,100 acres in the main reservoir at normal operating level, 220 ft MSL). In analyzing seepage, the staff scaled down the 5 cfs estimate used by the applicant for the originally proposed 10,400-acre reservoir system. The applicant retains a 5 cfs1 6 seepage loss for the presently proposed 4,425-acre reservoir system.

Average water consumption values are not greatly different as estimated by the staff (89 cfs), compared to that using values presented by the applicant (92 cfs). Since there would have been evapotranspiration from the inundated lands, net water consumption by the plant is 75 cfs. (This is also the average reduction in downstream Cape Fear River flow). Using the applicant's estimates, the net consumptive use is 80 cfs.

The staff is of the opinion that the applicant's estimate of the average Buckhorn Creek flow rate is high and required the applicant to install a streamflow gauge near the main dam site to verify the estimate. (The stream flow gauge has been installed.) The effect of reduced Buckhorn Creek flow is to increase the makeup pumping from the Cape Fear River.

Average reduction in downstream river flow will not be materially affected, however, by changes in tributary run off estimates.

The applicant estimates that the average annual release from the reservoir system will be 19 cfs. As indicated in Table 5.1 the staff estimates the applicant will have to pump, on the average, 15 cfs from the Cape Fear River to maintain the reservoir release at 19 cfs. The applicant's consumptive use estimates would require 20 cfs average pumping from the river.

5.2.2 Thermal Impact on the Reservoir Most of the heat from the plant's circulating and service water systems will be removed by four natural-draft cooling towers that will be operated as a closed-cycle system. On the average, 80 to 85 cfs cooling tower makeup water will be pumped from the main reservoir. Drift and evaporation from the cooling towers will account for 65 to 70 cfs. The additional 15 cfs will serve as blowdown to control the tower total dissolved solids concentration.

The staff estimates that the surface temperature of the makeup reservoir would be 90*F under adverse summer conditions and 85*F under normal summer conditions without the plant operating. The relatively small amount of heated blowdown should not materially affect the overall temperature structure of the reservoir waters. Based on adverse meteorological data, the applicant has estimated the average monthly temperature of the blowdown water. These values are listed in Table 5.2.1'

5-6 TABLE 5.2 AVERAGE MONTHLY TEMPERATURE OF COOLING TOWER BLOWDOWN 17 WATER FOR ADVERSE METEOROLOGICAL DATA Month Temperature (°F)

January 74 February 74 March 79 April 82 May 87 June 89 July 91 August 92 September 88 October 84 November 77 December 77 The applicant has estimated that under adverse conditions the blowdown water temperatures range between 7°F (July) and 36°F (December) above ambient reservoir temperatures. The multiple port submerged diffuser will terminate the blowdown pipeline at a central part of the main reservoir. The applicant estimates the mixing zone should occupy no more than 100 to 130 acres of the surface of the main reservoir.

Figure 3.3 illustrates the area over which the applicant estimates the mixing zone to extend, but not to fully occupy at all times. Current patterns in the main reservoir will cause the heated areas to fluctuate.

Figures 5.119 and 5.220 illustrate the applicant's estimate of surface water isotherms for winter and summer adverse meteorological conditions, respectively. State water quality standards for temperature (not to exceed 5*F above ambient streamwater temperature and in no case to exceed 90,F), 2 1 will be exceeded by less than 60 acres, based on the applicant's isotherms. Outside the allowable mixing zones illustrated in Figure 3.2, temperatures in the main reservoir will be within 5*F of the equilibrium temperature and less than 90*F.18 The staff calculated the thermal plumes for the adverse winter and summer conditions described by the applicant and for the extreme low water level in the makeup reservoir (204.4 ft MSL). The staff used the method suggested by Shirazi and Davis 2 2 for predicting the thermal plume for both a submerged multiple port diffuser discharging horizontally and a submerged single port diffuser discharging vertically into a stagnant, nonstratified body of water.

Both analyses are conservative, because natural currents and stratification in the reservoir will provide additional mixing to the effluent before it

14L -.

45-

• .. " i""" 420 45 5 FEET "

FIGURE 5.1 MAIN RESERVOIR ISOTHERMS - ADVERSE WINTER METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS (APPLICANT'S ESTIMATE)

• . u" l8 2O00 2000 FIGURE 5.2 MAIN RESERVOIR ISOTHERMS.- ADVERSE SUMMER METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS (APPLICANT' S ESTIMATE)

5-9 reaches the water surface. In addition, the single port analysis is more conservative than the multiple port analysis because of less dilution and mixing of the effluent before it reaches the surface.

Based upon the staff's thermal plume analysis, the applicant's mixing zone and isotherms appear to be conservative. It appears that the applicant's analysis did not account for mixing and dilution between the diffuser and the lake surface. For example; the staff's con-servative single port analysis yielded maximum temperatures at the lake sur-face directly above the diffuser of 86.5*F (adverse summer conditions) and 53.2 0 F (adverse winter conditions). For comparative purposes, the appli-cant's maximum values, illustrated in Figures 5.1 and 5.2 are about 91'F and 67 0 F, respectively. Even for the most conservative analysis (extreme low water level), the staff calculated values of maximum surface water temperatures of 87.4*F and 57.6*F for summer and winter conditions, respec-tively. Furthermore, the staff's analysis indicated that the lake surface area affected by the heated blowdown effluent will be less than 0.5 acres at all times.

The applicant will be required to discharge some of the heated blowdown effluent into the auxiliary reservoir to prevent icing of the emergency service water system whenever mtural lake temperatures approach the freezing. point. The auxiliary reservoir contains more than a 30-day supply of water for emergency cooling in the event that the normal cooling water supply in the tower basins becomes unavailable.

The main makeup reservoir also contains a backup supply in excess of 30 days of available water below the extreme low water level due to a 100 year drought. In the event of need for emergency cooling, either source that is used will act as a normal cooling lake.

As the applicant correctly states, the limnology of the proposed reservoirs will depend upon the interaction'of factors such as the quality of-water pumped from the Cape Fear River, runoff and erosion in the Buckhorn Creek watershed, and fluctuating reservoir water levels. The applicant expects the main reservoir, which has an average depth of about 19 ft and a maximum depth of 50 ft, to be thermally stratified during the winter and summer with isothermal conditions occurring during the fall and spring. The applicant expects thermal regimes typical of Piedmont lakes with a 20-ft deep epilimnion and a 25-ft deep hypolimnion. 2 3 Extensive experience with Piedmont cooling lakes, for both fossil and nuclear plants, is the basis for the applicant's estimates.

The staff agrees with the applicant in that the makeup reservoir could potentially be thermally stratified in the summer months. However,

5-10 extremely subtle density differences determine whether or not. stratifica-tion will exist. The timing of winds, storms and of inflowing cool water from the Buckhorn Creek drainage will have significant effect upon the breakup of stratification. The maximum density of water occurs at a temperature above the freezing point, 4VC (39.2°F). As autumn days become cooler, the surface waters cool and become more dense. If the surface water becomes sufficiently cool (dense), it will sink and mix with the deeper water. Eventually, all of the water in the lake or reservoir becomes relatively uniform in temperature and density. In southern lati-tudes where average winter temperatures are not near freezing, reservoir 2

waters will remain mixed and well aerated during the winter period. 4 Since the plant is located in a southern latitude, the staff expects the makeup reservoir to remain mixed for about six months during the late fall, winter and early spring.

5.2.3 Impact on Reservoir Chemistry The applicant's planned blowdown release (15 cfs) in the main reservoir is very small considering the size of the plant. As a result, the concentration factors for total dissolved solids becomes large. The staff estimates 2 5 that the concentration factor will be about 8.5; the applicant's estimate is 7.7.

In the event that a greater blowdown quantity is used, the staff's previous discussions in Section 5.2.1 concerning negligible thermal impact and forced lake evaporation may no longer be valid. A technical specification in this regard will be required (at the operating license stage) especially for drought conditions.

To evaluate recirculation potential the staff considered the conservative situation in which there is no outflow from or inflow to the main reser-voir. For this situation, the general direction of flow will be from the blowdown diffuser towards the intake channel. For an average cooling tower makeup flowrate of 85 cfs, the travel time for a water particle to move from the diffuser over the 15,000 ft distance to the intake chan-nel is about 1200 hr (50 days). The staff conservatively estimates that the reservoir dilution factor could range from about 5.6 to 42.6, depending mainly upon the mixing efficiency of the reservoir.

5.2.4 Impacts on the Cape Fear River and Other Water Uses The applicant is presently constructing another nuclear power plant, the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, near Southport, North Carolina, and the Cape Fear Estuary. The Brunswick Plant will withdraw approximately 2900 cfs brackish water, of which about 200 cfs will be fresh water, from the Cape Fear Estuary for once-through cooling. The heated water is then dis-charged to the Atlantic Ocean. Because of the Brunswick withdrawal, the salt wedge, salinity, sedimentation and associated fish migrations that move up the estuary from the Atlantic Ocean may be affected. The salt wedge now moves up river 36.5 miles to a point about 8.5 miles above

5-11 Wilmington, North Carolina. There can be no further movement upstream because of an abrupt rise in the channel bottom.26 The applicant's average annual net additional consumptive use of 75 cfs at the Shearon Harris Plant will not result in the salt wedge moving further upstream, but salinity and sedimentation might be affected; however, in the staff's opinion fish migration will not be affected.

Assuming completion within a few years of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New Hope Reservoir on the Haw River upstream of Buckhorn Dam, low flows on the Cape Fear River will be augmented so a minimum flow of approximately 600 cfs will be maintained at Lillington. In addition, "two more reservoirs, to be located on Deep River, are in the planning stages for possible completion in 10 to 15 years. With this future low-flow augmentation to the Upper Cape Fear River, the staff believes that the applicant's average annual, net additional consumptive use of 75 cfs at the Shearon Harris Plant in itself, will have no significant effect upon the salinity and sedimentation distributions in the Cape Fear Estuary or upon the upstream movement of the salt wedge.

There are no known surface water uses of Buckhorn Creek below the main dam site. 2 7 Municipal and industrial uses of the Cape Fear River below Buckhorn Dam were discussed by the applicant. 2 8 Excluding the applicant's proposed Brunswick Steam Electric Plant withdrawal, about 65 to 70 cfs of the total water withdrawn (195 to 200 cfs) from the Cape Fear River is not returned to the river. There are no known withdrawals of water from the Cape Fear River for irrigation. 2 7 , 2 8 The staff concludes, based upon the present low consumptive use of Cape Fear River water and upon future low-flow augmentation to the Upper Cape Fear River, that the applicant's anticipated average annual, net additional consumptive use of 75 cfs at the Shearon Harris Plant will not affect adversely other down-stream water uses.

It is understood the New Hope Reservoir Project will provide flood con-trol and facilities for recreation, in addition to low-flow augmentation to the Upper Cape Fear River, when it is completed. As mentioned pre-viously in Section 2.6, the applicant's reservoir capacity studies are based upon the naturally occurring, unregulated flows of the Cape Fear River at Buckhorn Dam. These studies indicated that there will be sufficient storage in the main Shearon Harris reservoir to operate during a 100-yr frequency drought without withdrawing any water from the Cape 29 Fear River when natural unregulated flows are less than 600 cfs.

The applicant has stated that there will be no withdrawals from the Cape Fear River that would reduce flows in the river below 600 cfs as measured at the Lillington station. Additionally, water withdrawals 30 will not exceed 25% of the river flow at the point of withdrawal.

5-12 The first stage, 300-cfs capacity (two 50-cfs pumps and two 100-cfs pumps), of the applicant's two-stage makeup pumping system will be located on the pool formed by Buckhorn Dam. The applicant's initial plans call for a remote control system that will utilize the stream-31 flow data at Lillington to operate the pumps automatically.

Average annual releases (19 cfs) of water from the Shearon Harris Plant to the Cape Fear River are expected to be in compliance with North Carolina water quality standards. Under those standards the lower Piedmont and Coastal Plain waters, of which the Cape Fear River is one, are limited to an increase of 50 F with a maximum of 90*F out-side of a reasonable mixing zone. *As indicated in Section 5.2.2, there will be no thermal impact of these releases to the river.

5.2.5 Flood Control The proposed Shearon Harris Plant will provide some flood protection to the Cape Fear River below Buckhorn Dam. The peak flow expected during the probable maximum flood is 45,300 cfs at the main dam site prior to construction. 3 2 , 3 3 After the reservoir system is constructed, the peak outflow expected at the main dam site during the probable maximum flood amounts to 14,500 cfs. 3 2 , 3 3 Thus, the probable maximum flood peak could be reduced by about 30,800 cfs. The staff has reviewed the applicant's predictions and finds them reasonable.

5.2.6 Impact on Ground Water Operation of the Shearon Harris Plant should have little impact upon groundwater resources in the vicinity. The principal aquifer underlying the plant site is only a minor aquifer, and the soils that overlay this formation are very low in permeability. The applicant estimates that only about 5 cfs will be lost from the reservoir due to seepage; the staff finds this to be a conservative estimate and has adopted a value of 2 cfs for water consumption computations.

As presented previously in Figure 2.4, piezometric contours indicate that groundwater movement in the plant area is to the southeast.

Groundwater seepage from the Harris reservoir system is not expected to reach any wells of the three nearby communities. Holly Springs is located 7 miles east of the plant site, and Corinth is located 4 miles to the southwest. Neither of these communities are in direct line with the prevailing groundwater movement. Fuquay-Varina, located about 10 miles southeast of the plant site, is in direct line with the prevailing groundwater movement; however, wells in this community pro-duce water from a crystalline rock aquifer that does not exist in the plant area. None of the wells at Holly Springs and Fuquay-Varina are located in the Triassic Basin.34

5-13 5.3 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY The dominant effect of the Shearon Harris plant on terrestrial flora and fauna will result from the creation of the new cooling reservoir. This was described in Section 4.3. See Section 5.64for radiological impact on biota.

The cooling towers will increase relative humidity in the immediate vicinity of the plant. Since regional vegetation is already adapted to a warm humid environment, this humidity increase is not expected to cause unfavorable consequences to nearby vegetation. Certain crop plants might experience an increase in vigor of leaf pathogens but native species are not expected to be seriously affected. Since the water being used in the cooling tower is of low salinity and since there are sufficiently heavy rainfalls during the growing season to leach the foliage periodically, the salts released in cooling tower water droplets are not expected to harm the plants in the area. Salt accumulations in the soil are not expected because rainfall should be sufficient to leach the salts out each year.

5.4 AQUATIC ECOLOGY The possible effects on the aquatic environment due to the operation of the Shearon Harris plant include the following:

The entrapment and impingement of larval fish on the intake water screens.

The loss of aquatic organisms passing through the condenser cooling system.

• The effect of discharge of chemicals and heat into the makeup reservoir.

The combined effects on the reservoir biota.

• The alteration of Buckhorn Creek due to intermittent water release from the makeup reservoir.

The effect of release of water from the makeup reservoir to the Cape Fear River.

5.4.1 Water Intake Structures The makeup water intake structure as described by the applicant is pre-sented in Section 3.3.

5-14 The makeup reservoir intake and the Cape Fear pumping station will be equipped with 3/8 in. mesh traveling screens through which water will flow at velocities of 0.5 fps or less. 35 Flows of this magnitude are generally below the swimming speed of'juvenile freshwater fishes.

The ability of fish to maintain their position in currents is depen-dent on their size, species and water temperature. For striped bass (Morone saxitilis) juveniles the maximum current velocity in which they could maintain their position was 1 fps. 3 6 Maximum approach velocities of 0..75 fps have been recommended for white crappie and (Pomoxis annularis) and channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus). 3 7 Smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui) 20 to. 25 mm long have displacement speeds ranging from 0.16 to 1.02 fps at acclimation temperatures of 41=F (50 C) and 86 0 F (30 0 C), respectively. 3 8 Their displacement speed is directly proportional to temperature in the 41 to 86=F range; swimming ability declines to 0.82 fps at 95 0 F.

At the Cape Fear River, the applicant will avoid the use of long intake canals, which at times provide an attractive habitat for fish. The intake channels from the makeup reservoir is about 2000 ft long (Fig.

3.2). Although this channel may prove attractive to fish, the staff does not believe that it will contribute significantly to the impingement of fish on the intake screens.

Because of the low intake velocities (less than 0.5 fps) and the small volumes of water (80 to 85 cfs average) passing through the makeup screens, impingement is not considered by the staff to be a significant source of fish mortality at the Shearon Harris plant. Water will be pumped from the Cape Fear River at a maximum rate of 300 cfs and at velocities of less than 0.5 fps. Although loss due to impingement at this intake does not appear to pose a problem, monitoring should be conducted to confirm this.

5.4.2 Passage Through the Cooling System.

Aquatic organisms, such as plankton and small fish, that are drawn into the plant cooling system will be exposed to a sudden temperature increase of 25=F in the plant condensers. 3 9 A total of 4300 cfs will be circulated through the condensers and cooling towers, and the rate that water will be introduced from the makeup reservoir is about 80-85 cfs and discharged in the blowdown at about 15 cfs. Consequently organisms will remain in the cooling system for an extended period of time and be exposed to high and rapidly changing temperatures; to a 8.5 fold increase in dissolved solids; to periodic exposures to chlorine, a biocide used to control algae and slime growth; and to mechanical stress imposed by the system.

5-15 The staff estimates that maximum temperatures at the discharge side of the condenser will approach 120*F and at times be greater than 34°F above ambient makeup reservoir temperatures.

Chlorine will be added, on a rotational basis to each of the four condenser units for one or two thirty-minute periods each day.4 0 '4 1 The chlorine residual in water discharged from the condensers will not exceed 0.5 ppm.4 0 This chlorine concentration will be diluted by the cooling water of the other three units and reduced by dissipation to the atmosphere in the cooling towers, and by the chlorine demand within the cooling system.

Thermal stress alone will probably kill most of the aquatic organisms withdrawn from the makeup reservoir. For major groups of freshwater algae only the blue-green algae (Cyanophyta) prefer temperatures greater than 35'C (95oF).4 2 Some species in this group may survive the stresses of the plant cooling system. In an estuarine environment, zooplankters, principally crustaceans, suffered mortalities of over 95% upon passage through a condenser once-through cooling system where the temperature rise was 17'C (30.6°F) and the maximum temperature was about 40*C (1040F).4 3 Approximately 83% of the Juvenile carp (Cyprinus carpio),

white catfish (Ictalurus catus), spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius) and American shad (Alosa sapidissima) were killed in a nuclear power plant cooling system with a temperature rise of 12.5%C (22.5 0 F) and a transit time of 93 seconds.44 There was 100% mortality at temperatures greater than 35°C (95°F).

It is the conclusion of the staff that the combined thermal,'chemical and physical stresses will kill most of the aquatic organisms drawn into the plant cooling system.

The effect of this loss on the ecosystem of the makeup reservoir can not be precisely predicted. Average withdrawal of water from the makeup reservoir is estimated by the applicant to be about 106 cfs and by the staff, from 80 to 85 cfs. Based on these estimates, the average daily withdrawal of water by the Shearon Harris Plant will be from 0.2 to 0.3% of the total reservoir volume (at the nominal reservoir level of 220 ft MSL). This rate of plankton removal, in the opinion of the staff, will be of minor overall importance to the aquatic populations in the reservoir.

5.4.3 Chemical Releases As stated previously (Section 5.4.2), chlorine will be administered to one unit at a time for one or two thirty minute periods daily; and the

.5-16 chlorine residual at the discharge side of the condenser unit will not exceed 0.5 ppm.4 0'04 1 The liquid from the sanitary waste treatment facility will receive chlorine at the rate of 3 to 4 ppm for waste volumes of about 15,000 gallons per day (0.023 cfs) with a residual chlorine concentration of 0.5 ppm. The planned release of sanitary waste system liquids will be to the circulating water.45 The applicant states that the chlorine con-centrations released in the blowdown to the make-up reservoir will meet applicable water quality standards.411 Recent recommendations state that "In areas receiving waste treated con-tinuously with chlorine, total residual chlorine should not exceed 0.01 mg/l for the protection of more resistant organisms only, or exceed

_-0.002-mgLl for -theprottec.ion-o--most-aquatic- organis-m45 .... 1is further recommended that "In areas receiving intermitcently chlorinated waste, total residual chlorine should not exceed 0.2 mg/l for a period of two hours/day for more resistant species of fish, or exceed 0.04-mg/l for a period of two hours/day for salmon and trout.

The survival of juvenile brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), exposed to 0.35, 0.08 and 0.04 ppm chlorine was 9, 18 and 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> respectively, and the long-term exposure to 0.005 ppm produced a general depression in 5

activity.4 b In bioassays on fathead minnows (Pinephales tromeles), 0.005 to 0.09 ppm residual chlorine was the lowest concentration producing sub-lethal stress after 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> exposure. 4 5 c It has also been suggested that fish will avoid toxic concentrations of chlorine, and that exposure to concentrations of approximately 0.6 ppm for two to three hours does not affect survival.45c For largemouth bass (Micropetrus salmoides), yellow perch (Perca flavescens) and fathead minnows, the twelve hours median 45 tolerance limit was less than 0.5 mg/l. a The applicant has not given the concentration of chlorine that will be released to the reservoir in the blowdown, or defined the "applicable" standards that will be met. It is the opinion of the staff that resi-dual chlorine concentrations at the point of blowdown discharge should not exceed 0.2 mg/l. Dilution of the blowdown by the reservoir water and the chlorine demand of the reservoir should then quickly reduce the chlorine concentration to tolerable limits.

The concentrations of other chemical waste that will be discharged to the makeup reservoir are given in Table 3.5. The concentrations of boric acid, hydrazine, ammonia, and phosphates in the blowdown are below the toxic limits reported for aquatic life.46 In the absence of toxicity informa-tion, the staff cannot support the discharge of morpholine into the makeup reservoir. The calculated makeup reservoir steady-state concentration (maximum) of 490 ppm sulfate is near the reported acute tolerance

5-17 of some fresh water invertebrates, consequently an 8.5 fold concentration of steady-state levels of sulfate salts ithe power plant cooling system may result in levels toxic to aquatic organisms in the immediate vicinity of the blowdown discharge. 4 2 Caddisfly larvae (hydropsychidae-) and the stonefly larvae (Stenonema heterotarsale and S. anes) exposed to 320 ppm of sodium sulfate for four days, suffered mortalities of 15%,

30%, and 50% respectively. For many aquatic organisms the acute toxicity levels are in the range of 1000 ppm or more. 4 2 Sulfate concentrations greater than 400 ppm are not uncommon in natural surface waters productive 67 of aquatic life, particularly in the southwestern and western United States.

The particular kinds of aquatic life that may be affected by the sulfate concentrations near the blowdown discharge to the makeup reservoir cannoot..

_beo agccurately identi fled- -pr-ior- to -reservoir-f6rtion and. establishment of

'the aquatic community.

Chemicals entering the Cape Fear River by way of the makeup reservoir discharge are not expected to affect the aquatic life in the river. Small volume discharges would be rapidly diluted by the river; large volume reservoir discharges would probably coincide with high river flows and rapid dilution.

The heat discharged to the reservoir in the blowdown will be rapidly re-duced by mixing with the reservoir water. Maximum surface temperatures, according to the staff's calculations will be about 87.4 0 F in summer and 57.6aF in winter. (Section 5.2.2) The surface water thermal standards of 90*F maximum temperature and 5VF rise above ambient will not be exceeded outside of the mixing zone. As a consequence of this small thermal addi-tion to the reservoir, no impact due to increased temperature is expected in the reservoir. The addition of heat by the plant to the Cape Fear River will also be insignificant.

5.4.4 Reservoir Drawdown The makeup reservoir will seasonally be drawn down below the nominal 220 ft elevation, resulting in the exposure of reservoir bottom near shore. Maximum and minimum elevations will be approximately 243 and 205 ft; 4 7 and the usual reduction from the nominal elevation will be about 4 to 5 ft. At elevations of 220, 215 and 205 ft, the surface area of the reservoir will be about 4100, 3250 and 2150 surface acres.

The corresponding exposure of the reservoir bottom at the 215 and 205 ft elevations will be greater than 900 and 2000 acres respectively.

The effect of this drawdown on the biota of the pond is difficult to predict. Studies of High Rock Reservoir in the upper Piedmont of North Carolina showed a 55% r.eduction in the availability of the 48 larger size fish in the coves following a drawdown of about 32 ft, The fish populations returned to near pre-drawdown levels during subsequent years. Reservoir drawdown may be of benefit by allowing the aeration and decay of organic bottom deposits and production of

5-18 stands of annual forbs and grasses which enter the nutrient cycle of the lake, but it may tend to reduce some fish populations, e.g. crappies.49 Manipulation of water levels has also been effective in reducing 50 mosquito populations and shoreline rooted aquatic vegetation.

Although the fluctuation of water level in the Shearon Harris makeup reservoir may have some impact on productivity, it will still provide a suitable habitat for many aquatic forms including game fishes.

There will be little impact of the Shearon Harris Plant discharges on

__the_ aquatic -ifgein-the_ reservoir -..... The expected- maximum -sur-f-ace-- ---- ...

temperatures will be about 86 0 F, well within the upper thermal limit of warm water fish species (Table 5.3). The establishment of a thermocline is possible but uncertain (Section 5.2.2), but experience with other North Carolina Piedmont reservoirs indicate that at depths below 20 to 25 ft summer time dissolved oxygen levels are below those necessary to sustain fish.4 8 Under adverse su!mer conditions, about 5000 acre-feet of water in the reservoir would contain less than 4 ppm dissolved oxygen. Thus, the reservoir would contain about 68,000 acre-feet of water suitable for fish.

The present aquatic communities in the Buckhorn-Whiteoak drainage will probably undergo substantial change with organisms that can adapt to a lake environment being favored. To enhance the recreational potential of the reservoir, management of the fish population should be considered.

Reliance on the Buckhorn-Whiteoak drainage and the water from the Cape Fear River for seeding of fish populations may result in the establish-ment of fish populations dominated by undesirable species. Management techniques, such as the periodic introduction of desired species, has had mixed success in other reservoirs in the area.4 8 The introduction of threadfin (Dorsoma petenense) and gizzard shad (D. cue*eianum) have improved the overall fish production in some reservoirs."

5.4.5 Alteration of Buckhorn Creek The drawdown and associated intermittent release of water from the makeup reservoir will change the conditions in about 3.5 miles of Buckhorn Creek. There will be no release of water from the reservoir for five months or more each year. 5 1 Since only two very small tributaries join Buckhorn Creek downstreai of the reservoir dam, there will be very little creek flow during these periods. There is little present recreational use made of this section of the creek and the reduction in flow will increase the degree and time of existing seasonal low flow p'-riods. This will prevent the possibility of management of this section for recreational fishing.

TABLE 5.3 MAXIMUM THERMAL LIMITS (LD-50) FOR WARM1WATER FISH50a Acclimation Rate of Resistance Temp. LD-50 Temp. Rise Time Species OF OF 0 F/hr hr(a)

Micropterus salmoides - largemouth bass 76 97 1.8 11.45 52 95 1.0 43 45 87 2.0 21 Lepomis macrochirus - bluegill 76 97 1.6 12.25 52 95 1.0 43 45 89 2.0 22 L. auritus - redbreast sunfish 70 101 1.8 17 Ln 52 95 1.0 43 45 89 2.0 22 Ictalurus nebulosus - brown bullhead 59 97 2.0 19

-52 97 1.0 45 45 93 2.0 24 Notropis procne - swallowtail shiner 52 90 1.0 38 45 88 2.0 21.5 N. hudsonius - spottail shiner 52 88 1.0 36 45 87 2.0 21 Catostomus commersoni - white sucker 90 95 0.5 10 52 88 1.0 36 45 86 2.0 20.5 (a) Time from start of test to LD-50

- -- - - ~. --.- ~ .~ .

5-20 5.4.6 Cape Fear River The operation of the Shearon Harris plant is not expected to have a significant biological effect on the Cape Fear River. Effects and extent of impingement of aquatic organisms on the river water intake screens should be closely monitored. The low intake velocities, less than 0.5 cfs, will minimize this potential problem. Withdrawal of Cape Fear water will not inhibit the movement of river organisms or alter the river environment.

5.5 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT ON MAN During routine operation of the four units of Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant at full power, small quantities of radioactive materials will be released to the environment. An AEC compliance inspection program is conducted to audit plant performance to determine that releases are within 10 CFR Part 20 limits and to assure that the radiation doses received by individuals residing near the plant will be as low as practicable in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50. The staff has made esti-mates of the annual radionuclide release rates from the Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant based upon an independent analysis of the liquid and gaseous radwaste systems. These release rates were shown in Tables 3.1 and 3.4 of Section 3.4 for liquid and gaseous releases respectively.

The staff has made calculations of radiation doses using the estimated release rates of radionuclides to the environs and using stated assumptions relative to circulation, dilution, bioaccumulation in food chains and use factors by people. The bioaccumulation factors used for nuclides in freshwater species are listed in Table 5.4. A summary of the significant exposure pathways which result from both the liquid andgaseous releases from the plant is presented in Figure 5.3.

5.5.1 Liquid Effluents The pathways and travel times for plant blowdown effluent containing radio-nuclides are described in Section 5.2. Since staff opinion is that the makeup reservoir may be stratified during the summer months and thoroughly mixed during the 6 colder months of each year, it was assumed, for predictive purposes, that during the summer months

1) the circulating radionuclides would be contained within the upper 12 ft of water, and 2) the only reduction of radionuclides in the cir-culating water is due to 2 cfs seepage and decay during the approximately 1200 hr it takes the effluent water to return to the intake. For additional simplification in modeling, it was further assumed that for the winter months, 1) the reservoir is thoroughly mixed and 2) the reduction of radionuclides in the circulating water is, further reduced by

5-21 TABLE 5.4 BIOACCUMULATION FACTORS FOR RADIONUCLIDES 52 IN AQUATIC SPECIES (pCi/kg organism per pCi/liter water)

ELEKiENT FISH CRUSTACEA MOLLUSCS ALGEA H 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 Cr 20 2,000 2,000 4,000 Mn 400 90,000 90,000 10,000 Fe 100 3,200 3,200 1,000 Co 50 200 200 200 Br 420 330 330 50 Y 25 1,000 1,000 5,000 Mo 10 10 10 1,000 Tc 15 5 5 40 le 400 75 75 100 I 15 5 5 40 Cs 2,000 100 100 500 W 1,200 10 10 1,200 the 19 cfs annual average release from the main dam. In addition, all dose calculations from liquid effluents were made assuming concentra-tions that would likely exist after 30 years of plant operation. These assumptions are conservative in that they tend to maximize the calculated dose from plant operations.

The applicant has stated that the public will have access to the makeup reservoir. Individuals who use the reservoir for recreational purposes may be exposed from standing near the shoreline, from swimming a--d boating, or from eating fish and molluscs and/or crustacea. To estimate the dose from each of these pathways, it was assumed that the time spent by an individual on the shore of the reservoir was 500 hr/yr, the times spent boating and swimming were 100 hr/yr each, and that an individual consumed 13 kg of fish and 9 kg of molluscs and/or crustacea per year, all grown in undiluted blowdown water. The doses received via each of these pathways are listed in Table 5.5.

After uniform mixing in the Cape Fear River (annual Average flow of 3200 cfs), the concentration of radionuclides and doses to individuals would be reduced by at least an additional factor of 0.006. The nearest muni-cipal water supply deriving water from the Cape Fear River is located at

5-22 SHEARON HARRIS PLANT LIQUID EFFLUENTS Transport of Fuel and Waste

' V~e Irradiation C XO e \

1:J 0Mý 0M42i CL

~IIIS NJ '~~'*r Ingestion FIGURE 5.3 EXPOSURE PATHWAYS TO MAN

TABLE 5.5 RADIATION DOSES TO INDIVIDUALS FROM EFFLUENTS RELEASED FROM THE FOUR UNITS OF SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT (mrem/yr)(a)

Annual

- Pathway Usage Skin Total Body G.I. Tract Thyroid Bone Fish 18 kg 11.3 0.54 7.6 7.8 Mollusca and/or crustacea 9 kg 0.99 0.41 0.11 1.4 0.20 Shoreline 500 hr 0.85 (0.85) (b) (0.85) (0.85)

Swimming and Boating 100 hr (each) 0.007 0.005 (0.005) (0.005) (0.005) 430 0.040 0.020 0.040 5xi0-4 Drinking Water(c) liters U' I..

Air Submersion (Nearest residence) 8766 hr 0.70 0.22 (0.22) (0.22) (0.22)

Inhalation (Nearest residence) 7300 m3 0.11 -

Milk (Adult)

(Site boundary) 365 liter 3.0 Leafy Vegetables (Nearest residence) 72 kg 1.3 Milk (Child)

(Site boundary) 365 liters 28 (a) Assuming release rates listed in Tables 3.1 and 3.4.

(b) ( ) indicates dose received from external source.

(c) Lillington resident.

5-24 Lillington, North Carolina. Assuming an individual consumed 2 liter/day of such water during the seven months of the year that water is expected to be released from the makeup reservoir the calculated total body dose would amount to 0.04 mrem/yr.

5.5.2 Gaseous Effluents During normal operation of the four units, gaseous wastes will be collected, compressed and stored in tanks. The capacity of the tanks is great enough to allow storage of all processed gaseous wastes for the life of the plant. Because of the nature of the gaseous radwaste system, small quantities of noble gases and radioiodine are expected to escape from the system and be released from building vents located on each unit at a height of 120 ft above ground. For calculations of doses from gaseous effluents, the releases were considered to be at ground level, and no credit was taken for shielding, occupancy factors or for building wake effects. However, wind speeds measured at the 120 ft level on the Research Triangle Institute Tower 5 3 were adjusted to corresponding wind speeds at 33 ft.

The maximum total body dose rate at the site boundary resulting from submersion in the noble gaseous effluent released from the p:.ant was estimated to be 0.22 mrem/yr. The dose to the skin would be somewhat higher (0.7 mrem/yr) due to the additional contribution from beta radiation. These dose rates occur at a location 7000 ft NE of the plant where the annual average diffusion coefficient (x/Q) is 1.6 x 106 sec/m 3 . The maximum dose rate at an occupied location occurs at the nearest farm house about 1-1/2 miles northeast of the plant. The annual average diffusion coefficient at this location is estimated to be 1.5 x 106 sec/me and the dose rates are listed in Table 5.5. The inhalation dose rate from radioiodine at this location was estimated to be 0.11 mrem/yr to an adult's thyroid. A person working at the proposed Energy and Environmental Center located 1.5 miles ENE of the plant, 40 hr/wL, 50 wk/yr where the annual average diffusion coefficient is 9.4 x 10 sec/m3 would receive a total-body dose of 0.015 mrem/yr.

The nearest pasturage which could support a milk cow is located at the farm on the northeast edge of 6 the site boundary where the annual average diffusion coefficient is 1.6 x 10- sec/m 3 . The dose to the thyroid of an adult drinking 1 liter of milk/day obtained from a cow that grazes 10 months/yr at this location would be 3.0 mrem/yr. Under the same condi-tions, the dose to a small child's thyroid would be 28 mrem/yr.

A summary of doses to individuals from pathways associated with gaseous effluents from the plant are also listed in Table 5.5.

5-25 As discussed in section 3.4.2., even though the calculated thyroid dose to a small child through the pasture-cow-milk path appears to exceed the "as low as practicable" guidelines, the staff finds the calculated dose acceptable because of the built-in conservatism in the calculations.

Further, the applicant proposes to use state-of-the Art technology to reduce iodine releases. The applicant will also be required to provide an extensive monitoring system to assure that the actual dose does not exceed the "as low as practicable" guidelines.

5.5.3 Direct Radiation As indicated in Figures 1.1-5 through 1.1-13 in Volume 1 of the appli-cant's PSAR, all storage and process tanks for radioactive fluids (gaseous and liquid) are within concrete walls below ground level.

Shielding provided by soil, walls and ceilings appears adequate to preclude any measurable direct radiation dose at the site boundary.

5.5.4 Dose to the Population from all Sources The integrated total-body dose to the 1980 population living within 50 miles of the plant from submersion in radioactive gaseous effluents was estimated to be 1.8 man-rem/yr. The cumulative dose and average dose versus distance from the plant are summarized in Table 5.6.

Four pathways were considered when calculating the exposure to the population from the liquid effluents released from the plant: consump-tion of fish from the main reservoir; swimming and boating on the main reservoir; shoreline activities on the main reservoir and consumption of Cape Fear River water. The average per capita consumption of fish in this area has been. estimated to be 2.4 kg/yr. 5 4 If 1% of this average consumption comes from the main reservoir near the main dam, the total population dose from fish consumption would be 19 man-rem/yr.

The applicant has indicated that the area surrounding the makeup reservoir will be developed for recreational use. For purposes of dose calculation, it was assumed that the 1.3 x 106 jersons living within 50 miles of the plant in 1980 would spend 1.3 x 10 man-hr/yr in each of the 3 aquatic pathways--swimming, boating and shoreline activities, on the main reser-voir where the water contains undiluted plant liquid effluents after an average of 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> decay. On this basis, the integrated population dose from swimming and boating on the main reservoir will be 0.0003 man-rem/yr, and the dose from shoreline activities would be about 0.02 man-rem/yr.

5-26 TABLE 5.6 CUMULATIVE POPULATION, ANNUAL MAN-REM DOSE AND AVERAGE ANNUAL DOSE IN SELECTED CIRCULAR AREAS AROUND THE SHVARON HARRIS PLANT FROM GASEOUS RELEASES al Radius Cumulative Cumulative Dose Average Dose (miles) Population (1980) (man-rem/yr) (mrem/yr) 1 0 0 0 2 39 0.0051 0.13 3 310 0.015 0.047 4 790 0.029 0.036 5 1,300 0.037 0.029 10 15,000 0.15 0.010 20 279,000 0.95 0.0035 30 630,000 1.5 0.0023 40 930,000 1.7 0.0018 50 1,300,000 1.8 0.0014 (a) See Table 3.4 Estimating the Lillington-Dunn-Fayetteville population to be 167,000 people and that each person consumes 1.2 liter/day of Cape Fear River water, the total dose calculated for this group would be 3.6 man-rem/yr.

The total integrated population dose received by- the approximately 1.3 million people who may live within a 50-mile radius of the plant in 1980 from the four pathways associated with the liquid effluents is estimated to be 23 man-rem/yr under normal operating conditions.

These doses are summarized in Table 5.7.

The total population dose received by the 1,300,000 persons (1980) residing within 50-miles of the Shearon Harris Plant was calculated to be 26 man-rem/yr from all pathways associated with the liquid and gaseous effluents released during routine operation of the plant. For comparison, the natural background dose rate in the state of North Carolina is 0.14 rem/yr 5 5 which results in a total population dose of 180,000 man-rem/yr to the same residents. Normal operation of the Shearon Harris Plant will contribute only a small increment (0.013%) to the radiation dose that area residents receive from natural background, and fluctuations of the natural background dose would be expected to exceed the small dose increment from the plant.

5-27 TABLE 5.7 ANNUAL DOSE TO THE POPULATION DUE TO LIQUID AND GASEOUS RELEASES FROM THE SHEARON HARRIS PLANT (man-rem/yr) a Cumulative Pathway Annual Usage Total Body Fish 3.1 x 104 kg 19 Water 7.3 x 107 liter 3.6 Shoreline 1.3 x 104 hr 0.022 Swimming and Boating 2.6 x 104 hr 0.0003 Gaseous Releases 8776 hr 1.8 Transportation of Irradiated Fuel 31 shipments 0.2 Transportation of Irradiated Wastes 180 shipments 1.3 TOTAL 26 (a) Assuming release rates given in Table 3.1.

5-28 5.5.5 Occupational Radiation Exposure iýased on a review of the applicant's Safety Analysis Report, the staff has determined that individual occupational doses can be maintained within the limits of 10 CFR 20. Radiation dose limits of 10 CFR 20 are based on a thorough consideration of the biological risk of exposure to ionizing radiation. Maintaining radiation doses of plant personnel within these limits ensures that the risk associated with radiation exposure is no greater than those risks normally accepted by workers in other present day industries.-, Using information compiled by the Atomic Energy Commission 5 7 , and others of past experience from operating nuclear reactor plants, it is estimated that the average collective dose to all on-site personnel at large operating nuclear reactor plants will be approximately 400-500 man-rem per year per plant.

The total dose for this plant will be influenced by several factors for which definitive numerical values are not available, but the aggregrate of which are expected to lead to lower doses to on-site personnel than estimated above. Improvements to the radioactive waste effluent treatment system to achieve offsite population doses as low as practicable have the potential for causing a small increase to on-site personnel doses, all other factors remaining unchanged. However, the applicant's implementation of Regulatory Guides 6 1 and other guidance provided through the Staff review process regarding reducing available exposures and maintaining on-site radiation doses as low as practicable is expected to result in an overall reduction of total doses from those currently experienced.

5.6 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT ON OTHER BIOTA The staff has estimated radiation doses to organisms based on radio-nuclide release rates listed in Tables 3.1 and 3.4 and the bioaccumu-lation factors in Table 5.4. A summary of the significant pathways of exposure for biota other than man is presented in Figure 5.4.

The external radiation dose rates to organisms such as algae entrained in the Shearon Harris Plant cooling system were estimated to be about 5 x 10-5 mrad/hr. These dose rates would decrease as the effluent moves into the reservoir.

Other aquatic organisms likely to receive radiation doses from the plant are species (such as fish and molluscs) living in the reservoir near the blowdown outfall and receiving Liternal dose from radionuclides in the silt and water.

5-29 i-n ~ Ilmmersion. *

.Immersion-# Seediments FIGURE 5.4 EXPOSURE PATHWAYS TO ORGANISMS OTHER THAN MAN

5-30 A freshwater clam living in the bottom silt would receive an estimated dose of 130 mrad/yr, about 77% of the dose is due to external radiation from radiocesium deposited in the silt and about 23% of the dose is from radionuclides accumulated within its flesh. The total dose to a fish living in the undiluted discharge water would be about 60 mrad/yr due almost entirely to ingested radionuclides.

The applicant has indicated that areas adjacent to the reservoir will be maintained as wildlife refuges and that terrestrial animals and birds may be abundant. The external radiation doses to these species due to radionuclides in air, water and silt will be approximately the same as those calculated for man. The principal source of exposure to animals such as the raccoon is its aquatic food (freshwater clams and crayfish).

Exposure from shoreline silt, other foods and immersion in plant water are relatively unimportant. Assuming that the raccoon consumes 200 g/day of clams and crayfish harvested from the mixing zone, his total body dose would be about 20 mrad/yr. Birds such as herons that consume 600 g/day of fish harvested from the mixing zone will receive a total body dose of about 1200 mrad/yr. Animals and birds, such as muskrats and ducks, that consume 100 g/day of aquatic plants grown in the mixing zone would receive a dose of about 230 mrad/yr from ingested radionuclides.

No credit for the dilution of plant effluent has been taken in the calcu-lations of the above doses to biota.

Annual doses on the order of those predicted for aquatic organisms (algae, fish and clams) living in the Shearon Harris Plant discharge, are below the chronic dose levels that might be suspected of producing demonstrable radiation damage to aquatic biota. 6 2 Chironomid larvae (blood worms) living in the bottom sediments near the Oak Ridge plant that have received radiation at the rate of about 230 rad/yr for more than 130 generations have a greater than normal number of chromosome aberrations but their abundance has not diminished. 6 3 The number of salmon spawning in the vicinity of the Hanford reactors on the Columbia River has not been adversely affected by.dose rates in the 6

range of 100 to 200 mrad/week. 4 While the annual doses predicted for terrestrial animals and birds that eat fish, crustacea and molluscs are larger than the corresponding doses to man, there is no information available to indicate that irradiation of this order to terrestrial animals or birds would produce a detectable effect. However, game birds and animals that feed within the refuge could be harvested by sportsmen hunting nearby. Concentrations of radionuclides in the edible meat of game birds and animals could constitute an additional small source of radiation to sportsmen.

5-31 5.7 TRANSPORTATION OF NUCLEAR FUEL AND SOLID RADIOACTIVE WASTE The nuclear fuel for Units 1,2,3 and 4 at the Shearon Harris Plant in North Carolina is slightly enriched uranium in the form of sintered uranium oxide pellets encapsulated in.zircaloy fuel rods. The initial core loading for each unit is to be supplied by Westinghouse; they are virtually identical. Each year in normal operation of each unit, about 56 fuel elements are replaced.

5.7.1 Transport of New Fuel The applicant has indicated that new fuel will be shipped by rail or truck in AEC-DOT approved containers which hold two fuel elements per container. About 18 truckload shipments will be required each year for replacement fuel and about 60 truckloads for the initial loading.

About half that number of rail carloads would be required.

5.7.2 Transport of Irradiated Fuel Fuel elements removed from the reactor will be unchanged in appearance and will contain some of the original uranium-235 (which is recoverable).

As a result of the irradiation and fissioning of the uranium, the fuel element will contain large amounts of fission products and some plutonium.

As the radioactivity decays, it produces radiation and "decay heat." The amount of radioactivity remaining in the fuel varies according to the length of time after discharge from the reactor. After discharge from a reactor, the fuel elements are placed under water in a storage pool for cooling prior to being loaded into a cask for transport.

The applicant did not identify the site to which the irradiated fuel would be shipped for reprocessing. The staff estimates a shipping distance of 300 miles for calculating purposes.

Although the specific cask design has not been identified, the appli-cant states that the irradiated fuel elements will be shipped by truck and rail in approved casks. The cask will weigh perhaps 30 tons for truck shipment or 100 tons for rail shipment. By rail 7 to 12 fuel assemblies can be carried in one carload and by truck 1 fuel assembly can be carried on a truckload.- Most of the irradiated fuel will be shipped by rail and only odd numbers of assemblies left over from rail shipments carried by truck. To transport the irradiated fuel from the four reactors, an estimated 31 rail shipments will be required each year. An equal number of shipments will be required to return the empty casks.

5-32 5.7.3 Transport of Solid Radioactive Wastes The applicant estimated about 1000 drums of solid waste from each unit annually. The staff estimates that there would be about 180 truckloads to be shipped offsite for disposal each year from the 4 units. The staff estimates 400 miles as the shipping distance.

5.7.4 Principles of Safety in Transport The transportation of radioactive material is regulated by the Depart-ment of Transportation (DOT) and the Atomic Energy Commission. The regulations provide protection of the public and transport workers from radiation. This protection is achieved by a combination of standards and requirements applicable to packaging, limitations on the contents of packages and radiation levels from packages, and procedures to limit the exposure of persons under normal and accident conditions.

Primary reliance for safety in transport of radioactive material is placed on the packaging. The packaging must meet regulatory stand-ards 6 5 established according to the type and form of material for con-tainment, shielding, nuclear criticality safety, and heat dissipation.

The standards provide that the packaging shall prevent the loss or dispersal of the radioactive contents, retain shielding efficiency, assure nuclear criticality safety, and provide adequate heat dissipa-tion under normal conditions of transport and under specified accident damage test conditions. The contents of packages not designed to withstand accidents are limited, thereby limiting the risk from releases which could occur in an accident. The contents of the pack-age also must be limited so that the standards for external radiation levels, temperature, pressure, and containment are met.

Procedures applicable to the shipment of packages of radioactive mate-rials require that the package be labelled with a unique radioactive materials label. In transport the carrier is required to exercise control over radioactive material packages including loading and storage in areas separated from persons and limitations on aggregations of packages to limit the exposure of persons under normal conditions. The procedures carriers must follow in case of accident include segregation of damaged and leaking packages from people and notification of the shipper and the DOT. Radiological assistance teams are available through an intergovernmental program to provide equipment and trained personnel, if necessary, in such emergencies.

5-33 Within the regulatory standards, radioactive materials are required to be safely transported in routing commerce using conventional trans-portation equipment with no-special restrictions on speed of vehicle, routing, or ambient transport conditions. According to the DOT, the record of safety in the transportation of radioactive materials exceeds that for any other type of hazardous commodity. DOT estimates approximately 800,000 packages of radioactive materials are currently being shipped in the United States each year. Thus far, based on the best available information, there have been no known deaths or serious injuries to the pulblic or to transport workers due to radiation from a radioactive material shipment.

Safety in transportation is provided by the package design and limita-tions on the contents and external radiation levels and does not depend on controls over routing. Although the regulations require all carriers of hazardous materials to avoid congested areas 6 6 wherever practical to do so, in general, carriers choose the most direct and fastest route.

Routing restrictions which require use of secondary highways or other than the most direct route may increase the overall environmental impact of transportation as a result of increased Pzcident frequency or severity.

Any attempt to specify routing would involve continued analysis of routes in view of the changing local conditions as well as changing of sources of materials and delivery points.

5.7.5 Exposure During Normal (No Accident) Conditions 5.7.5.1 New Fuel Since the nuclear radiations and heat emitted by new fuel are small, there will be essentially no effect on the environment during trans-port under normal conditions. Exposure of individual transport workers is estimated to be less than 1 millirem (mrem) per shipment.

For the 18 shipments, with two drivers for each vehicle, the annual cumulative dose would be about 0.04 man-rem. The radiation level associated with each truckload of cold fuel will be less than 0.1 mrem/hr at 6 ft from the truck. A member of the general public who spends 3 minutes at a average distance of 3 ft from the truck might receive a dose of about 0.005 mrem/shipment. The dose to other persons along the shipping route would be extremely small.

5.7.5.2 Irradiated Fuel Based on actual radiation levels associated with shipments of irrad-iated fuel elements, the staff estimates the radiation level at 3 ft from the rail car will be about 25 mrem/hr.

5-34 Only an occasional shipment by trucks is anticipated (See Section 5.7.2).

Under normal conditions, the average radiation dose to the individual truck driver in a 300-mile shipment of irradiated fuel is estimated to be about 10 mrem. For each shipment by truck, with 2 drivers on the vehicle, the annual cumulative dose would be about 0.02 man-rem.

Train brakemen might spend a few minutes in the vicinity of the car for an average exposure of about 0.5 mrem/shipment. With 10 different brakemen involved along the route, the annual cumulative dose for 31 shipments during the year is estimated to be about 0.2 man-rem.

A member of the general public who spends 3 minutes at an average dis-tance of 3 ft from the truck or rail car, might receive a dose of as much as 1.3 mrem. If 10 persons were so exposed per shipment, the annual cumulative dose for each truck shipment would be about 0.01 man-rem and from 31 rail shipments, about 0.4 man-rem. Approximately 90,000 persons who reside along the 300-mile route over which the irradiated fuel is transported might receive an annual cumulative dose of about 0.005 man-rem from each truck shipment and about 0.2 man-rem' from 31 rail shipments. The regulatory radiation level limit of 10 mrem/hr at a distance of 6 ft from the vehicle was used to calculate the integrated dose to persons in an area between 100 ft and 1/2 mile on both sides of the shipping route. It was assumed that the shipment would travel 200 miles/day and the population density would average 330 persons/square mile along the route.

The amount of heat released to the air from each cask will vary from about 10 kilowatts (kW) for truck casks to about 70 kW for rail casks.

For comparison, about 50 kW of waste heat is released from a 100-horse-power truck-engine. Although the temperature of the air which contacts the loaded cask may be increased a few degrees, because the amount of heat is small and is being released over the entire transportation route, no appreciable thermal effects on the environment will result.

5.7.5.3 Solid Radioactive Wastes Under normal conditions, the average radiation dose to the individual truck driver is estimated to be about 15 mrem/shipment. If the same driver were to drive 15 truckloads in a year, he could receive an estimated dose of about 225 mrem during the year. The annual cumula-tive dose to all drivers from 180 shipments during the year, assuming 2 drivers per vehicle, would be about 5 man-rem.

5-35 A member of the general public who spends 3 minutes at an average dis-tance of 3 ft from the truck might receive a dose of as much as 1.3 mrem. If 10 persons were so exposed per shipment, the annual cumulative dose would be about 2.3 man-rem. Approximately 120,000 persons who reside along the 400-mile route over which the solid radio-active waste is transported might receive an annual cumulative dose of about 1.3 man-rem. These doses were calculated for persons in an area between 100 ft and 1/2 mile on either side of the shipping route, assuming 330 persons per square mile, 10 mrem/hr at 6 ft from the vehicle, and the shipment traveling 200 miles/day.

5.8 COMMUNITY A stable work force of about 180 is expected during operation of the proposed Shearon Harris Plant. The staff expects no adverse impacts on public facilities from this number of family units.

6-1

6. ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AND MONITORING 6.1 BASELINE ECOLOGICAL SURVEYS AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING The applicant presently has studies undeiway to evaluate various tech-niques for investigating upland populations of birds and mammals. A Wildlife Survey Route was established in order to survey some of the wildlife species in the area. This route is located out of the area to be inundated so it can be surveyed after impoundment. A vegetation map delineating the various habitats of the site area has been provided by the applicant from aerial photographs and field surveys. Specific sampling sites representing the different types of habitat have been selected for intensive flora and fauna investigation.

The applicant is conducting a preimpoundment study on the Whiteoak-Buckhorn drainage and the Cape Fear River to provide baseline informa-tion for evaluating the effects of 1) the establishment of the reservoir, and 2) the discharge of reservoir water to the Cape Fear River. Samples of plankton, benthos, aufwuchs, fish and water will be collected quarterly from seven stations in the Whiteoak-Buckhorn drainage and from two locations of the Cape Fear River. Quantitative and qualitative analyses will be made on the plankton and benthic samples; species identification on the aufwuchs; species composition, relative abundance, length-weight measurements, food habits, and age and growth measurements on the fish; and chemical analysis on the water. In addition, temperature and light penetration measurements will be made. The data collected during the preimpoundment studies will be analyzed statistically for diversity and variance within and between sampling stations. Species lists will be compiled and the abundance growth and food habits of important fishes determined. The first year's study has been completed mad published.'

6.2 OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING Field investigations of terrestrial biology of the bordering uplands will continue in a manner siailar to the preimpoundment studies.

Information gained from the preimpoundment studies will be utilized to assist in the design of a wildlife management program (i.e.,

planting wildlife food, cover and resting areas, and establishment of wildlife refuge areas).

The pre-impoundment studies outlined by the applicant include: 1) monthly water quality analysis at six main stations, and one pond station in the Buckhorn-White drainage; and two stations, one upstream and one downstream of the proposed Shearon Harris Reservoir outfall;

2) biological communities will be sampled quarterly at four creek

6-2 stations, one pond station and along two transects in the Cape Fear River. Special emphasis will be placed on a fishery in the watershed and availability of fish food organisms.

The post-impoundment studies will be an extension of the pre-impoundment investigations with additional investigation on the water quality and biota of the reservoir, the effects of entrainment of aquatic organisms in the plant cooling system and the sport fishery of the reservoir.

6.3 STAFF ASSESSMENT OF APPLICANT'S ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM The staff recommends a monthly sampling frequency of the biological communities during the growing season instead of the quarterly frequency proposed by the applicant. A program of fish management for the makeup reservoir will also be developed.

Biological monitoring of the terrestrial environment should include a radiochemical analysis of litter fall in representative forest stands on an annual basis. An analysis of the common foods of the rabbit, mourning dove, bobwhite and gray squirrel should also be conducted seasonally.

Dose calculations made in this report (Section 3.5.2) were made on the basis of weather data collected in the Research Triangle Institute about 20 miles NNE of the site. The staff does not consider the weather data from the airport to be adequate to fully characterize the Shearon Harris site weather data, and concludes that complete weather data must be obtained at the site so that accurate dose prediction calculations due to the release of gaseous effluents can be made for normal operating conditions and for plant accident situations. It is noted that the applicant has nitiated an onsite meteorological program.

6.4 RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING The objective of the Shearon Harris Plant environmental radiation monitoring program is to measure the radionuclides released with the plant effluents in environmental media and to assess the radiological impact, if any, of the plant operations on the environment. The program will be conducted in two phases. The objective of the pre-operational phase is to establish baseline data through the analysis of air, water, soil, and other food chain components prior to fuel loading.

Direct comparison of the operational data with the baseline data will provide the information necessary to evaluate the potential radiolog-ical impact of the operating plant on the environment.

6-3 External exposure to gaseous radioactive wastes and ingestion of radio-active contaminated food and water are the primary exposure pathways to man. The proposed monitoring program emphasizes sampling and analyzing environmental elements which include these pathways. The proposed sample types, locations, frequencies and analyses are included in Table 6.1.

Sampling will be conducted primarily by the Carolina Power and Light Company. Radiochemical analysis of the samples will be contracted to the Eberline Instrument Company. Some of the samples will be split with duplicates sent to the Environmental Protection Agency, the Atomic Energy Commission and the North Carolina Board of Health for comparative analysis.

6.5 STAFF ASSESSMENT OF APPLICANT'S RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM The overall scope of the applicant's proposed preoperational environ-mental radioactivity monitoring program (Table 6.1) may be adequate to define the background radiation in the vicinity of the site. How-ever, more details of the exact types and locations of samples are needed for a more complete evaluation of the proposed program. When the plant becomes operational, the staff will require the following sampling and analyses in addition to those indicated in Table 6.1:

Weekly collection of milk from cows pastured nearest the plant to be analysed for radiolodine, Cs-134 and Cs-137 and other gamma emitters.

Semiannual collection of locally produced meat to be analyzed for Cs-134 and Cs-137.

Collection of 2 locally produced leafy vegetables and tobacco at the midpoint of the growing season and at harvest to be analyzed for Cs-134 and Cs-137.

Annual collection of 3 woodducks inhabiting the lake, the edible flesh to be analyzed for Cs-134, Cs-137 and other gamma emitters.

Annual collection of 2 fish-eating birds inhabiting the lake, the muscle to be analyzed for Cs-134 and Cs-137.

Separate samples of benthic organisms should be sampled and analyzed along with bottom sediments.

Additional modifications of the program may prove to be necessary from time to time to provide adequate evidence for compliance with the provisions of 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 50.

TABLE 6.1 PREOPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE SHEARON HARRIS PLANT

.Sampling Sample Type Sampling Point & Description Frequency Sample Analysis Air Samples V(7) 4 Plant exclusion area boundary Weekly Gross beta (Particulate 1 Fuquay-Varina Gross alpha on one set

& Iodine) 1 Apex per quarter 1.Raleigh Quarterly composite for isotopic identification Air Radiation (27) 7 Air sampling locations Quarterly TLD 4 Plant exclusion area radius 4-8 3-to-5 mile radius 8 7-to-10 mile radius Surface Water (5) 1 Intake canal Weekly Gross beta 1 Discharge canal Quarterly composite at 1 Lake each location for 1 Cape Fear River - Upstream tritium Cape Fear River - Downstream Quarterly composite at each location for isotopic identification Groundwater (3) 1 Well at plant site Monthly

• Same as surface water 1 Fuquay-Varina Municipal Supply 1 Holly Springs Municipal Supply

TABLE 6.1 (Continued)

Sampling Sample Type Sampling Point & Description Frequency Sample Analysis Bottom (4) 1 Lake near point of discharge Quarterly Gross beta, isotopic Sediments 1 Cape Fear River - Upstream identification 1 Cape Fear River - Downstream Aquatic (4) 1 Lake near point of discharge Quarterly Gross beta, isotopic Vegetation 1 Cape Fear River - Upstream identification 1 Cape Fear River - Downstream Fish (3) 1 Lake near point of discharge Quarterly Gross beta, isotopic I Cape Fear River identification Sr-89 & 90 0' U'

Milk (3) 1 Dairy 2 miles north Monthly Gross beta less K-40, 1 Dairy 2 miles east 1-131, Sr- 8 9, Sr-90 1 Dairy 7 miles south 4 Food Crops (2) Local food crops 2 times Gross beta isotopic during identification growing season Note: Isotopic identification is performed using Ge-Li detector for PHA.

i. iW " " , -- .1'.., -, ,, I ` - .

6-6 6.6 THERMAL MONITORING The applicant states 2 that periodic monitoring will be established to assure compliance with applicable permits issued with regard to operation of the plant but that programs cannot be detailed until conditions of these permits are known.

6.7 STAFF ASSESSMENT OF APPLICANT'S THERMAL MONITORING PROGRAM The staff will require that the temperature of the Cape Fear River be monitored at a point above the intake for river water and at about 1000 ft below the confluence of the Buckhorn Creek and the Cape Fear River. Water temperature measurements will be required continuously at the makeup water intake structure and at the location of the blowdown diffuser. Periodic surveys made from boats using resistance type thermisters will be required to define temperature profiles at selected locations in the makeup reservoir as part of the biological investigation.

7-1

7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS 7.1 PLANT OPERATION ACCIDENTS A high degree of protection against the occurrence of postulated accidents in the Shearon Harris Power Plant, Units 1-4 is provided through correct design, manufacture, and operation, and the quality assurance program used to establish the necessary high integrity of the reactor system, as is considered in the Commission's Safety Evaluation. Deviations that may occur are handled by protective systems to place and hold the plant in a safe condition. Notwith-standing this, the conservative postulate is made that serious accidents might occur, even though they may be extremely unlikely; and engineered safety features are installed to mitigate the consequences of those postulated events which are judged credible.

The probability of occurrence of accidcnts and the spectrum of their consequences to be considered from an environmental effects 'stand-point have been analyzed using .best estimates of probabilities and realistic fission product release and transport assumptions. For site evaluation in the Commission's safety review, extremely conservative assumptions are used for the purpose of comparing calcu-lated doses resulting from a hypothetical release of fission products from the fuel against the 10 CFR Part 100 siting guidelines. Realisti-cally computed doses that would be received by the population and environment from the accidents which are postulated are significantly less than those presented in the Safety Evaluation.

The Commission issued guidance to applicants on September 1, 1971, requiring the consideration of a spectrum of accidents with assumptions as realistic as the state of knowledge permits. The applicant's response was contained in Amendment No. 5 of its License Application dated March 16, 1972.

The applicant's report has been evaluated, using the standard accident assumptions and guidance issued as a proposed amendment to Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50 by the Commission on December 1, 1971. Nine classes of postulated accidents and occurrences ranging in severity from trivial to very serious were identified by the Commission. In general, accidents in the high potential consequence end of the spectrum have a low occurrence rate and those on the low potential consequence end have a higher occurrence rate. The examples selected by the applicant for these cases are shown in Table 7.1. The examples selected are reasonably homogeneous in terms of probability within each class.

7-2 Table 7.1 Classification of Postulated Accidents and Occurrences Class AEC Description Applicant's Examples

1. Trivial incidents Not considered.

2. Small releases outside Spills containment Leaks and pipe breaks.

3. Radioactive waste system Equipment leakage or malfunction.

failure Release of waste gas storage tank contents.

4. Fission products to Not applicable.

primary system (BWR)

5. Fission products to Fuel cladding defects and steam primary and secondary generator leaks. Off-design systems (PWR) transients that induce fuel failure above those expected and steam generator leak. Steam generator tube rupture.

6. Refueling accident Fuel assembly drop in containment.

Heavy object drop onto fuel in core.

7. Spent fuel handling Fuel assembply drop in fuel storage accident pool. Heavy object drop onto fuel rack. Fuel cask drop.

8. Accident initiation events Loss of coolant accidents.

considered in design-basis Rod ejection accident. Steamline evaluation in the Safety breaks outside containment.

Analysis Report

9. Hypothetical sequence of Not considered.

failures more severe than Class 8

7-3 Commission estimates of the dose which might be received by an assumed individual standing at the site boundary in the downwind direction, using the assumptions in the proposed Annex to Appendix D, are presented in Table 7.2. Estimates of the integrated exposure that might be delivered to the population within 50 miles of the site are also presented in Table 7.2. The man-rem estimate was based on the projected population within 50 miles of the site for the year 1990.

To rigorously establish a realistic annual risk, the calculated doses in Table 7.2 would have to be multiplied by estimated probabilities.

The events in Classes 1 and 2 represent occurrences which are anticipated during plant operations; and their consequences, which are very small, are considered within the framework of routine effluents from the plant. Except for a limited amount of fuel failures and some steam generator leakage, the events in Classes 3 through 5 are not anticipated during plant operation; but events of this type could occur sometime during the 40 year plant lifetime.

Accidents in Classes 6 and 7 and small accidents in Class 8 are of similar or lower probability than accidents in Classes 3 through 5 but are still possible. The probability of occurrence of large Class 8 accidents is very small. Therefore, when the consequences indicated in Table 7.2 are weighted by probabilities, the environmental risk is very low. The postulated occurrences in Class 9 involve sequences of successive failures more severe than those required to be considered in the design bases of protection systems and engineered safety features. Their consequences could be severe. However, the probability of their occurrence is judged so small that their environ-mental 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 a high degree of assurance the potential accidents in this class are, and will remain, sufficiently small in probability that the environmental risk is extremely low.

The AEC is currently performing a study to assess more quantitatively these risks. The initial results of these efforts are expected to be available in early 1974. This study is called the Reactor Safety Study and is an effort to develop realistic data on the probabilities and sequences of accidents in water cooled power reactors, in order to improve the quantification of available knowledge related to nuclear reactor accidents probabilities. The Commission has organized a special group of about 50 specialists under the direction of Professor Norman Rasmussen of MIT to conduct the study. The scope of the study has been discussed with EPA and described in correspondence 1

with EPA which has been placed in the AEC Public Document Room.

As with all new information developed which might have an effect on the health and safety of the public, the results of these studies will

7-4 TABLE 7.2

SUMMARY

OF RADIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS-Estimated Fraction Estimated Dose of 10 CFR Part 20 to Population in limit at 2ite 50 mile radius Class Event boundary- man-rem 1.0 Trivial incidents 3/ 3/

2.0 Small releases 3/ 3/

outside containment 3.0 Radwaste system failures 3.1 Equipment leakage or 0.009 3.4 malfunction 3.2 Release of waste gas 0.039 13 storage tank contents

.3.3 Release of liquid waste 0.001 0.37 storage contents 4.0 Fission products to N.A. N.A.

primary system (BWR)

!/The doses calculated as consequences of the. postulated accidents are based on airborne transport of radioactive materials resulting in both a direct and an inhalation dose. Our evaluation of the accident doses assumes that the applicant's environmental monitoring program and appropriate additional monitoring (which could be initiated subse-quent to a liquid release incident detected by in-plant monitoring) would detect the presence of radioactivity in the environment in a timely manner such that remedial action could be taken if necessary to limit exposure from other potential pathways to man.

2/Represents the calculated fraction of a whole body dose of 500 mrem, or the equivalent dose to an organ.

./These releases are expected to be in accord with proposed Appendix I for routine effluents (i.e., 5 mrem per year to an individual from either gaseous or liquid effluents).

N.A. - Not applicable.

7-5 TABLE 7-2 (Cont'd)

Estimated Fraction Estimated Dose of 10 CFR Part 20 to Population in limit atsite 50 mile radius, Class Event boundary!! man-rem 5.0 Fission products to primary and secondary systems (PWR) 5.1 Fuel cladding defects 3/ 3/

and steam generator leaks 5.2 Off-design transients <0.001 <0.1 that induce fuel failure above those expected and.

steam generator leak 5.3 Steam generator tube <0.001 4.5 rupture 6.0 Refuleing accidents 6.1 Fuel bundle drop 0.002 0.71 6.2 Heavy object drop onto 0.034 12 fuel in core 7.0 Spent fuel handling accident 7.1 Fuel assembly drop 0.001 0.45 in fuel rack 7.2 Heavy object drop 0.005 1.8 onto fuel rack 7.3 Fuel cask drop N.A. N.A.

8.0 Accident initiation events considered in design basis evaluation in the SAR 8.1 Loss-of-coolant accidents Small break 0.016 13 Large break 0.17 340

7-6 TABLE 7-2 (Cont'd)

Estimated Fraction Estimated Dose of 10 CFR Part 20 to Population in limit at site 50 mile radius, Class Event boundary2- man-rem 8.1(a) Break in instrument line N.A. N.A.

from primary system that penetrates the containment 8.2(a) Rod ejection accident (PWR) 0.017 34 8.2(b) Rod drop accident (BWR) N.A. N.A.

8.3(a) Steamline breaks (PWR's outside containment)

Small break <0.001 <0.1 Large break <0.001 <0.1 8.3(b) Steamline break (BWR) N. A. N.A.

7-7 be made public and would be assessed on a timely basis within the regulatory process on generic or specific bases as may be warranted.

Table 7.2 indicates that the realistically estimated radiological consequences of the postulated accidents would result in exposures of an assumed individual at the site boundary to concentrations of radioactive materials that are within the Maximum Permissible Concentrations (MPC) of 10 CFR Part 20. The table also shows the estimated integrated exposure of the population within 50 miles of the plant from each postulated accident. Any of these integrated exposures would be much smaller than that from naturally occurring radioactivity. When considered with the probability of occurrence, the annual potential radiation exposure of the population from all the postulated accidents is an even smaller fraction of the exposure from natural backgrcund radiation and, in fact, is well within naturally occurring variations in the natural background. It is concluded from the results of the realistic analysis that the environ-mental risks due to postulated radiological accidents are exceedingly small and need not be considered further.

7.2 TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENTS - EXPOSURES RESULTING FROM POSTULATED ACCIDENTS Based on recent accident statistics, 2 a shipment of fuel or waste may be expected to be involved in an accident about once in a total of 750,000 shipment-miles. The staff has estimated that only about 1 in 10 of those accidents which involve Type A packages or 1 in 100 of those involving Type B packages might result in any leakage of radio-active material. In case of an accident, procedures which carriers are required 3 to follow will reduce the consequences of an accident in many cases. The procedures include segregation of damaged and leaking packages from people, and notification of the shipper and the Depart-ment of Transportation. Radiological assistance teams are available through an intergovernmental program to provide equipped and trained personnel. These teams, dispatched in respo*ise- -) calls for emergency assistance, can mitigate the consequences of anf- accident.

7.2.1 New Fuel Under accident conditions other than accidental criticality, the pelletized form of the nuclear fuel, its encapsulation, and the low specific activity of the fuel, limit the radiological impact on the environment to negligible levels.

The packaging is designed to prevent criticality under normal and severe accident conditions. To release a number of fuel assemblies under conditions that could lead to accidental criticality would require severe damage or destruction of more than one package, which is unlikely to happen in other than an extremely severe accident.

7-8 The probability that an accident could occur under conditions that could result in accidental criticality is extremely remote. If criticality were to occur in transport, persons within a radius of about 100 ft from the accident might receive a serious exposure but beyond that distance, no detectable radiation effects would be likely.

Persons within a few feet of the accident could receive fatal or near-fatal exposures unless shielded by intervening material. Although there would be no nuclear explosion, heat generated in the reaction would probably separate the fuel elements so that the reaction would stop. The reaction would not be expected to continue for more than a few seconds and normally would not recur. Residual radiation levels due to induced radioactivity in the fuel elements might reach a few roentgens per hour at 3 ft. There would be very little dispersion of radioactive material.

7.2.2 Irradiated Fuel Effects on the environment from accidental releases of radioactive materials during shipment of irradiated fuel have been estimated for the situation where contaminated coolant is released and the situation where gases and coolant are released:

(a) Leakage of contaminated coolant resulting from improper closing of the, cask is possible as a result of human error, even though the shipper is required to follow specific procedures which include tests and examination of the closed container prior to each shipment.

Such an accident is highly unlikely during the 40-year life of the plant.

Leakage of liquid at a rate of 0.001 cc/second or about 80 drops/hr is about the smallest amount of leakage that can be detected by visual observation of a large container. If undetected leakage of contaminated liquid coolant were to occur, the amount would be so small that the individual exposure would not exceed a few mrem and only a very few people would receive such exposures.

(b) Release of gases and coolant is an extremely remote possibility. In the improbable event that a cask is involved in an extremely severe accident such that the cask containment is breached and the cladding of the fuel assemblies penetrated, some of the coolant and some of the noble gases might be released from the cask.

In such an accident, the amount of radioactive material released would be limited to the available fraction of the noble gases in the void spaces in the fuel pins and some fraction of the low-level contamina-tion in the coolant. Persons would not be expected to remain near the accident due to the severe conditions which would be involved, including

7-9 a major fire. If releases occurred, they would be expected to take place in a short period of time. Only a limited area would be affected.

Persons in the downwind region and within 100 ft or so of the accident might receive doses as high as a few hundred millirem. Under average weather conditions, a few hundred square feet might be contaminated to the extent that it would require decontamination (i.e., Range I contamination levels) according to. the standards4 of the Environmental Protection Agency.

7.2.3 Solid Radioactive Wastes It is highly unlikely that a shipment of solid radioactive waste will be involved in a severe accident during the 40-year life of the plant.

If a shipment of low-level waste (in drums) becomes involved'in a severe accident, some release of waste might occur but the specific activity of the waste will be so low that the exposure of personnel would not be expected to be significant. Other solid radioactive wastes will be shipped in Type B packages. The probability of release from a Type B package, in even a very severe accident, is sufficiently small that, considering the solid form of the waste and the very remote probability that a shipment of such waste would be involved in a very severe accident, the likelihood of significant exposure would be extremely small.

In either case, spread of the contamination beyond the immediate area is unlikely and, although local cleanup might be required, no signifi-cant exposure to the general public would be expected to result.

7.2.4 Severity of Postulated Transportation Accidents The events postulated in this analysis are unlikely but possible. More severe accidents than those analyzed can be postulated and their consequences could be severe. Quality assurance for design, manufacture, and use of the packages, continued surveillance and testing of packages and transport conditions, and conservative design of packages ensure that the probability of accidents of this latter potential is sufficiently small that the environmental risk is extremely low. For those reasons, more severe accidents have not been included in the analysis.

8-1

8. CONSEQUENCES OF PROPOSED ACTION 8.1 ADVERSE EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED The principal adverse effect brought about by the construction and operation of the Shearon Harris Plant is the destruction of about 4500 acres of terrestrial flora and wildlife habitat. It is likely that the benthic fauna in streams to be impounded will be destroyed.

The more than three mile stretch of Buckhorn Creek from the main dam to the Cape Fear River will be significantly altered or destroyed as an aquatic habitat since, during much of the year, no water will be discharged from the reservoir and portions of the streambed will be dry or nearly so. Restrictions on water removal rate and the design of the intake structure will assure, in the staff's opinion, that impacts on the Cape Fear River biota will be negligible. Increased motor traffic, dust, noise, land erosion and stream disruption will result over the 7-year construction period. Some 3,500 acres of terrestrial habitat will have its character altered during construction of transmission lines.

Recreational uses of the reservoir including waterskiing, boating, swimming, fishing and picnicking will be impaired, some perhaps severely, by the relatively large fluctuations in water level with concommitant changes in shoreline and area of exposed lake bottom.

Decreases in lake level are most likely to occur during those summer months when recreational demand is highest. The presence of four 480-ft tall natural draft cooling towers will constitute a substantial visual impact over long distances.

Operation of the plant will result in a small probability of significant accidental radiation exposure to individuals residing in the environs.

A small quantity of radioactive material will be released to the atmosphere and the Cape Fear River, which will result in an insignificant dose increment to individuals in the plant environs.

About 25 families will have to be relocated as a result of the' Shearon Harris project.

8.2 SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Potential sacrifice of long-term productivity in favor of short-term uses associated with power production at the Shearon Harris plant relates to possible continued loss of terrestrial productivity after decommissioning of the reactor. If the lake remains, the long-term productivity of forests and farms will be lost. If it result.s that the lake becomes a recreational resource, that resource would

8-2 probably balance the loss of terrestrial productivity. In this regard, it should be noted that radiation dose to users of the lake will continue for a number of years after decommissioning, in amounts similar to those discussed in Section 5.5, due to the presence of the long-lived radionuclide, 1 3 7 Cs. In addition, biological productiv-ity would remain lost for that portion of the land area covered by concrete structures if these structures were not removed upon decommissioning. Removal of the dams and drainage of the reservoir after plant deactivation would create conditions for the eventual reestablishment of flora and fauna similar to that existing before plant construction.

Other uses of the land or lake would not be obviated following the projected lifetime of normal operation and decommissioning of the Shearon Harris plant.

8.3 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES About 88 metric tons of 2 3 5 U will be irretrievably consumed over the 40-yr life of the Shearon Harris Plant, Units 1-4. However, in this process another useful resource, plutonium will be produced. The recovered plutonium can then be recycled as fuel.

Some components of the concrete structure and equipment are, in essence, irretrievable due to practical aspects of reclamation and/or radio-active decontamination.

8.4 EFFECTS RELATED TO PLANT DECOMMISSIONING No specific plan for the decommissioning of Shearon Harris Plant has been developed. This is consistent with the Commission's current regu-lations which contemplate detailed consideration of decommissioning near the end of a reactor's useful life. The licensee initiates such consideration by preparing a proposed decommissioning plan which is submitted to the AEC for review. The licensee will be required to comply with Commission regulations then in effect and decommissioning of the facility may not commence without authorization from the AEC.

To date, experience with decommissioning of civilian nuclear power reactors is limited to six facilities which have been shut down or dismantled: Hallam Nuclear Power Facility, Carolina Virginia Tube Reactor (CVTR), Boiling Nuclear Superheater (BONUS) Power Station, Pathfinder Reactor, Piqua Reactor, and the Elk River Reactor.

There are several alternatives which can be and have been used in the decommissioning of reactors: 1) Remove the fuel (possibly followed by decontamination procedures); seal and cap Ltie pipes; and establish an exclusion area around the facility. The Piqua decommissioning operation

8-3 was typical of this approach. 2) In addition to the steps outlined ih 1), remove the superstructure and encase in concrete all radio-active portions which remain above ground. The Hallam decommissioning operation was of this type. 3) Remove the fuel, all superstructure, the reactor vessel and all contaminated equipment and facilities, and finally fill all cavities with clean rubble topped with earth to grade level. This last procedure is being applied in decommissioning the Elk River Reactor. Alternative decommissioning procedures 1) and 2) would require long-term surveillance of the reactor site. After a final check to assure that all reactor-produced radioactivity has been removed, alternative 3) would not require any subsequent surveillance. Possible effects of erosion or flooding will be included in these considerations.

Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 50, an application for an operating license must provide information sufficient to demon-strate the applicant possesses or has reasonable assurance of obtaining the funds necessary to cover the estimated costs of permanently shutting the plant down and maintaining it in a safe condition.

9-1

9. ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES AND SITES 9.1 NEED FOR POWER 9.1.1 Power Demand Carolina Power and Light Company provides electrical service to its customers in North and South Carolina as shown in Figure 9.1.' In tile period 1965-1972, the Carolina Power and Light Company summer peak demand increased from 1931 W to 4119 MW, an average annual growth rate of increase of 12.0%/yr. Demand over the period 1973-1981 is estimated by the applicant to increase from 4711 to 10,801 W, an average annual growth rate of 10.9%/yr. These data are tabulated in Table 9.1.

There are large fluctuations in annual growth rate; for example, the summer peak demand grew by only 3.9% in 1967, but it increased 24.8% the

.following year. Such fluctuations are important considerations in establishing reserve requirements. The historical and projected rate of demand increase is considerably higher than the national average of 7.2%/yr. It should be noted that the projected demand data do not take into account potential effects of the current energy crisis. It seems probable, however, that demand growth will be somewhat less than pre-viously predicted.

9.1.2 Reserve Requirements The reserve requirements for. any utility are sensitive to a number of factors. The most important factor in establishing a reserve require-ment is the necessity for meeting demand with a high degree of reliability. Standards for reliability have been adopted by the industry such that utilities should fail meeting their load demands not more than one day out of every ten years. The reliability index of a system is a function of the operating characteristics of each component of the system and the reserves available to supply power when unscheduled outages occur.

Another factor which must be accounted for in determining the reserve requirements is the uncertainty in the prediction of demand. Table 9.1 illustrates the growth of the Carolina Power and Light Company summer peak demand. Two unpredictable variables, weather and business cycle, have a significant influence on demand. Another consideration in determining reserve requirements is that a period of 8 to 10 years is usually involved between the first design scoping and full power operation of a new generating facility; in its projections, the utility cannot predict with precision the date of availability of new capacity.

N.C.

S.C.

KANNAPOLIS CHARLOTTE o

• RALEIGH

.%SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 3

0 WILMINGTON I.

0 COLUMB~I

= SERVICE AREA

'FIGURE 9 .1 CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COM1PANY SERVICE AREA

9-3 TABLE 9.1 CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY SUMMER PEAK LOAD Year Summer Peak (MW) Annual Increase (%)

Actual 1965 1931 1966 2184 13.1 1967 2270 3.9 1968 2834 24.8 Average 1969 3055 7.8 Annual Increase = 12.0%

1970 3484 14.0 1971 3625 4.0 1972 4119 13.6 1973 4711 14.4 Forecast 1974 5206 10.5 1975 5783 .i 1976 6440 11.4 1977 7152 11.1 Average Forecas ted 1978 7943 11.1 Increase 10.9%

1979 8819 11.0 1980 9776 10.9 i981 10801 10.5

9-4 The nation-wide standard among utilities for acceptable system reliabilitv is approximately 20% reserve margin in installed generation capability over power demand.) Taking its particular system factors into account, Carolina Power and Light calculates that its system reserve should be 18% to meet all of its commitments.

9.1.3 Power Resources A utility has certain resources at its command to meet its peak demand.

These are the sum of: generating capacity, purchases (less sales),

and exchange power. The last of these cannot usually be counted on to deliver large amounts of peaking power unless the utility is on a large (geographically-speaking) interconnection which has noncoincidental time or seasonal peak demands. For example, there is a seasonal mis-match between the peak demand in the Pacific Northwest Power Pool and the California area. As a result, considerable blocks of power can be exchanged over the north-south intertie to meet the California summer peak and the Pacific Northwest winter peak. For Carolina Power and Light, the only viable long-term resources are company-owned generating capa-city and net purchases.

The applicant has provided a detailed breakdown of both resources and demand for the period 1965-1977. These data are included as Table 9.2.

When summer peak demand (plus 18% reserve requirements) is compared with available resources (see Figure 9.2), the necessity for additional power generation is apparent. While the goal reserve margin of 18% was not met in 1972, there is no serious divergence between the resource and requirements. In 1978, however, the resource predictions diverge from requirements.

The critical period of 1978-1981 is highlighted in Table 9.3. This data, excerpted from the applicant's environmental report, shows the reduction in reserve margin which will occur even if the proposed Shearon Harris Plant is maintained on its new schedule. The applicant is reconsidering demand projections and additional peaking power acquisi-tion in light of the projected 165 MW shortfall of resources indicated for 1979.

9.2 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES 9.2.1 Importing Power Carolina Power and Light Company, as well as neighboring utilities with which Carolina Power and Light is interconnected, are in similar situa-tions with respect to the prospects of importing large quantities of

9-5, 14,000 i SI I I I I I I I I 0

13,000 12 ,000 0

11 ,000 0

10,000 9000 C 0 0 0 8000 0 0

7000 'PEAK DEMAND PLUS 18T, RESERVES 6000 5000 0 RESOURCES WITH HARRIS PLANT OR EQUIVALENT 0

RESOURCES WITHOUT HARRIS PLANT OR EQUIVALENT 4000 I I I *I I I I I I I I 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 YEAR FIGURE 9.2 PROJECTED POWER DEMAND PLUS RESERVES VERSUS POWER SOURCES FOR CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT SERVICE AREA

TABLE 9.2 CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY POWER RESOURCES AT TIME OF SUMMER AND WINTER PEAKS, 1965-1977 MONTH -INSTALLED CAPACITY SEASON OF FOSSIL NUCLEAR I-C TOTAL CAP. TOTAL PEAK (MW) PEAK HYDRO STEAM STEAM TURBINE INSTALLED PURCHASES SALES RESOURCES LOAD RESERVE % RESERVE 1965 SUMMER AUG. 65 213 1632 ---- --- 1845 314 --- 2159 228 11.8

---

1931 12.0 1965-66 WINTER JAN. 66 211 1632 --- 1843 334 --- 2177 1943 234 1966 SUMMER AUG. 66 213 2007 --- .2220 222 --- 2442 2184 258 11.8 1966-67 WINTER DEC. 66 211 2038 2249 263 --- 2512 2127 385 18.1 1967 SUMMER JULY 67 213 2015 ---- --- 2228 407 --- 2635 2270 365 16.1 1967-68 WINTER JAN. 68 211 2043 ---- 18 2272 421 --- 2693 2445 248 10.1 1968 SUMMER AUG. 68 213 2700 ---- 80 2993 272 358 2907 2834 73 2.6 1968-69 WINTER DEC. 68 211 2728 ---- 90 3029 233 358 2904 2660 244 9.2 I'

1969 SUMMER JULY 69 213 2700 ---- 198 3111 271 168 3214 3055 159 5.2 1969-70 WINTER JAN. 70 211 2728 ---- 233 3172 223 114 3281 3171 110 3.5 386(a) 1970 SUMMER AUG. 70 213 2700 267 3180 --- 3566 3484 82 2.4 1970-71WINTER JAN. 71 211 2728 ---- 312 3251 529 (a) 93 3687 3400 287 8.4 1971 SUMMER JULY 71 213 2894 663 431 4201 390(a) 535 4056 3625 431 11.9 1971-72 WINTER JAN. 72 700 560 4393 448(a) 631 4210 3625 585 16.1 211 2922 1972 SUMMER AUG. 72 213 3245 685 487 4630 472 (a) 547 4555 4119 436 10.6 1972-73 WINTER JAN. 73 211 3273 700 564 4748 285ý31 424 4609 4119 490 11.9 1973 SUMMER 715 487 5449 2791al 219 5509 4711 798 17.0 213 4034 1973-74 WINTER 211 4062 730 564 5567 279 (a) 219 916 19.4 5627 4711 1974 SUMMER 213 4034 715 1117 6079 274 183 6170 5206 964 18.5 1974-75 WINTER 211 4062 1551 1284 7108 274 183 7199 5206 1993 3&3 1975 SUMMER 213 4034 1536 1117 6900 213 140 6973 5783 1190 20.6 1975-76 WINTER 211 4062 2372 1284 7929 213 2219 38.4 140 8002 5783 1976 SUMMER 213 2357 1117 8441 213 140 8514 6440 2074 32.2 4754 1976-77 WINTER 211 4782 2372 1284 8649 213 140 8722 6440 2282 35.4 1977 SUMMER 213 4754 2357 1117 8441 213 0 8654 7152 1502 21.0 1977-78 WINTER 2372 1284 8649 213 0 8862 7152 1710 23.9 211 4782 (a)INCLUDES RESERVE ALLOCATION ON CALL FROM SCPSA; 1970-43 MW; 1971-32 MW; 1972-20 MW: 1973-5 MW

9-7 TABLE 9.3 CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY POWER RESOURCES, LOAD AND RESERVES WITH AND WITHOUT SHEARON HARRIS PLANT 1978-1981 (SUMMER)

With Shearon Harris Plant on Schedule 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 Resources (MW) 8,654 8,654 10,174 11,021 13,254 Load 7,943 8,819 9,776 .10,801 Reserve (MW) 711 (165) 398 220 Reserve (%) 9.0 -1.9 4.1 2.0 Without Shearon Harris Plant 1978 1979 1980 1981 Resources (MW) 8,654 8,654 9,274 9,221 Load (MW) 7,943 8,819 9,776 .10,801 Reserve (MW) 711 (165) (502) (1,580)

Reserve (%) 9.0 -1.9 -5.2 -14.6 power. Each utility is confronted with long lead times for construction of generating facilities, high rates of load growth, and a need to increase reserve capacity margins. None of these utilities are installing any extra generating capacity in quantities required to allow selling to Carolina Power and Light Company on a firm basis in the amounts required if the Shearon Harris units are not brought into operation in the years 1979-1982 as currently scheduled.

Although the Carolina Power and Light Company plays an important role in the Virginia-Carolinas Subregion reserves, interchanges of large blocks of power on a firm basis will not be possible between Carolina Power and Light and its neighbors. The primary function of the interconnect ions established with the neighboring utilities, aside from the purchase and

9-8 sale of small blocks of power, is to provide emergency assistance in the event of equipment failure. Thus importing power to meet the requirements for the Carolina Power and Light Company Service Area is not a viable alternative.

9.2.2 Coal Coal is a possible alternative fuel source for use at the Shearon Harris plant. A coal-fired plant the same size as that proposed would reject about 70% as much heat to the cooling lake. The expected production of solid and gaseous products from a coal-fired plant the same size as the Shearon Harris plant is given in Table 9.4. The gaseous products would be discharged to the air and the ash would have to be buried.

In addition to contributing to air pollution, there are other environ-mental disadvantages to a coal-fired plant. One of these is the transportation impact. A coal-fired plant of 3600 MW capacity would consume about 7,500,000 metric tons of coal per year or about 20,000 metric tons a day. This would require two 100 car trains per~day to supply. In contrast, the nuclear design will require only around 120 metric tons of fresh fuel, and the same tonnage of spent fuel, to be transported each year.

TABLE 9.4 SOLID.AND GASEOUS PRODUCTS FROM2 A 3600 MWe COAL-FIRED PLANTT Product Metric Tons Per Year SO2 119,000 NO x 68,000 Particulates 10,000 Ash (10%) 750,000 An aesthetic impact results from the large coal pile required for reserves.

A 60-day supply for a plant of this size would be about 1,200,000 metric tons. If piled 30 ft high, the stockpile would cover about 48 acres. How-ever, the impact from the coal pile would probably be not as important at the Shearon Harris site because of its remoteness from populated areas and the ease with which the coal pile could be hidden by trees.

9-9 The economics of a coal-fired plant are unfavorable compared to a 3

nuclear plant. At the estimated mid-1978 coal cost of 75¢1/MBTU, the annual fuel expense for a plant of this size would be about $170 million. At 1.8 m.lls/kW-hr for fuel cycle costs the annual expense for a nuclear plant would be about $45.4 million. Over a 30-year life this difference in fuel cost would be about $3.74 billion. The estimated $252 million capital savings in a coal-fired plant would do very little to offset this huge difference in fuel cost. Costs of plant alternatives are again discussed in Sections 10 and 11.

9.2.3 Oil The use of oil as an energy source has qualitatively the same advantages and disadvantages as coal. There are quantitative differences in such effects as combustion wastes. The quantities of waste products which might be expected from an oil-fired plant are shown in Table 9.5.

The transportation impact would be about the same as coal unless a pipeline were constructed. The construction of the pipeline itself could have significant environmental effects.

TABLE 9.5 2

COMBUSTION PRODUCTS FROM A 3600 MWe OIL-FIRED PLANT Product Metric Tons Per Year SO 2 79,000 NO X 30,000 Par ticulates 10,000 Ash 79,000 The economics of an oil-fired plant are slightly better than those of the coal-fired one. Oil costs in mid-1978 are estimated by the staff to be $1.27/MBTU ($8.00/bbl). At this price the annual fuel expense would be about $176.8 million compared to the $45.4 million for the nuclear plant--a difference of $127.4 million/yr. Over 30 years this difference amounts to a total of about $3.8 billion. Even if the assumed $385 million savings in capital cost could be realized through" the construction of an oil-fired plant, the net costs of an oil-fired

9-10 plant would still be greatly in excess of the nuclear plants. Present day prospects for the availability of oil at any reasonable price would make consideration of an oil-fired base load plant of this size highly speculative.

9.2.4 Gas In past years, gas has been used in turbines to meet peaking demands.

Due to the national shortage in natural gas supplies, this practice is rapidly declining. Gas utilities in North Carolina have been instructed to carefully review any new requests from industrial users.

It is not anticipated by the applicant that any new supplies will be authorized for even the smallest of turbine generators.

The applicant is, on the other hand, installing 630 MW of oil-fired turbine capacity to be on line in the spring of 1974. These turbines will be fueled with No. 2 oil. While this type of capacity is designed to meet peaking demand, it can be used in emergencies to fill in base load demand. With the current price of oil, though, and the poor heat rate (about 15,000 BTU/kW-hr) of these machines, this is a very expensive method of meeting base load demand. For the long term, turbines are unacceptable for this type of service; they are not designed for long, uninterrupted service and the inefficient burning of fossil fuel needlessly adds to air pollution problems and consumption of a resource vitally needed for other uses.

9.3 ALTERNATIVE SITES The selection of a site for an electric power generating facility is governed in part by the following conditions:

Availability of land at reasonable cost to meet schedule.

Suitable foundation conditions for structures.

Low seismic activity.

• Low population density.

• Nearness of transportation facilities.

• Minimum impact on existing land and water uses and ecosystems.

• Location near system load and existing transmission facilities.

9-11 Six sites were identified in the general area where a need for additional generating capacity is claimed by the applicant. Each site was considered potentially adequate for development of the Shearon Harris Plant utilizing a once-through cooling lake concept. Of the six, the presently chosen site appears capable of fulfilling the above conditions most satisfac-torily.

Although these sites and others could be reinvestigated in depth taking into account the reduction of 6,000 acres from the originally planned cooling lake concept to cooling towers and a 4000 acre make-up reservoir concept, most of the land has been purchased, property owners have sold the timber from their land and those relocations necessary have already occurred. The ensuing delays in plant construction resulting from such investigations.when balanced against what the staff concludes to be minor overall adverse impact associated with either cooling concept does not, in the opinion of the staff, warrant these reinvestigations. Nor is it likely, based on the initial investigations, that any significant benefit would accrue from the use of any of the alternate sites.

The following sites were investigated in terms of the 10,000 acre cooling lake and are included without change for purposes of disclosing alternative sites which would also have been satisfactory for the present design.

Alternate Site No. 1 is situated in southern Wake County and western Johnston County. Had this site been chosen, it would have inundated around 40 homes. Approximately.28% of this site is used for agricul-tural production; most of this is involved in tobacco farms, all of which would have been inundated had this site been selected. Make-up water for the plant would have to be pumped through 9 miles of pipe-line.

Alternate Site No. 2 is located in eastern Wake County and northern Johnston County. The water supply of this site was not as adequate as at the Buckhorn-Whiteoak site. In addition, there is a considerable amount of farming, mostly in tobacco, in the site area. The selection of this site would have inundated about 3595 acres of farms which amounted to 30% of the total site area.

Alternate Site No. 3 is in southern Granville County. Selection of this site for the Shearon Harris Plant would have had an impact on land use and on people comparable to Buckhorn-Whiteoak. It did not possess the transmission possibilities the Buckhorn-Whiteoak site possesses. Power transmission would be limited to one direction while the Buckhorn-Whiteoak site has transmission possibilities in all four directions. Selection of this site would have eliminated about 2685 acres of farmland, which amounted to 23% of the total site area.

9-12 Alternate Site No. 4 is located in Harnett County. This site met most of the siting requirements including environmental and economic con-siderations. About 30% of the land at this site is involved in farming and would have been inundated. In comparison, the farmland inundated at Buckhorn-Whiteoak consists of only 8% of the total site area.

Alternate Site No. 5 is the Brunswick Plant site which is in the eastern division of the Carolina Power & Light system. The Carolina Power & Light system load demand for the year 1975 and after is con-centrated in.the northern division. As a result, placing additional generating facilities at Brunswick would have involved heavy trans-mission to projected load centers. Three new 500 kV lines (requiring 180-ft wide rights-of-way) would have to be built totaling well over 400 miles of new lines. In comparison, Buckhorn-Whiteoak will require only about 100 miles of 500 kV lines.

In the opinion of the staff, the impact of a nuclear plant at Alter-nate Sites No. 1, 2 and 4 with regard to land use and effect on the people of the area would be greater than at either Alternate Site No. 3 or Buckhorn-Whiteoak. Although the Buckhorn-Whiteoak site .and Alternate Site No. 3 would have similar effects on land use and people, Alternate Site No. 3 does not possess the advantages that Buckhorn.-

Whiteoak provides, i.e., nearness to load center, adequacy of cooling water supply and nearness to existing transmission facilities. Alter-nate Site No. 5 is the site farthest from the projected load center and is thus less desirable than the Buckhorn-Ahiteoak area. The staff concurs in the selection of the Buckhorn-Whiteoak area from among those sites suggested by the applicant for the site of the Shearon Harris Plant.

10-1

10. PLANT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES In addition to the reference case consisting of four natural draft cool-ing towers supplied by a 4000-acre cooling water makeup reservoir, the applicant considered five other heat dissipation alternatives. Of these the originally planned 8,400 acre cooling lake, mechanical-draft cooling towers and spray cooling ponds received rather detailed evaluation by the applicant. Two alternatives, dry cooling towers and stream fed once-through cooling were found to be impractical without detailed evaluation.

The original plant design which employed an 8,400-acre cooling lake was abandoned by the applicant following denial by the North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources of a request for a variance in the State stream water quality standards for a portion of the cooling lake. The Board's denial, in turn, resulted from an Environmental Protection Agency decision (see Section 1). Although this alternative may no longer constitute a viable consideration, the staff had. initially found the cooling lake concept to be environmentally superior for the Shearon Harris site and concludes that this alternative should again be described for purposes of comparison with the legally required alternative of cooling towers.

10.1 COOLING LAKE 1n the original condenser cooling design, cooling water was to be with-drawn from and returned to an'8,400-acre cooling lake. 1 The extent of the overall 10,000-acre impoundment is illustrated in Figure 10.1.

Under normal operating conditions with the 3600 MWe capacity on line, a water flow rate of approximately 4600 cfs would have been circulated from the main reservoir through the condensers. During normal full load operation, approximately 2.7 x 1010 Btu/hr of waste heat would have been removed from the four units, and the resulting water temperature increase across the condensers would have been about 26 0 F.

As shown in Figure 1.1, the applicant planned to operate two circulating water reservoirs and one auxiliary reservoir. Two circulating water reservoirs would have provided optimum pumping operation for makeup water an(L,;ould have provided additional treatment of downstream releases. The 320--acre auxiliary reservoir would have supplied cooling water for the emergency cooling system.

The main reservoir, located upstream from the smaller afterbay reservoir, would have had a normal water surface elevation of 250 ft MSL and a sur-face area of about 10,000 acres, of which 1300 acres were to be thermally

10-2

" - APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY CHAPELHIILL "* .  : OF PROPOSED NEW HOPE N RESERVOIR N- ' 'C,-

, - ' PANTHER CR.

PR E S PLAR f* ""

• • • MERRY OAKS

• HOLLY S PR INGS-w,5 RJUQUAY-

"IO~~RN CR. VRN S;ANFORD. '

BROADWAY,***

0 5 10 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF

-M I-LES PROPOSED COOLING LAKE FIGURE 10.1 STREAMS AND RIVERS IN THE VICINITY OF THE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED SHEARON HARRIS PLANT

10-3 isolated. Because of the inundation of several small tributaries, the main reservoir would have been irregularly shaped and would have been about 11 miles long with a shoreline length of 189 miles. The total storage volume in the main (including the thermally isolated portion) and auxiliary reservoirs at 5-ft flood stage (elevation 255 ft MSL) was calculated to be approximately 330,000 acre-ft. At normal stage (elevation 250 ft MSL), the combined reservoir volume would have been 2

about 275,000 acre-ft.

The afterbay reservoir was designed to permit makeup water pumping from the Cape Fear River to the main reservoir in two stages and would have allowed additional treatment before downstream release. Under normal conditions, the afterbay reservoir was to have a water surface elevation of 199 ft MSL, a surface area of about 400 acres and a storage volume of approximately 8500 acre-ft.

An earthen dam with a berm elevation of 260 ft MSL (the same dam as in the present design) was to separate the main reservoir from the after-bay reservoir. The afterbay reservoir was to be formed by another earthen dam that would have had a berm elevation of 210 ft MSL and was to be located 1600 ft upstream from the confluence of Buckhorn Creek with the Cape Fear river. The afterbay reservoir would have contained the Buckhorn Creek downstream from the main aam; a distance of about 3 miles.

10.1.1 Land Use About 1400 acres of the 18,000-acre site for the originally proposed Shearon Harris Plant is farmed. Of this, 612 acres would have been in-undated by the cooling reservoir. About 8900 acres of marketable timber land would have been inundated by the 10,400-acre impoundment. Assessing these effects in the manner discussed in Section 5.1, the staff concluded that the loss of this farm and timber land from production could not be considered to be a significant impact. The operation of a cooling lake at the proposed Shearon Harris site was not expected to produce a notice-able effect on the climate of the site,3, 4 although there would have likely been infrequent aggravation of i.aturally occurring fog and icing on Highway No. 1, and NC 42, north and south of the reservoir, respectively.

The applicant currently operates six cooling lakes in the Carolinas of up to 3750 acres in size and contends that there have been no known adverse effects from icing and fogging in the vicinity of these plants and as a consequence the applicant did not expect any problems associated with in-creased icing and fogging due to the operation of the Shearon Harris cooling lake.

10-4 10.1.2 Consumptive Uses and Thermal Patterns The probable thermal regime that would have developed in the main Shearon Harris reservoir was simulated by the staff who considered the reservoir in three parts and applied the COLHEAT Model 5 , 6 to each part separately. In the first part, the total heated discharge was routed from the plant to the point where it separates upstream from Dike No. 4, as shown in Figure 1.1. In the second part, 1400 cfs (an average annual expectation) was routed through the culverts in Dike No. 4 to the point where it rejoins the remainder of the flow.

In the third part, the remainder of the flow (3200 cfs) was routed from the separation point, upstream from Dike No. 4, through the various channels, under the skimmer wall and back to the plant intake, rejoining the flow from the second part at the appropriate location.

The areas of thermal loading were assumed to have a uniform depth of 15 ft, except for 20-ft depths between the skimmer wall and the chan--

nel near Dike No. 5. The total surface area of simulated thermal loading was assumed to be approximately 6700 acres. To make a direct comparison to the applicant's analysis and to consider the extreme case,.a plant load factor of 100% was assumed.

Upon examination of a 10-yr period of weather records obtained from the U.S. National Weather Records Center at Asheville, North Carolina, January 1969 was determined to be the low extreme (critical) winter month, and January 1966 was selected as a typical average winter month.

The high extreme (critical) summer month was June 1964, and the typi-cal average summer month was June 1969.

The forced evaporation rates obtained were the following: critical summer month, 71 cfs; average summer month, 63 cfs; critical winter month, 45 cfs; and average winter month, 31 cfs. Based upon these results, the staff expected the annual average forced evaporation rate from the main Shearon Harris reservoir to be about 47 cfs.

In addition to forced and natural evaporation, the applicant had allowed 5 cfs for seepage losses. 7' 8 For total average annual consumptive use (forced evaporation, natural evaporation and seepage), the applicant arrived at 107 cfs; whereas, the staff obtained 104 cfs. The land sur-face areas that would have been inundated by the reservoirs presently lose about 36 cfs to natural evapotranspiration and other losses accord-ing to the applicant;9 the staff estimated 31 cfs. Therefore, the staff estimated that, on an average annual basis, a net additional consumptive use of about 73 cfs would occur as a result of the operation of the

10-5 Shearon Harris Plant. The applicant's estimate of the average annual, net additional consumptive use was about 71 cfs.

Surface water temperature patterns were obtained from the COLHEAT model for five strategic locations within the main reservoir circulatory path.

The staff's summer critical and summer average surface temperature patterns are illustrated in Figures 10.2 and 10.3. The staff's winter critical and winter average surface temperature patterns are shown in Figures 10.4 and 10.5.

The applicant stated that water temperatures in the main reservoir near the dam during the summer might vary from about 92 0 F at the surface to about 55 0 F near the bottom. The applicant expected the water column in the main reservoir to mix as a result of wind action and isothermal con-ditions during the late fall and early spring. 1 0 It was the staff's opinion that such mixing would probably take place in areas where surface waters are cooler than about 59*F. As indicated in Figures 10..4 and 10.5, surface water temperatures would become less than 59*F during average winter conditions over about 75% of the main reservoir. The staff expected this part of the reservoir to remain mixed (and not to restratify) for about five months each winter.

Although not explicity shown in Figures 10.2 through 10.5, the surface extent of water which was expected to be heated to less than or equal to 5°F above ambient amounted to some 3000 acres of the main cooling lake.

Additionally the isolated lakes and afterbay-reservoir would contribute another 1700 acres for a total of 4700 acres where water temperatures were expected to be no more than 50 above ambient. Thus of the 10,400 acre impoundment nearly one half of the surface would not exceed 5*F above ambient. In addition, the volume of the total impoundment was determined to be 275,000 acre-ft of which 190,000 would not exceed 5VAT above ambient. Thus, about 30% of the total lake volume would have ex-ceeded 5°F above ambient. Since North Carolina water quality standards are related to a maximum of 5°F temperature increment over ambient, about 30% of the lake would have exceeded state thermal standards.

It should be noted that the total volume of water which is heated to less than 5°F above ambient may not all be considered as a suitable habitat for fish. When the dissolved oxygen content of a lake falls to about 4 ppm, the water is no longer suitable for fish. During the summer months, these concentrations or less may occur at depths of 25 feet and more below the surface of the lake. The volume of the cooling lake calculated to contain less than 4 ppm of dissolved oxygen amounted to 96,000 acre-feet. Thus, the volume of the lake, which is both less than 5*F over ambient and has sufficient oxygen to support a fishery, amounts to about 94,000 acre-feet.

10-6 ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER IALLY JTED AREA AUXIL IAR RESERVOI S~~7'"- THERMALLY ISOLATED LAKE AREA D3KE SADDLE DAý-

BUCKHORN r' 02 3 45 DAM ' S.*.P~ILLWAY N*

THOUSANDS OF FEET APE CAPER FEARz "-0-INDICATES CIRCULA TI NG RI VER WATER FLOW PATH FIGURE 10.2 STAFF'S SUMMER CRITICAL TEMPERATURE PATTERNS RESERVOIR SURFACE

10-7 ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER

-.- THERMALLY

ISOLATED

• f1* LAKE AREA

.~~~

DI SCHIARGE i';

C.H ANN EL CHANNEL

,IARY. S TE 3)* (

RVOIR2 4 UV DI KE i) : v E CHANNEL B80 , THERMALLY

• ISOLATED 88 . LAKE AREA RESERVOIP FL. 250 '

9S SK I 111MlER 9 0 WALL DIAIN IAI NORFOLK

~SOUTHERN

"*"* S P ILLWAY AY .j*. L A

,;ILWA THOUSANDS OF FEET

"* "--- .INDICATES CI RCULATING CA 1E  ;~,IATER FLOW PATH FEAR RIVE R FIGURE 10. 3 STAFF'S SUMMER AVERAGE RESERVOIR SURFACE TEMPERATURE PATTERNS

10-8 ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER THERMALLY ISOLATED LAKE AREA AUXIt. IAR RESERVOI THERMALLY ISOLATED LAKE AREA SADDLE DAM*--

LWAY

,42 BUGCKHORN 0 1 2345 DAM.

THOUSANDS OF FEET CAPE -- INDICATES CIRCULATING FEAR/ VATER FLOW PATH RI VER FIGURE 10.4 STAFF'S WINTER CRITICAL RESERVOIR SURFACE TEMPERATURE PATTERNS

10-9

IjERGY AND

IV IRONMErNTAL THERMALLY ISO LATE D LAKE AREA

--- INDICATES CIRCULATING WATER FLOW PATH FIGURE 10.5 STAFF'S WINTER AVERAGE RESERVOIR SURFACE TEMPERATURE PATTERNS

10-10 The makeup reservoir in the reference cooling tower design should contain about 68,000 acre-feet of water suitable for fish (Section 5.4.4). Thus, even under summer conditions and taking intb account some imprecision in calculations, the original cooling lake concept would have provided about one-third greater volume of fish habitat than will the cooling tower makeup reservoir.

10.1.3 Impacts on the Cape Fear River and Other Water Uses There are no surface water uses of Buckhorn Creek below the afterbay dam site and the applicant owns all the land below elevation 260 ft MSL. 1 1 Excluding the applicant's proposed Brunswick Steam Electric Plant withdrawal, about 65 to 70 cfs of the total water withdrawn (195 to 200 cfs) from the Cape Fear River is not returned to the river.

There are no known withdrawals of water from the Cape Fear River for irrigation. 1 1 , 1 2 The staff concluded, based upon the present low consumptive use of Cape Fear River water and upon future low-flow augmentation of the upper Cape Fear River, that the applicant's anticipated average annual, net additional consumptive use of 73 cfs at the Shearon Harris Plant would not affect adversely other downstream water uses.

On the average, the applicant expected to discharge 83 cfs to the Cape Fear River during the winter season and to discharge nothing during the summer season.1 3 The staff calculated daily Buckhorn Creek temperatures for an average winter month, January 1966, assuming that 100 cfs was dis-charged continuously from the main reservoir surface waters with no dilution in the afterbay reservoir as a result of makeup pumping from the Cape Fear River. Thermal patterns predicted near the main d=m and in the afterbay reservoir are shown for the average winter month in Figure 10.5. Average daily water temperatures at the mouth of Buckhorn Creek ranged from 32.1 to 52.9'F. Daily temperature differentials between Buckhorn Creek and the Cape Fear River ranged from -3.3 to +7.0 0 F. The 7-degree temperature differential increased the natural average river temperature by only 0.9°F at a distance of 1000 ft below the mouth of Buckhorn Creek.

Discharges of heated water from the Shearon Harris Plant to the Cape Fear River were planned to be in compliance with North Carolina water quality standards. Under those standards the Lower Piedmont and Coastal Plain waters, of which the Cape Fear River is one, are limited to an increase of 5°F with a maximum of 90°F outside of a reasonable mixing zone.

10-11 10.1.4 Flood Control The originally proposed Shearon Harris Plant would have provided some flood protection to the Cape Fear River below Buckhorn Dam. The peak flow expected during the probable maximum flood is 45,300 cfs at the afterbay dam site prior to construction. 14 ' 1 5 After the reservoir system was constructed, the peak outflow expected at the afterbay dam site during the probable maximum flood was calculated to be 34,100 cfs. 1 4 ' 1 5 Thus, the probable maximum flood peak could be reduced by about 11,200 cfs. Furthermore, the applicant stated that storms yield-ing as much as 10 in. of rainfall over the Buckhorn Creek basin could be controlled with only minor releases being made until the peak flow in the Cape Fear River had passed. 1 5 The staff reviewed the applicant's predictions and found them reasonable.

10.1.5 Impact on Groundwater Impacts on groundwater were considered to be negligible for reasons similar to those presented in Section 5.2.4.

10.1.6 Terrestrial Ecology The dominant effect on terrestrial biota would have resulted from creation of the lake and would have altered 6000 acres more area than will the current reference design. During construction, merchantable forest products would have been sold; however, the terrestrial habitat over 10,400 acres would have been essentially destroyed.

Impacts on terrestrial ecology from the operation of the Shearon Harris plant with a 10,000 acre lake were considered negligible.

10.1.7 Aquatic Ecology 10.1.7.1 Entrainment and Impingement Although the original plant design would have had minor detrimental effects on aquatic biota as a result of organisms being entrained or impinged at the intake structure and suffering mortality passing through the condensers, these effects are not sufficiently different, in terms of impact on reservoir population, to warrant detailed discussion.

10.1.7.2 Cooling Lake Biota The surface temperature of the Shearon Harris cooling lake during summer would have ranged from 88 to 116'F, and from 51 to 86 0 F in winter, depending on distance and travel time from the point of dis-charge. During periods of stratification in the reservoir the

10-12 epilimnion would have an average depth of about 15 ft; the hypolimnion would have a temperature of about 50 0 F and would have been nearly devoid of oxygen.

The high surface temperatures and the anoxic conditions in the bottom water in summer would tend to restrict the habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms to the inlets along shore that are out of the main circulation path of the lake. Even in these areas, density currents resulting from temperature differences might have permited the invasion of these zones by warm water.

As pointed out by the applicant, the persistent elevated temperatures would probably have produced changes by: 1) causing stratification of the water column and thereby discouraging vertical movement of organisms;

2) creating thermal barriers to spawning and nursery grounds; and 3) pro-ducing seasonal changes in spawning and development. 1 6 The high surface temperatures in the summer would have been one of the major factors limiting fish production in the reservoir. The acceptable upper thermal limits for representative species of freshwater fish are given in Table 10.117 and the lethal limits for species that may populate the reservoir are shown in Table 5.3.18 Temperatures in excess of 90 to 95°F are generally intolerable for more than brief exposures. The ability of fish to avoid adverse temperatures will limit mortality from direct exposure to high temperatures. The crowding of fish into a restricted habitat of a cooling lake to avoid high temperatures has resulted in malnutrition in fish due to the depletion of the food supply. 9 In the cooling lake portion of the Shearon Harris reservoir, a similar situation might have prevailed.

The production of nuisance algae blooms and the creation of eutrophic conditions would have been a definite possibility in the main Shearon Harris reservoir, particularly during the first few years when the release of nutrients from the decay of organic material and from the recently flooded land would have been high. With respect to the role of phosphorus and nitrogen in the process of eutrophication, it has been reported that a body of water is in danger when its springtime concentration3 of assimilable phosphorus' and inorganic nitrogen ex-ceed 10 mg/m 3 and 200-300 mg/m 3 , respectively.2 0 The concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen in both the Whiteoak-Buckhorn drainage and the Cape Fear River exceed these levels (Tables 2.19 and 2.20). These levels of nutrients plus the high summer surface temperatures, partic-ularly near the plant discharge, indicate a real possibility for high production of blue-green algae. Blue-green algae are generally con-sidered to be less desirable as a food base for hi~her trophic levels than are the colder water green algae and diatoms,1 The expected high turbidities in the reservoir, would have tended to limit algal blooms

10-13 TABLE 10.1 PROVISIONAL MAXIMUM TEMPERATURES RECOMMENDED AS COMPATIBLE WITH THE WELL-BEING OF VARIOUS SPECIES OF FISH 17 AND THEIR ASSOCIATED BIOTA 93°F Growth of catfish, gar, white or yellow bass, spotted bass, buffalo, carpsucker, threadfin shad, and gizzard shad.

90'F Growth of largemouth bass, drum, bluegill, and crappie.

84°F Growth of pike, perch, walleye, smallmouth bass, and sauger.

80°F Spawning and egg development of catfish, buffalo, threadfin shad, and gizzard shad.

75°F Spawning and egg development of largemouth bass, white, yellow, and spotted bass.

68OF Growth or migration routes of salmonids and for egg development of perch and smallmouth bass.

55'F Spawning and egg development of salmon and trout (other than lake trout).

48°F Spawning and egg development of lake trout, walleye, northern pike, sauger, and Atlantic salmon.

10-14 in the surface waters. The death and subsequent decay of the algae could further increase the anaerobic conditions of the bottom waters and the buildup of ammonLa, hydrogen sulfide and other decay products.

The_ survival of organisms introduced into the Shearon Harris reservoir w:itth the makeup water pumped from the Cape Fear River in summer would 110 have been expected to he high because of: 1) temperature differences between the river and reservoir, 2) the inability of river species to rapidly adapt to a lake environment and, 3) the possible high predation rate on these organisms due to limited food production in the reservoir.

As in the present design the make-up water pump intakes at the Cape Fear River would have been equipped with vertically travelling screens of 3/8 Lnch mesh and the maximum intake velocity would have been approximately 0.5 fps." -

As indicated earlier in this section, thermal impact and stratification problems might have limited the establishment of a sport fishery at the Shearon Harris reservoir. Intensive management, beginning with the early stages of reservoir development, would have been required. Reliance upon the Whiteoak-Buckhorn drainage and the water pumped from the river for seeding purposes would probably have resulted in the establishment of fish populations dominated by undesirable species. Even under intensive management, adverse summer conditions would have tended to limit the over-all development of recreational fishing; winter fishing would probably have been favored over summer fishing.

Since little or no discharge of water from the main reservoir to the afterbay reservoir was planned during the summer, the thermal charac-teristics of the afterbay reservoir should have been fairly typical of natural lakes in the area. The passage of makeup water from the Cape Fear River through the afterbay reservoir and then into the main reservoir, would have aided in maintaining conditions suitable for aquatic life. To increase the dissolved oxygen content, water would have been released through reaeration valves when passed from the main reservoir to the afterbay reservoir and from the afterbay reservoir to the Cape Fear River.

10.1.7.3 Cape Fear River Elevated temperatures of water in the Cape Fear River resulting from dis-charges from the afterbay reservoir did not appear to have significance in terms of biological impact. Even under maximizing conditicns, staff cal-culations indicated that it was unlikely that the temperature would exceed about 1F above ambient outside of a zone occupying about one fifth of the river width for about 1000 ft downstream of the confluence of the Buckhorn Creek discharge and the Cape Fear River.

10-15 10.1.8 Radiological Impact on Man Using.techniques similar to those detailed in Section 5.5, the staff estimated the doses to be received by individuals via significant pathways due to the operation of the originally proposed Shearon Harris plant. The doses due to liquid effluents are summarized in Table 10.2; they would be higher, but not significantly so, than the projected liquid effluent doses for the current reference design shown in Table 5.5. Doses to individuals due to gaseous effluents would be identical to those listed in Table 5.5.

The total integrated population dose received by the approximately 1.3 million people who may live within a 50-mile radius of the plant in 1980 from the four pathways associated with the liquid effluents was estimated to be 21 man-rem/yr under normal operating conditions.

These doses are summarized in Table 10.3.

TABLE 10.3 ANNUAL DOSE TO THE POPULATION DUE TO LIQUID RELEASES FROM THE SHEARON HARRIS PLANT UTILIZING A 8700 ACRE COOLING LAKE (man-rem/yr)

Cumulative Pathway Annual Usage Total Body Fish 3.1 x 10' kg 9.6 Water 7.3 x 107 liter 11 Shoreline 1.3 x 104 hr 0.021 Swimming and Boating 2.6 x 104 hr 0.000064 TOTAL 21 10.1.9 Radiological Impact on Other Biota The external radiation dose rates to organisms such as algae entrained in the Shearon Harris Plant cooling system were estimated to be about 3 x 10-6 mrad/hr. These dose rates would have decreased as the effluent moved into the reservoir.

TABLE 10.2 RADIATION DOSES TO INDIVIDUALS FROM EFFLUENTS RELEASED FROM THE FOUR UNITS OF SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT UTILIZING AN 8700 ACRE COOLING LAKE (mrem/yr)

Annual Pathway. Usage Skin Total Body Thyroid Bone G.I. Tract Fish 18 kg 5.6 0.28 .0.25 5. 0 9 kg 0.24 0.57 0.11 0.13 Mollusca and/or crustacea 500 hr 0.94 0.81 (0.81) (0.81) (0.81)

Shoreline Swimming 100 hr 0.00044 0.00036 (0. 00036) (0.00036) (0.00036) 100 hr 0.00022 0.00017 (0.00017) (0.00017) (0.00017)

Boating

(-f (a) ()indicates dose received from external source. O

10-17 Other aquatic organisms likely to receive radiation doses from the plant are species (such as fish and molluscs) living in the discharge bay and receiving internal dose from radionuclides in the silt and water. Doses received by those organisms (and by their consumers) would have been somewhat lower than those detailed for the current reference design (Section 5.6). The differences are not considered significant since, with either design, annual doses on the order of those predicted for aquatic organisms (algae, fish and clams) living in the plant discharge, are below the chronic dose levels that might be suspected of producing 2 3 demonstrable radiation damage to aquatic biota.

10.2 MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWERS In the original FES, it was pointed out that the applicant had described mechanical draft cooling towers as an alternative heat dissipation method.

The proposed design, which the staff considered reasonable, called for ten towers each about 65 feet wide, 500 feet long, and 60 feet high requiring about 70 acres of land. 2 4' 2 5 The applicant contended that the best location would be to the northeast of the proposed location of the reactors and other plant components, perhaps necessitating relocation of the plant from the proposed site. The staff considers that such reloca-tion, if necessary, would not be an insurmountable problem. If the present site were used, the applicant believes that an additional natural, flowing creek would have to be diverted from its present course thus causing some further upset of the local ecosystem.

The applicant estimated that evaporation from the towers and the 7200 acre makeup reservoir would average about 115 cfs, blowdown would average about 26 45 cfs, and drift loss would range from 0.25 to 10 cfs.

The staff's estimate of total consumptive use for a 3600 MWe mechanical draft cooling-tower system was about 137 cfs. This value was obtained by using 85% of the total heat load for tower evaporation, adding 42 in/yr natural evaporation from a 7200 acre lake, 2 7 and using 0.005% of the cir-culating water flow for drift loss. The total consumptive use of water (excluding groundwater seepage) amounted to approximately 100,000 acre-feet per year.

The staff believes that blowdown will range from 13 to 120 cfs.3 1 The applicant estimates that the temperature of the blowdown would be 10F to 12 0 F above ambient wet-bulb temperature. The blowdown would include the chemicals that occur naturally in the makeup water from both the Cape Fear River and Buckhorn Creek, residual chlorine, and trace amounts of chemicals that would be used as wood preservatives and corrosion inhibitors.25 Mechanical-draft towers have a greater potential for ground-level fogging and icing than natural-draft towers because of the lower release height,

10-18 reduced buoyancy, and increased potential entrainment of the plume within the wake of the tower, nearby structures, or topographic features. The length of plumes, and the potential for increasing cloudiness (exclusive of ground fog) and precipitation offsite would be less for mechanical-draft cooling towers than for natural-draft towers.

The applicant estimates that the mechanical draft towers would have a capital cost of $73 million. This cost is the same as for natural-draft towers and represents an increase of $6 million over the cost reported in the original FES and estimated by the -pplicant in 1971. This cost does not include the acquisition of 3 million cubic yards of earth fill to provide a suitable area for placement of the mechanical-draft towers.

10.3 SPRAY PONDS AND CANALS The applicant described a 100-acre spray cooling pond consisting of about 650 spray modules, each requiring an area of about 40 ft by 160 ft.

The spray pond and storage reservoir would be located in the same general area as the proposed main Shearon Harris reservoir. The staff believes that such a spray pond would require about 175 acres of water surface.

Evaporation from the spray cooling system, including natural lake surface evaporation, is expected to be about the same as for the natural draft cooling tower system. Using vendor's data for drift loss collected at the ground surface and making allowance for drift that would not reach the ground surface, the staff estimates that drift losses would be about 2 cfs. The staff estimates total consumptive water use for a 175-acre spray pond and 4000-acre storage reservoir to be about 91 cfs.

Continual blowdown would probably not be required for a spray pond impounded on Buckhorn Creek, because occasional high stream flows would reduce the dissolved solids content of the pond to acceptable levels.

Chemical constitutents in the pond discharge would include those contained in Buckhorn Creek and the makeup water from the Cape Fear River.

Since each spray module would contain at least a 75hp motor and a pump, net plant generating capacity would be reduced. Maintenance of 650 motors operating under spray conditions may also present some problems.

Lack of data makes it difficult to quantitatively compare the fogging potential of spray systems with other cooling methods. Qualitatively, however, it is expected that a spray system will cause more ground fog

10-19 than a cooling pond or natural draft cooling tower. It is not clear whether mechanical draft towers would be better or worse than a spray system with respect to fog formation. Operating experience with cooling towers, ponds, and spray ponds, indicates that due primarily to greater amounts of spray drift, icing will be more severe with spray systems.

This concept would have required a variance in water-quality standards from the North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources. Since a similar variance was refused for the 8,700 acre cooling lake concept, it is not now considered possible for a spray pond. Consequently, the staff no longer considers a spray pond to be a possible alternative cooling system.

On the other hand, a spray canal which would not impinge on the Buckhorn-White Oak watershed has been evaluated further. In this system a 4000-acre makeup reservoir would be required along with essentially the same areas of cooling surface as calculated for the spray pond concept. The staff's calculations indicate that a near-maximum width of 300 to 360 feet would be required for the canal to achieve efficient heat transfer. As a consequence, the canal would need to be 4 to 5 miles in length to achieve a surface area of 175 acres. Because of the low, rolling topography of the Shearon Harris site, the staff does not consider the construction of.

4 to 5 miles of canals and aquiducts to be feasible without significant impact on Buckhorn-White Oak watershed. Consequently, this alternative is not considered to be practical.

10.4 DRY COOLING TOWERS In a dry cooling system heat is rejected directly to the atmosphere without using water as an intermediate heat receiver. One of the obvious advantages of this system is the elimination of the need for a water makeup supply and the elimination of water and salt drift from the tower.

Disadvantages which counterbalance these advantages include losses in plant efficiency due to increased turbine back pressures, condenser replacement costs, large land and capital requirements, increased plant power requirements for cooling tower fans, and increased noise. Because of these disadvantages, and'also becau, e dry cooling tower reliability and performance has not been demonstrated for heat loads as large as those associated with these units, the staff considers the dry cooling tower to be an unacceptable alternative to the proposed design.

10.5 ONCE-THROUGH STREAM COOLING Once-through stream cooling for the Shearon Harris Plant at the proposed location was also dismissed by the applicant as a feasible alternative because the supply of stream water is inadequate at this location; the staff concurs. The staff considers that no site within the applicant's service area is environmentally suitable for once-through stream cooling.

10-20 10.6 SI24ARY COST COMPARISON OF PLANT ALTERNATIVES The costs of the various alternatives are tabulated in Table 10.4. The capital and annual operating costs are based, for the most part, on data submitted by the applicant in his Environmental Report; the staff finds them to be acceptable based on cost estimates and experience with other, similar facilities. The technique used in this analysis is called the "present worth method" in which all costs are reduced to an equivalent capital expense at a single point in time. The time point of reference is chosen at the time of plant startup. In this method, operating and capital expenses can be compared. Likewise, expenses over a period of time can be corrected for the time value of money. In this analysis, costs were discounted at 8.75% which was assumed to be the real cost of money.

An economic lifetime of 30 years was assumed.

Table 10.4 ESTIMATED CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS FOR THE SHEARON HARRIS PLANT (MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)

REFERENCE CASE COOLING ALTERNATIVES PLANT ALTERNATIVE Natural-Draft Towers Mechanical Draft Cooling Coal-fired Plant*

Towers Lake CAPITAL COSTS Water Impoundment $ 24 $ 24 $ 64 $ 24 Cooling Towers 73 73 73 Plant Costs 961 961 961 706 Total Capital Costs $1058 $1058 $1025 $ 803 ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS Fuel $ 45.40 $ 45.40 $ 45.40 $ 170.00 Operation and Maintenance o-Cooling Alternative 2.62 2.44 2.62 0 0.04 Generating Facility 12.55 12.55 12.55 12.55 Total Operating Costs $ 60.6 $ 60.4 $ 58.0 $ 185.2 PRESENT WORTH Capital Costs $1058 $1058 $1025 $ 803 Operating Costs** 637 636 610 1946 Total Present Worth $1695 $1694 $1635 $2749

• Assumes 4 natural-draft cooling towers

• • 30-year present worth of uniform, annual expenditures at a discount rate of 8.75%

11-1

11. COST-BENEFIT COMPARISONS AND CONCLUSIONS The anticipated adverse environmental impacts and costs associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Shearon Harris Plant have been discussed in detail in previous sections of this Statement. Alternative energy sources and plant sites were discussed in Section 9. Plant design alternatives were analyzed and total dollar costs were developed and summarized in Section 10. A comparison of costs and benefits associated with the plant, as currently proposed, is presented in Table 11.1. Similar comparisons for other possible design alternatives (mechanical-draft cool-ing towers, cooling lake, and coal-fired plant) are given in Tables 11.2, 11.3, and 11.4 respectively.

In addition to permitting a cost-benefit balancing of the proposed plant, a study of Tables 11.2 through 11.4 allows a comparison of the cost-benefit relationship among alternative designs. Costs which are greater than in the reference case (natural-draft cooling towers) are preceded by a parenthetical plus sign (+) and costs that are less than in the reference case are preceded by a (-) sign. Similarly, benefits for a given alternative which are greater than in the reference case are preceded by(+) and those which are smaller are preceded by (-).

In each of the tables, costs have been categorized as "major", "minor", or "insignificant", while the benefits are labeled "major" or "minor". It is recognized that comparison of costs and benefits must be left in unquantifiable terms in some cases. There has been no attempt to list costs or benefits in order of importance within a category, nor has there been an effort to show that a given cost is offset by a corresponding benefit.

The mechanical-tower cooling concept (Table 11.2) involves essentially the same dollar costs as the proposed system (natural-draft towers). The cost-benefit balance for the mechanical-draft alternative was made primarily on the costs associated with obtaining 25,000 additional acre-feet per year consumptive water use and the need to obtain an additional 3.4 million cubic yards of earth fill from an undesignated spoil area. These costs were balanced against the long-range visual impact and potential plume from the four 500-feet high natural draft cooling towers. As a result of such comparisons, the staff favors the natural-draft cooling tower design because of its lesser environmental impact while achieving essentially identical benefits.

The original design for the Shearon Harris Plant proposed a cooling lake (Table 11.3) which the staff considered to be the cooling alternative which most completely fulfilled the goals of NEPA. Although the staff still

TABLE 11.1. ENVIRONMENTAL COQT-BENEFIT

SUMMARY

FOR THE SHEARON HARRIS PLANT AS PROPOSED -

NATURAL DRAFT COOLING TOWERS CTotal Present-Worth Cost - $1,695 milion)

Major Costs Major Benefits Destruction of 4,5000 acres of flora and Production of 25 billion kW hrs/yr electricity terrestrial habitat Several thousand man--years of employment over an eight-year construction period Creation of approximately 200 permanent jobs Creation of 68,000 acre-feet of aquatic habitat Csee text for conditions)

Minor Costs Minor Benefits 40-year commitment of 10,744 acres to in- Creation of recreational facilities (see text

• I-dus trial use for limitations) 75,000 acre-feet/yr additional consumptive use Flood control on Buckhorn-Whiteoak Watershed of water Release of 1,000 tons of CO2 per year plus small Educational benefit from the Energy and Environ-amounts of other gases and particulates from mental Center testing of auxiliary diesel generators Destruction of benthic organisms in inundated Buckhorn-White Oak Watershed Visual impact of 480 ft high cooling towers Displacement of 25 families Removal of 3,200 acres from marketable timber reserves.

TABLE 11.1 (Continued)

Minor Costs (Continued)

Increased traffic, dust, etc. associated with construction Generation of radioactive wastes which must be managed.

Insignificant Costs High level, low density fog and plume potential Addition of 26 man-rem/yr to natural dose of 180,000 man-rem/yr to population within 50 miles Potential dose of 28 millirem/yr to thyroid of hypothetical infant Loss of 500 acres of agricultural production Addition of trace amounts of radioactive material to the environs Disturbance of wildlife during construction of plant and transmission lines A very low risk of accidental radiation exposure.

TABLE 11.2. ENVIRONMENTAL COST-BENEFIT SUMIARY FOR MECHANICAL-DRAFT COOLING TOWERS ALTERNATIVE (Total Present-Worth Cost $1,694 million - $1 million less than Reference Case)

Major Costs Major Benefits Destruction of 4,500 acres of flora and Production of 25 billion kW hrs/yr electricity terrestrial habitat Several thousand man-years of employment over an eight-year construction period

• Creation of approximately 200 permanent jobs

• Creation of 68,000 acre-feet of aquatic habitat (see text for conditions)

Minor Costs Major Benefits

. 40-year commitment of 10,744 acres to

• Creation of recreational facilities (see text industrial use for limitations)

(+) 100,000 acre feet/yr additional consumptive use-

• Flood control on Buckhorn-Whiteoak Watershed of water

. Release of 1,000 tons of CO per year plus small Educational benefit from the Energy and Environ-amount of other gases and particulates from testing mental Center of auxiliary diesel generators

(+) . Additional 3.4 million cubic yards of fill material required Destruction of benthic organisms in inundated Buckhorn-Whiteoak Watershed

TABLE 11.2 (Continued)

Minor Costs (Continued)

(+) . Increased low-level of fog potential

• Displacement of 25 families

• Removal of 3,200 acres from marketable timber reserves.

.. Increased traffic, dust, etc. associated with construction

• Generation of radioactive wastes which must be managed Insignificant Costs Ln

(+) . Increased noise level onsite caused by mechanical blowers

" Addition of 26 man-rem/yr to natural dose of 180,000 man-rem/yr to population within 50 miles

" Potential dose of 28 millirem/yr to thyroid of hypothetical infant

" Loss of 500 acres of agricultural production

• Addition of tracfe amounts of radioactive materials to the environs

• Disturbance of wildlife during construction of plant and transmission lines

• A very low risk of accidental radiation exposure

TABLE 11.3. ENVIRONMENTAL COST-BENEFIT

SUMMARY

FOR THE COOLING-LAKE ALTERNATIVE (Total Present-Worth Cost $1,635 million -

$60 million less than Reference Case)

Major Costs Major Benefits

(+) .Destruction of 10,400 acres of flora and Production of 25 billion kW hrs/yr electricity terrestrial habitat

(-) .Several thousand man-years of employment over an eight-year construction period

(-) .Creation of 180 permanent jobs

(+) Creation of 94,000 acre-feet of aquatic habitat (see text for conditions)

(+) .Creation of potential recreational facility (see text for limitations) a,

(+) .2.3% lower internal power requirement Minor Costs Major Benefits

• 40-year commitment of 18,000 acres to in-Flood Control on Buckhorn-Whiteoak Watershed dustrial use 73,000 acre-feet/yr additional consumptive use Educational benefit from the Energy and of water Environmental Center Release of 1,000 tons of CO2 per year plus small amounts of other gases and particulates from testing of auxiliary diesel generators

• Destruction of benthic organisms in inundated Buckhorn-Whiteoak Watershed

TABLE 11.3 (Continued)

Minor Costs (Continued)

(+) .Displacement of 50 families

(+) .Removal of 8,900 acres from marketable timber reserves Increased traffic, dust, etc. associated with construction

• Generation of radioactive wastes which must be managed.

Insignificant Costs Addition of 24 man-rem/yr to natural dose of 180,000 man-rem/yr to population within 50 miles

" Potential dose of 28 millirem/yr to thyroid of hypothetical infant

(+) . Loss of 612 acres of agricultural production

" Addition of trace amounts of radioactive materials to the environs

. Disturbance of wildlife during construction of plant and transmission lines

" A very low risk of accidental radiation exposure

TABLE 11.4. ENVIRONMENTAL COST-BENEFIT

SUMMARY

FOR A COAL-FIRED ALTERNATIVE PLANT (Total Present-Worth Cost $2,749 million - $1,054 million more than Reference Case)

Major Costs Major Benefits Destruction o f 4,500 acres of flora and . Production of 25 billion kW hrs/yr electricity terrestrial h abitat

(+) .Releases to t he atmosphere of 119,000 tcens of SO 2 . Several thousand man-years employment over per year; 68, 000 tons of NOx per year; and 10,000 the period of plant construction tons of parti culates per year Creation of permanent jobs for plant operation Creation of 68,000 acre-feet of aquatic habitat (see text for conditions)

I-.

Minor Costs Minor Benefits 40-year commitment of 10,744 acres to in-

• Creation of Recreational facilities (see text dustrial use for limitatioins)

(-) .53,000 acre-feet/yr additional consumptive use Flood control on Buckhorn-Whiteoak Watershed of water

• Destruction of benthic organisms in inundated Buckhorn-Whiteoak Watershed

(+) . Visual impact of 500 ft high cooling towers and off-gas stack

(+) .Production of 750,000 tons/yr of ash Displacement of 25 families

TABLE 11.4 (Continued)

Minor Costs (Continued)

• Removal of 3,200 acres from marketable timber reserves

• Increased traffic, dust, etc. associated with construction

(+) . Visual pact of coal-storage yard Insignificant Costs

• High level, low density fog and plume potential

" Loss of 500 acres of agricultural production

• Addition of trace amounts of radioactive material to the environs

. Disturbance of wildlife during construction of plant and transmission lines

11-10 maintains this belief, a construction permit based on this cooling concept has been precluded by decisions of other regulatory agencies.

A coal-fired steam plant (Table 11.4) would cost over $1 billion more than the reference design over a plant life of 30 years. Such a plant also would emit large quantities of atmospheric pollutants and produce large amounts of ash which would have to be disposed of in some satisfactory manner. The principal advantages of a coal-fired plant are: (1) increased efficiency which results in decreased consumptive use of cooling water; (2) absence of the radioactive waste management problems associated with nuclear plants; (3) the very limited environmental effects associated with the most serious postulated accidents. The staff believes that the additional monetary burden placed on the electrical consumer and the substantial additions to the pollution of the atmosphere are not justified on the basis of a postulated accident associated with nuclear waste management and its impact on the environment.

As shown in Table 11.1, the greatest impacts resulting from the con-struction and operation of the Shearon Harris Plant with natural-draft cooling towers will fall upon the land. A similar situation exists in all the alternatives - differing principally in the amount of land that will be converted from its present status of small farms and scrub timber to a multi-cove lake of equivalent space. The most significant difference exists between the 10,400-acre cooling lake and the three make-up pond alternatives. The staff realizes that all of these proposals preclude all- other-options for use of the inundated- land forat least the life ....

of the plant. The only use of the reservoirs (other than to supply cooling water to the plant) that is foreseen is for recreational purposes and the extent to which this use may be classified as a benefit varies between the 10,400-acre and 4000-acre concepts. Because many parameters (access roads, shore facilities, opportunities for fishing, boating, skiing, swimming, picnicking, etc.) remain unknown, the staff is unable to predict what the actual recreational potential will be and, consequently, cannot fully compare such activities with the known (but small) use of the land as it now exists. The larger lake would appear to have greater potential than the smaller make-up pond for all active water sports. It is even more difficult to assess the future value of either size reservoir for sports fishing because plans for stocking and managing the lakes have not been developed. The staff knows that the cooling lake would have temperatures which would always be higher than ambient and which might be damaging to some biota. Such a lake, however, would have a much greater volume than the make-up lake used with cooling towers and, thereby, would maintain a higher chemical quality.

11-11 A significant impact to a relatively small number of people who live on this land will be the necessity to leave their homes which now are located within the boundaries of the future reservoir. This displacement is a function of the size of the reservoir and is, thus, somewhat more serious in.the cooling-lake alternative. An accompanying effect will be the simultaneous loss of land that is currently being farmed by these inhabitants.

As a result of the comparisons of alternatives, the staff finds very little difference between the environmental impacts to be expected from either of the cooling tower alternatives other than the significantly more extensive site preparation required for ten rectangular mechanical-draft cooling towers as opposed to four cylindrical natural-draft towers.

The esthetic impacts associated with the cooling tower concepts cannot be quantified but are believed to be real and, thereby can be considered an additional cost when compared to the cooling-lake. A coal-fired steam plant would have additional stacks, many hundred feet high, which would present an even greater visual impact on the rural character of this.

area.

In conclusion, the staff finds the present design of the Shearon Harris Plant, calling for natural-draft cooling towers, to beenvironmentally acceptable. A construction permit should be granted for this plant subject to certain previously described conditions which the staff finds necessary for additional assurance of environmental protection.

12-1

12. DISCUSSION OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Pursuant to Paragraph A.6 of Appendix D to 10 CFR 50, the revised Draft Environmental Statement of January 1974 was transmitted, with a request for comments, to:

Advisory Council on Ristoric Preservation Department of Agriculture Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Department of Commerce Department of Health, Education and Welfare Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of Interior Department of Transportation Environmental Protection Agency Federal Power Commission North Carolina Governor's Office North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources North Carolina Department of Administration North Carolina Department of Human Resources North Carolina Department of Art, Culture, and History North Carolina State Highway Commission Carolina Power and Light Company County Commission of Wake County, North Carolina County Commission of Chatham County, North Carolina In addition, the AEC requested comments on the revised Draft Environmental Statement from interested persons by a notice published in the Federal Register on January 18, 1974. Comments in response to the requests referred to above were received from:

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Department of Agriculture Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Department of Commerce Department of Health, Education and Welfare Department of Interior Environmental Protection Agency Federal Power Commission Carolina Power and Light Company North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources North Carolina Department of Transportation Our consideration of comments received and the disposition of the issues involved are reflected in part by revised text in other sections of this revised Final Environmental Statement and in part by the following dis-cussion. The comments are included in this statement as Appendix F.

12-2 Specific responses are organized by topic (referenced to the commenter) starting in Section 12.2 below. The nature and detail of the comments by the Environmental Protection Agency, however, are sufficiently unique to warrant a general response to that agency's comments. This is pre-sented in Section 12.1 below.

12.1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY As is indicated in several places in this Final Environmental Statement, there exists disagreement between the AEC staff and the EPA as to which cooling approach, a cooling lake or cooling towers with a smaller lake, is environmentally preferable for the Shearon Harris facility. Some of the disagreement stems from differences in opinion of technical experts attempting to predict the future conditions which will exist following impoundment of Buckhorn and White Oak creeks. The observational and research data concerning fisheries and fishery management to which such experts turn for guidance is often contradictory or lacking in desired detail. For example, controlled laboratory studies may indicate severe stressing of a fish species under conditions apparently well tolerated by the same species in high temperature lakes. Currently, then, this predictive approach is far from an exact science and often results in sharply differing positions by equally competent scientists, A second major source of disagreement stems from the somewhat different interpretations of the laws under which the two agencies operate. Th1e AEC staff conducts a cost benefit balance under the broad NEPA guide-lines (see Foreword). EPA responds to the specifics of the FWPCA which.

provide for the sequential employment of "Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available" and "Best Available Technology Econom-ically Achievable" to eliminate thermal discharges and which stress

"...the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on the body of water into which the discharge is made....."

For reasons stated in this Final Environmental Statement, the AEC staff is precluded by EPA and State of North Carolina actions from granting construction permits based on the cooling lake design and is recommending the issuance of permits for the Shearon Harris facility based on a natural draft cooling tower design as an environmentally acceptable but more costly alternative. Thus, there is no difference in the ultimate posi-tion of the AEC and EPA on the design of the facility as it will actually be built.

Inasmuch as the recommendations in the revised Final Environmental State-ment differ markedly from those in the original Final Enviroamental State-ment (published in May 1973), the staff felt that a thorough review was necessary to maintain the continuity of public understanding. Therefore,

12 -3 a discussion of the reasoning leading to the staff's initial choice of a cooling lake approach and a history of the events leading to the change in staff position is presented in this revised Final Environmental Statement.

In its comments on the revised draft (p. F-23 through F-58), EPA has pre-sented detailed reasoning for its disagreement with many of the technical statements by the AEC staff concerning both the cooling lake and the cooling tower alternative. If the cooling lake concept were still a potential alternative, there would be an obvious need to resolve these disagreements to the greatest extent possible. Since the cooling lake is not now a-p-terLtialalte rna-t-ive-,-the- -staf-f- -fee-ls-that-nro-urposes-- ___

would be served by rearguing these points, at least within the vehicle of this Final Environmental Statement. Those involved in the generic problems of cooling system selection for power plants will, of course, be interested in the information contained in the EPA comments.

Some additional remarks concerning timeliness seem appropriate. The initial DES was published in November 1972. EPA's comments on that statement (con-tained in the June 1973 FES) were far less detailed in their criticism of the recommended cooling lake than are its current comments. In its pre-

,vious comments, EPA favored cooling towers and pointed out that a variance from Water Quality Standards would be needed if the cooling lake concept was to be used. EPA did not indicate at that time that it would decline to approve such a variance. On July 10, 1973, however, EPA took this step officially in a letter to the North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources (p. A-2). This action was taken after the publication of the initial FES. Wording of the resultant North Carolina Water Board decision of July 19, 1973 (p. B-2) indicates that the Water Board disagreed with the EPA recommendation (see conclusions 5 and 6 of their decision) but felt it necessary under the circumstances to deny the variance. The state's continuing disagreement with the EPA recommendation is indicated by the comments of the North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources (p. F-64). As a result of the EPA action, an extension of the licensing process of 10 months was necessary to allow for the applicant's redesign of his cooling system and the staff's evaluation of the environ-mental and safety features of the revised design. Consequently, the pro-jected initial operation of the plant will be substantially delayed.

EPA has also commented on the cooling tower make-up reservoir, the cost benefit analysis and radiological aspects. These comments are addressed in the subject-specific responses below.

12.2 WATER QUALIJZY AND CONSUMPTION 12.2.1 Chemical Releases (Interior, p. F-21)

The text of the Statement has been amplified in Section 5.4.3 to describe more fully the anticipated problems associated with the discharge of sulfate

12-4 salts. These chemicals result from the need to regenerate ion-exchanger beds and to control the acidity of the closed cycle cooling water. During plant operation these sulfate salts comprise nearly all of the chemical effluents and, consequently, nearly all of the plant sources of dissolved solids in the make-up reservoir.

______he_bbuildup-of -- he-t-_a-l--d-is so -ved-s-o-i-ds--(from-bo-th-pýat--af(nat:ura sources) in the reservoir will initiate a degenerative cycle by increasing the amount of chemicals required for subsequent production of demineralized water as long as make-up water for the plant is withdrawn from the reservoir.

This, in turn, will cause further increases in regenerative chemical usage and dissolved solids buildup. Alternative methods of producing demineral-ized water, such as reverse osmosis with ion-exchange polishing, are available that would reduce (by as much as 90%) the amount of sulfate salts generated by demineralization.

Morpholine would be another source of contamination in the make-up reservoir.

Although the total amount of morpholine addition proposed by the applicant would be less than 200 lbs. per year, this chemical (as well as all nitrogen-containing substitutes) is viewed with suspicion by aquatic biologists be-cause of the paucity of information related to its effect on aquatic biota.

Consequently, release of morpholine is forbidden (see page iii, Condition A).

12.2.2 Blowdown Concentration Factor (EPA, p. F-47)

The staff's calculation of this factor was made using the formula presented in reference 5-13 with the applicant's proposed blowdown rate of 15 cfs.

12.2.3 Effects of Waste Heat Dissipation (Interior, p. F-20)

A comparison of the benefits and disadvantages of the two cooling concepts is discussed in Section 11 and tabulated in Table 11.3. Further comparison of the consumptive use of water can be obtained from Table 5.1 for the cooling-tower concept and in Section 10.1.2 for the cooling lake concept.

The loss of water through both forced and natural evaporation appears to the staff to be in line with that observed in other parts of the country even though evaporation is highly dependent on such variables as humidity and wind.

12.3 EFFECTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES 12.3.1 Protection of Natural Resources (North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources, p. F-65)

Included among the comments of this agency are concerns related to the total distruction of fish and wildlife and their habitats within the project

• 1 12-5 area and the impact of such losses on the natural resources. The staff has concluded that indeed there will be serious disruptions and changes in the flora and fauna (but to a much lesser extent in the wildlife) of the areas that will be converted to a reservoir and the plant site itself.

Efforts have been made to relate these changes and losses to such benefits as a new aquatic environment and a source of cooling water as well as to ecological and economic costs. It is implicit in this entire review that the balance of benefit to cost should be as great as is technically feasible.

12.3.2 Loss of Resources (U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service,

p. F-7)

The staff has recognized that the conversion of over 4000 acres of land to a make-up water reservoir will result in both the removal of existing farm and forest lands within the boundaries of the lake and the removal of this land from agriculture and timber production during the life of the lake. The applicant has committed to maintain the remaining land within the plant's boundaries in a way that will minimize future environmental problems such as silting and erosion. Also, plans have been developed by the applicant to manage the land within the transmission corridors in a manner acceptable to the staff. Each of these concerns was included in the staff's balance of benefits and costs.

12.3.3 Environmental Impact of Site Preparation and Plant Construction (Interior, p. F-21)

Discussion of impacts that will be incurred are to be found in Sections 4, 5.1.1 and 8.1. The staff believes that alterations to the existing terrestrial resources will vary from essentially total within the 4500 acres of the reservoir and plant site proper to minor or insignificant within the remainder of the applicant's property. Additional pressure will be placed on the wildlife of the area (see Table 2.16) to adapt to a habitat that is not only reduced in acreage but is also modified by fences, roads, and deeper water courses. During this evolution, it is expected that the populations of animals that now exist in "high abundances" will decrease to a number that can be supported by the reduced size of their habitat.

Activities during the construction phase, such as traffic and noise, will tend to drive the wildlife away from the immediate environs of the plant.

After construction has been completed, however, the fauna of the area should adapt rapidly to the new environment.

Impacts that will befall the flora of the area will also be associated primarily with the need to clear areas for the reservoir, plant area, transmission lines, and roads. Except in the transmission corridors, the

12-6 trees and other plant associations will be permanently removed. The flora on the remainder of the applicant's property is not expected to be affected to a significant degree.

12.3.4 Consequences of Proposed Action CInterior, p. F-22)

Although the plant will be licensed for a period of 40 years, there is currently insufficient experience to establish accurately whether the license period could be extended. In, any case, it is reasonable to expect this site will be used for the production of electricity through additional generations of power stations. Consequently, except for safety reasons, the dam and reservoir will remain as "permanent" features and, to some extent, "irreversible commitments of land and resources." If necessary, however, the reservoir could be drained, the dam destroyed, and the site returned to a terrestrial environment.

12.3.5 Biological Productivity of the Cape Fear River (Interior, p. F-21)

The average water withdrawal from the Cape Fear River will be 15 cfs or 0.5% of the average river flow rate. At no time will the withdrawal rate be greater than 25% of the river flow. As pointed out in Section 5.4.1, few fish at or larger than the juvenile state will be pumped from the river.

The important fishes in the Cape Fear River are not pelagic spawners -

rather the eggs of these species are sessile. Thus,. entrainment of signifi-cant numbers of these attached eggs is not anticipated. Free-floating eggs and plankton would be pumped with a probable high survival rate. Fish, plankton and eggs may also be present in subsequent discharges from the reservoir back to the river (average - 19 cfs). Depending on the eventual productivity of the reservoir, the net effect of withdrawal and release could be an apparent increase in the average biological productivity of the river. In any event, the maximum removal rate (25%) will be infrequent and is not likely to occur during spawning periods; impact on river pro-ductivity is not expected to be significant.

12.3.6 Alteration of Buckhorn Creek (Interior, p. F-22; EPA, p. F-43)

As shown in Table 5.1, the desired release from the make-up reservoir has been set at 19 cfs and will constitute the average flow rate in the lower portion of Buckhorn Creek between the main dam and the Cape Fear River.

Such a flow rate will not be a daily average, however, and may vary from zero to flood. During the drier portions of a year, this lower part of the Creek may actually become so dry that aquatic organisms will be lost unless they migrate to the Cape Fear River or deep pools in the creek bed.

The staff does not ascribe any recreational potential to this remnant of Buckhorn Creek. Since zero flows occur naturally in Buckhorn Creek

12-7 (although with lower frequency and of shorter duration than will occur after the dam construction), the staff believes that a one or two cfs minimum flow guarantee would be of doubtful value.

12.3.7 Water Withdrawal Rate (EPA, p. F-47)

The average daily withdrawal rate, expressed as percent of total reservoir volume in Section 5.4.2 was incorrect and has been changed to "0.2 to 0.3%".

12.4 RECREATIONAL POTENTIAL 12.4.1 Use of the Make-up Reservoir as a Fishery (EPA, p. F-41)

The EPA places considerable emphasis on the potential of the make-up reservoir as a fishery. The staff agrees that, initially, most of the water should be suitable for fish (Section 5.4.4); however, its long term value will depend on a well integrated management program of both the fish population and the water quality of the lake.

12.4.2 Recreational Potential of the Make-up Reservoir (EPA, p. F-48; Interior, p. F-18)

In its assessment of environmental impacts of the Shearon Harris Plant, the staff has not delved deeply into the future recreational potential of the make-up reservoir for several reasons. Although the applicant and the North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources have formed a task force to study this subject, no definite plans have been formulated and the State maintains reservations as to the ultimate recreational poten-tial (see the comments of the North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources, p. F-64). The need for additional water recreational areas cannot be established until the plans of the Corps of Engineers for additional reservoirs is more definite. For example, it is not yet certain that the New Hope project will be completed. Inasmuch as drawdowns of the make-up reservoir will be caused by natural events (droughts) rather than from controlled operational fluctuations to regulate flooding or undesirable biota, there may be periods of extensive drawdown that would seriously impair any type of water recreation.

12.4.3 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way (interior, p. F-21)

For the most part, the transmission rights-of-way remain the property of the original land holder and do not become the applicant's property. However,

12-8 the applicant will, at the request of property owners, prepare the right-of-way for wildlife food plants and assist in enlisting the aid of appro-priate state and local agencies to promote the success of the plantings.

The applicant will review owner proposed recreational facilities on rights-of-way for compatibility with transmission line operation. In the event of incompatibility, the applicant will recommend modifications or alternatives which are compatible with line operations.

12.5 HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE 12.5.1 Transmission Corridors (Interior, p. F-17)

The applicant is planning eight transmission circuits from the Shearon Harris plant to points up to 60 miles distant. Six of the 230 Kv lines will follow or closely parallel existing rights of way, while the two 500-Kv lines will require new corridors that are still under study. The appli-cant states that none of these routes encroach on historical areas, parks, or recreational areas, or cross rivers in stretches that have been or may be designated "scenic" (Environmental Report pp. 3.11-8.9).

.12.5.2 State Historian's Report (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,

p. F-3)

At the suggestion of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the report of the North Carolina State Historian is reproduced on the following page.

12.6 COMMUNITY IMPACTS (HEW, p. F-15)

The applicant has not yet developed a work force for the construction of the Shearon Harris plant so that an assessment of community impacts at this time is speculative. Experience has shown that construction workers are willing to commute over considerable distances to their jobs and thus may potentially be or become residents of any city or town in the Raleigh-Durham-Fayetteville region. Although temporary or mobile residences may be established close to the plant site itself, the staff believes that any influx of "new" residents will be sufficiently diffuse to permit absorption by existing resources.

12.7 AESTHETIC IMPACT OF COOLING TOWERS (EPA, p. F-47)

Even though the size of the four proposed natural draft cooling towers is impressive, the staff believes that the remoteness of the site will mitigate

12-9

- '.i" .. .. .'i STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Department of Art, Culture and History Raleigh 27611 Grace J. Rohrer 55f,-i a~jCj Office of Archives and F-istory Sucretary H.G. Jones. Adminisirator 11 January 1973 MEMORANDUM To: Mr. Randolph Ilendricks Clearinghouse and Information Center From: Dr. H. G. Jones 44 *"-

State Historian/Administrator

Subject:

Draft Environmental Statement, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, File No. 127-72 Following an on-site inspection of the project area, Mrs. Catherine Cockshutt and Mr. C. Greer Suttlemyre of our staff report that apparently no structures or sites of outstanding architectural or historical significance will be disturbed by the proposed construction. The old Dupree house is of considerable architectural value as a ca. 1780 dwelling nearly intact; how-ever, we understand it has been sold to Mr. Allen Brock of Raleigh, who plans to move and preserve it, an action we were quite pleased to l.earn of.

Two other houses were noted as pre-Civil War structures, the Burke House and the Ragan House; these are of some local historical value and their preservation should be considered. We have consulted the most recent list-ing of the National Register of Historic Places and would like to report that no properties on the National Register or properties currently under consideration for the National Register will be affected by the project:.

We appreciate very much the courtesy and cooperation shown by Carolina Power and Light Company and especially Mr. Aaron Padgett, who guided our staff in their inspection.

12- 10 any potential visual impact that might exist in areas of higher population density. For people in close proximity to the plant or reservoir these towers, of course, will be very evident and will contrast with the rolling, wooded environs.

12.8 GEOLOGY (Interior, p. F-18)

The concerns advanced regarding the geology of the site are answered in the staff's Safety Evaluation Report related to the Shearon Harris plant rather than in a statement primarily concerned with environmental effects, Similarly, the engineering criteria of the two earth dams are described thoroughly in the applicant's Preliminary Safety Analysis Reports. The main dam will be an earth-rockfill structure with an impervious core of 148,000 cubic yards (cy) rock flanked by transition filter zones of 230,840 cy of rock fill, 45,500 cy of fine filter, 41,000 cy of course filter and outer zones of riprap and crushed rocks. The auxiliary dam will have a similar composition of approximately 245,000 cy of impervious core and 300,000 cy of fill and riprap. The main dam's core and shell and the core and part of the shell of the auxiliary dam will be founded on rock.

12.9 METEOROLOGY (Commerce, p. F-il)

• The wind direction listed on page 2-21 was incorrect and has been changed to "southwesterly."

12.10 DECOMMISSIONING (U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service,

p. F-7)

The applicant has committed to have available the necessary resources to insure safe and efficient decommissioning of the plant (Section 8,4). The staff has not requested a detailed procedure on decommissioning because this technology is considered to be in such an evolutionary stage that it is not possible to speculate on what the state of the art will be at the end of. the useful life of Shearon Harris Units 1, 2, 3, & 4.

12.11 TRANSPORTATION OF FUEL (North Carolina Department of Transportation,

p. F-61)

The movement of nuclear fuel to and from a nuclear power station is the subject of continuing study in the AEC. Background for the description of the environmental concerns given in Section 5.7 can be obtained by referring to the Commission's document "Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials To and From Nuclear Power Plants," USAEC Directorate of Regulatory Standards, December 1972.

12-11 The applicant has not yet designated the reprocessing plant or storage site tlhat will receive the irradiated fuel and radioactive waste from the Shearon harris plant. Consequently, no definite routes of travel can be established.

A policy of requiring the "best" routes will be continued with the realiza-tion that the "best" route is selected only afte-r a logical and statistical study has been made of such parameters as risks, population density, alternate routes, distance, types of roads, etc.

12.12 RADIOACTIVE WASTES (Interior, p. F-20)

T[he concerns expressed in this comment are appropriately addressed in the AEC document "Environmental Survey of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle." As noted in that document, the environmental effects of the entire uranium fuel cycle with. regard to an individual reactor are small. Further, the potential for any significant effect, from the disposal of solid radioactive wastes from a reactor is extremely limited due to (1) the small quantity of radioactivity contained in the wastes, and (2) the care taken in establi~sh-ing and monitoring commercial land burial facilities. Commercial and burial facilities must be located on land which is owned by a state or the Federal government; after radioactive wastes are buried at a site, the land must not be used for any other purpose. Authorization to operate a commercial land burial facility is based on an analysis of the nature and location of potentially affected facilities and of the site topographic, geographic, meteorological, and hydrological characteristics which must demonstrate that buried radioactive waste will not migrate from the site.

Environmental monitoring i~ncludes sampling of air, water and vegetation to determine migration, if any, of radioactive material from the actual location of burial. To date, there have been no reports of migration of radioactivity from commercial burial sites. In the event that migration were to occur, plans for arresting any detected migration have been developed. On the basis of the general environmental considerations of burial sites now developed, the wide range of wastes that can be buried, and the observation that an applicant is not restricted to a specific burial-site, the staff believes that a detailed discussion of solid radioactive waste disposal sites is inappropriate to an environmental statement for any one nuclear power plant facility.

12.13 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS 12.13.1 Class 9 Accidents (Interior, p. F-19)

The position of the AEC on this subject is stated on page 7-3.

12.13.2 impact on Milk Supply (HEW, p. F-1.5)

As indicated in footnote 1 of Table 7.2, the applicant's environmental

'monitoring program, augmented if necessary subsequent to an accident, would

12-12 allow the initiation of remedial actions to limit exposures from potential pathways to man, including the pasture-cow-milk pathway.

12.14 RADIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 12.14.1 Impact Upon Milk Production Area (HEW, p. F-15)

Section 5.5.2 summarizes the circumstances under which the maximum predicted individual radioiodine dose to the thyroid (28 mrem/yr) would be incurred.

In Section 3.4.3, it is pointed out that monitoring methods will be imple-mented to assure that the individual at maximum risk will incur no more than 15 mrem/yr. Cows .grazing at other points or under other conditions than those specified in this analysis will ingest less radioiodine, and the milk consumer will receive a lower thyroid dose. Thus, the milk supply from the 40-mile area will be adequately protected.

12.14.2 Gaseous Radwaste Holdup (Commerce, p. F-11)

The staff has made use of an assumed holdup time of 90 days in order to apply greater conservatism to the calculation of gaseous releases listed in Table 3.4 (page 3-19). Such a procedure is an artifact to be used for calculational purposes only; 'the applicant remains committed to a program of "no release.

12.14.3 Radiological Monitoring of Benthic Organisms (Commerce, p. F-10)

The population of benthic organisms in Buckhorn and White Oak Creeks is presently considered to be small. As this land is converted to a make-up reservoir, the ecosystem will go through an evolution that will eventually produce a benthic community. Such organisms could be useful in the detection of radioisotope releases through the aqueous discharge system and sub-sequently absorbed or accumulated by the benthos. Consequently, benthic organisms have been added to the types of samples to be monitored during the pre- and post-operational programs as listed on page 6-3.

12.15 COST ANALYSIS 12.15.1 Cooling Tower Operating Cost Penalty (EPA, p. F-46)

A staff analysis of the potential losses in plant performance for the proposed cooling tower installation at Shearon Harris is presented in Table 12.1. The data base was derived from the applicant's plant heat rate data and appropriate weather and water temperature data. The computation estimated the performance of the once-through (cooling lake) system at the winter condition as the base case. Thermodynamic and

12-13 TABLE 12.1 OPERATIONAL PENALTIES FOR ONCE-THROUGR AND NATURAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER INSTALLATIONS Winter Sumnae r Average Penalty Penalty Penalty Once-Through Thermodynamic Base 1.03% 0.60%

Pumping 0.46% 0.46% 0.46%

Total 0.46% 1.49% 1.06%

Natural Draft Towers Thermodynamic Base 2.27% 1.42%

Pumping 1.90% 1.90% 1.90%

Total 1.90% 4.17% 3.32%

Differential Penalty for Towers Over Once Through 1.44% 2.68% 2.26%

12-14 pumping penalties were computed for average summer conditions for the once-through and the natural draft cooling tower system data presented by the applicant. All penalties are expressed as a percentage of the Base Case heat rate of 9,700 BTU/kwh. Average penalties are weighted to account for unequal monthly variance from the mean. The annual average capacity penalty is 2.26%.

The applicant, using a similar approach, has calculated the capacity penalty at "maximum critical weather conditions" (defined as 83'F wet bulb temperature for the natural draft towers and 90*F injection for the cooling lake) to be 2.96%.

12.15.2 Cooling Tower Capital Cost Estimate (EPA, p. F-46)

The applicant's capital cost estimate of $73 million includes $55.5 million for the circulating water system (cooling towers, foundations, basin and intake structure; circulating water pumps, motors, and pipe; electrical equipment and condenser changes), $4.5 million for additional earthwork, and $13 million for interest during construction.

The staff finds this to be a reasonable estimate.

R-1 REFERENCES References for Section 1

1. Final Environmental Statement relating to Construction of Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Units 1, 2, 3 and 4, USAEC, Directorate of Licensing, Docket Nos. 50-400, 50-401, 50-402 and 50-403, p. 11-1.

2. ibid., p. 11-4.

3. ibid., p. 11-3.

4. ibid., p. 12-22.

5. ibid., pp. i, ii.

6. ibid., pp. iii, iv.

R-2 References for Section 2

1. Carolina Power and Light Company, "Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4, Environmental Report," vol. 1, as amended, November 1973, p. 2.1-4, Fig. 2.1-8.

2. ibid., p. 2.1-31.

3. Profile, North Carolina Counties, August 1970.

4. op. cit., Ref. 1, p. 2.1-19.

5. ibid., p. 2.1-20.

6. Carolina Power and Light Company, "Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4," p. 2.6-5.

7. ibid., p. 2.6-6.

8. op. cit., Ref. 1, p. 2.1-36.

9. Letter, J.A. Jones, Carolina Power and Light Company, to J.F. O'Leary,

-. US-EC, March--I5- -I973-(D-ke-tNos. 50--4O0, 50,401,40-402, 50-403),

p. A-30.

10. op. cit., Ref. 1, p. 2.1-37.

11. op. cit., Ref. 6, p. 2.6-30.

12. op. cit., Ref. 6, p. 2.6-20.

13. op. cit., Ref. 1, p. 2.2-13.

14. ibid., p. 2.1-21.

15. ibid., Ref. 1, p. 2.1-38.

16. op. cit., Ref. 6, p. 2.6-31.

17. op. cit., Ref. 1, p. 2.1-22.

18. op. cit., Ref. 6, p. 2.6-7.

19. Corps of Engineers, Bulletin EM 1110-2-1411, March 26, 1952.

R- 3 References for Section 2 (Cont'd)

20. op. cit., Ref. 6, p. 2.6-22.

21. op. cit., Ref. 1, p. 2.2-17.

22. ibid., p. 2.6-25.

23. ibid., p. 2.6-26.

24. U. S. Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 1895-A, p. A-20.

25. op. cit., Ref. 1, p. 2.1-17.

26. op. cit., Ref. 6, p. 2.6-1.

27. North Carolina Department of Water Resources, "Geology and Ground-water Resources in the Raleigh Area," Groundwater Bulletin No. 15, 196P.

28. North Carolina Department of Water Resources, "Geology and Ground-water in the Durham Area," Groundwater Bulletin No. 7, 1966.

29. op. cit., Ref. 6, p. 2.6-3a.

30. op. cit., Ref. 1, p. 2.1-18.

31. op. cit., Ref. 6, p. 2.6-3.

32. "Baseline biota of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant study area, North Carolina Power and Light Company, Raleigh, North Carolina."

Aquatic Control, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 148 p. 14.

33. Natural Audubon Society in Collaboration with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Americam 'dird!, Seventy-second Christmas Bird Count," vol. 26, no. 2, p. 248, April 1972.

34. Rare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of the United States. U. S.

Dept. Int./Bureau Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Resource Pub. 34, Wash., D.C., p. 3-38, 1968.

35. Carolina Power and Light Company, "Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4, Environmental Report," vol. 2, as amended, April 1973, p. C.3-4 to c.3-10.

R-4 References for Section 2 (Cont'd)

36. op. cit., Ref. 1, p. C.3-3.

37. B. J. Copeland, "Ecological Report for Carolina Power and Light Company on Whiteoak Creek Site," North Carolina State University, 1970.

38. D. E. Louder, "Survey and Classification of the Cape Fear River and Tributaries, North Carolina," Final Report, Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Job I-G, Project F-14-R, Carolina Wildlife Res. Comm.,

Raleigh, N.C. 1963.

39. R. T. Huber, "Preliminary Biology Investigation Whiteoak Creek Watershed (CNI Watershed 3-14)," Unpublished Report, Bureau Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Raleigh, N.C., 1969.

40. A. W. Klement, Jr., C. R. Miller, R. P. Minx, B. Schlein, "Estimates of Ionizing Radiation in the United States 1960-2000," ORD/CSD 72-1, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs, Rockville, Md. August 1972.

41. op. cit., Ref. 1, pp. 2.2-21 through 2.2-30.

R-5 References for Section 3

1. Carolina Power and Light Company, "Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4, Environmental Report," vol. 1, p. 2.2-11,12, as amended, November 1973.

2. ibid., Fig. 2.2-5.

3. ibid., p. 2.2-12.

4. Carolina Power and Light Company, "Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4," p. 2.6-8, as amended, October 1973.

5. op. cit., Ref. 1, p. 2.2-12.

6. op. cit., Ref. 4, p. 2.6-9d.

7. op. cit., Ref. 1, Fig. 3.3-3.

8. Carolina Power and Light Company, "Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4, Environmental Report," vol. 2, p. A.2-1, as amended, November 1973.

9. op. cit., Ref. 1, p. 3.3-2.

10. op. cit., Ref. 4, p. 2.6-15.

11. Letter, J. A. Jones, Carolina Power and Light Company, to J. F.

O'Leary, USAEC, March 15, 1973 (Docket Nos. 50-400, 50-401, 50-402, 50-403), p. A-55.

R-6 References for Section 5

1. G. F. Bierman, G. A. Kunder, J. F. Sebald and R. F. Visbisky, "Characteristics, Classification and Incidence of Plumes from Large Natural-Draft Cooling Towers," paper presented at the American Power Conference 33rd Annual Meeting, Chicago, Ill., p. 24, April 22, 1971.

2. Pollution Control Council, "A Survey of Thermal Power Plant Cooling Facilities," Pacific Northwest Area, 1969.

3. G. E. McVehil, "Evaluation of Cooling Tower Effects at Zion Nuclear Generating Station," Final Report to Commonwealth Edison Company, Chicago, Ill., By Sierra Research Corporation, Boulder, CO, 1970.

4. Sierra Research Corporation, "Atmospheric Effects of Cooling Tower Plumes," Northern States Power Company, Sherburne County Generating Plant, Final Report to Black and Veatch Consulting Engineers, Kansas City MO, 1971.

5. Preliminary Report, "Effect of Cooling Tower Effluents on Atmospheric Conditions in Northeastern Illinois," Circular 1000, Illinois State Water Survey, Urbana, Ill., 1971.

6. D. J. Broehl, "Field Investigation of Environmental Effects of Cooling Towers for Large Steam Electric Plants," prepared for Portland General Electric Company, Portland, OR, 1968.

7. R. F. Visbisky, G. F. Bierman, and C. H. Bitting, Plume Effects of Natural Hyperbolic Towers, Interim Report, prepared by Gilbert Assoc.

Inc., Reading, PA, for Metropolitan Edison Co., p. 9, 1970.

8. . Jersey Central Power and Light Company, Forked River Nuclear Station Unit 1, Environmental Report, p. 46, January 21, 1972.

9. Duquesne Light Company, Ohio Edison Company, Pennsylvania Power Company, Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1, Environmental Report, OperatingLicense Stage, Docket No. 50-334, September 24, 1971, Amendment 4, pp. H-7, H-8.

10. J. E. Carson, "The Atmospheric Consequences of Thermal Discharges from Power Generating Stations," Annual Report of Radiological Physics Division for 1971, Argonne National Laboratory - 7860, Part III, August 1972.

R-7 References for Section 5 (Cont'd)

11. Carolina Power and Light Company, "Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 14, Environmental Report, as amended, November 1973,

p. 3.3-6.

12. W. J.. Jones, "Natural Draft Cooling Towerq," Presented at the Cooling Tower Institute Meeting, January 29, 1968.

13. "A Survey of Alternate Methods for Cooling Condenser Discharge Water-Large-Scale Heat Rejection Equipvent," prepared by Dynatech R/D Company, Cambridge, Massachusetts, for the Water Quality Office, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, July 1969, p. 52.

14. P. Rogers, "Wet-type Hyperbolic Cooling Towers," Civil Engineering, May 1972, pp. 70-72.

15. F. J. Veihmeyer, "Evapotranspiration," Section 11, Handbook of Applied Hydrology, edited by V. T. Chow, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1964, p. 11-9.

16. op. cit., Ref. 11, pp 2.2-21 to 2.2-30.

17. ibid, p. 3.2-4s.

18. ibid, pp. 3.3-2, 3.6-10.

19. ibid, Figure 3.3-5.

20. ibid, p. 3.2-4.

21. ibid, Figure 3.3-4.

22. M. A. Shirazi and L. R. Davis, "Workbook of Thermal Plume Prediction, Volume 1--Submerged Discharge," Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon, April 1972.

23. op. cit., Ref. 16, p. 3.6-7.

24. S. T. Powell, "Quality of Water," Section 19, Handbook of Applied Hydrogya, V. T. Chow, ed., McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1964, p. 19-20.

25. op. cit., Ref. 13, p. 65.

R-8 References for Section 5 (Cont'd)

26. H. B. Wilder, "Hydrology of Sounds and Estuaries in North Carolina,"

Proceedings, Symposium on Hydrology of the Coastal Waters of North Carolina, Water Resources Research Institute, North Crolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, p. 121, May 1967.

27. Carolina Power and Light Company, "Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4," p. 2.6-18.

28. op. cit., Ref. 11, p. 3.2-2, 3.2-9, 3.2-10.

29. ibid., p. 3.2-3.

30. ibid., p. 2.2-15.

31. ibid., p. 2.2-20.

32. ibid., p. 2.1-25.

33. op. cit., Ref. 27, p. 2.6-25.

34. op. cit., Ref. 11 p. 3.2-1.

35. ibid., p. 3.6-10.

36. J. E. Kerr, "Studies on the Fish Preservation of the Contra Costa Steam Plant of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company," State of Calif., Dept. Fish and Game, Fish Bull. No. 92, p. 66, 1953.

37. S. Moyer and E. C. Raney, "Thermal Discharges from a Large Nuclear Plant," J. San. Eng. Div., Proc. A.S.C.E., vol. 95 (SA6) pp. 1131-1163, 1969.

38. R. W. Larimore and M. J. Duever, "Effects of Temperature Acclimation on the Swimming Ability of Smallmouth Bass Fry," Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.,

vol. 97, no. 2, pp. 175-184, 1968.

39. op. cit., Ref. 11, p. 3.3-1.

40. ibid., p. 3.4-1.

41. ibid., p. 3.4-1.

R-9 References for Section 5 (Cont'd)

42. R. Patrich, "Some Effects of Temperature on Freshwater Algae,"

Biological Aspects of Thermal Pollution, P.A. Krenkel and F.L.

Parker, editors, Vanderbilt Univ. Press, pp. 161-185, 1969.

43. G. C. Williams, et al., "Studies on the Effects of a Steam-Electric Generating Plant on the Marine Environment at Northport, New York,"

Marine Sciences Research Center, State Univ., N.Y., Stony Brook, N.Y.,

Technical Report No. 9.

44. B. C. Marcy, Jr., "Survival of Young Fish in the Discharge Canal of a Nuclear Power Plant," Jour. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada, vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 1057-1060, 1971.

45. op. cit., Ref. 11, p. 3.9-1.

45a. Brungs, W.A., Effects of Residual Chlorine on Aquatic Life, Journal of Water Pollution Cont. Fed., vol. 45, No. 10, pp. 2180-2193 (1973).

45b. J.W.T. Dandy, "Activity Response to Chlorine in the Brook Trout Salvelinus Fontinalis (Mitchell)," Can. J. Zool, vol. 50, pp. 405-410, 1972.

45c. J. A. Zillich, "Toxicity of Combined Chlorine Residuals to Freshwater Fish," J. Wat. Pollut. Control Fed., vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 212-220,

]972.

46. Becker, C. D. and Thatcher, T. 0., Toxicity of Powerplant Chemicals to Aquatic Life, USAEC, Document WASH-1249, 1973.

47. op. cit., Ref. 11, p. 2.2-12.

48. Phillips, H. A. Lower Yadkin and Lower Catawba River Reservoirs - 1965 Surveys. N. C. Wildl. Res. Comm., Raleigh, N.C. 1966, 72 pp.

49. Lester, D. B. Effects of commercial fishing, species introductions, and drawdown control on fish populations in Elephant Butte Reservoir, New Mexico. In Reservoir Fisheries and Limnology, G.E. Hall, ed.,

Am. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. No. 8. Wash., D.C., 1971, pp. 265-285.

50. Boyd, C.E. The liminoligical role of aquatic macrophyles and their relationship to reservoir management. In Reservoir Fischeries and Limnology, G.E. Hall, ed., Am. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. No. 8, Wash., D.C.

1971, pp. 153-166.

R-10 References for Section 5 (Cont'd) 50a. F. J. Trembly, "Research Project on Effects of Condenser Discharge Water on Aquatic Life," Institute of Research, Lehigh Univ.,

Progress Report, 1960.

51. op. cit., Ref. 11, p. 2.2-21 through 2.2-26.

52. S. E. Thompson, C. A. Burton, D. J. Quinn, and Yook C. Ng, Concentration Factors of Chemical Effluents in Edible Aquatic Organisms, USAEC Report UCRL-405604 Rev. 1, Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Liver-more, California, October 1972.

53. op. cit., Ref. 27, p. 2.3-18.

54. M. M. Millen and D. A. Nash, "Regional and Other Related Aspects of Shellfish Consumption - Some Preliminary Findings from the 1969 Consumer Panel Survey," National Marine Fisheries Service, Circular 361, June 1971.

55. A. W. Klement, Jr., C. R. Miller, R. P. Minx, B. Schlein, "Estimates of Ionizing Radiation in the nited States 1960-2000," ORD/CSD 72-1, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs, Rockville, Md., August 1972.

56. ICRP Publication 22, "Implications of Commission Recommendations that Doses Be Kept As Low As Readily Achievable," adopted in April 1973.

57. Fifth Annual Report of the Operation of the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission's Centralized Ionizing Radiation Exposure Records and Reports Systems, July 1973.

58. Letter to AIF from H. P. Denton, dated August 13, 1973, subject Occupational Radiation Exposure.

59. Additional testimony of Dr. Morten J. Goldman on behalf of the Consolidated Utility Group, (Part 1) Occupational Exposure; Docket Number RM-50-2, dated November 9, 1973.

60. R. Wilson, Man-rem Economics and Risk in the Nuclear Power Industry, NUCLEAR NEWS, February 1972.

61. Regulatory Guide 8.8, Information Relevant to Maintaining Occupational Radiation Exposures As Low As Practicable (Nuclear Reactors).

R-11 References for Section 5 (Cont'd)

62. "Radioactivity in the Marine Environment," prepared by the Panel on Radioactivity in the Marine Environment. Committee on Oceanography, National Research Council, U. S. National Academy of Sciences, 1971.

63. ibid., citing Blaylock, p. 235, 1966.

64. D. G. Watson and W. L. Templeton, "Thermal Luminescent Dosimetry of Aquatic Organisms," Third National Symposium on Radioactivity, Oak Ridge, Tenn., 1971.

65. 10 CFR Part 71; 49 CFR Parts 173 and 178.

66. 49 CFR § 397.1(d).

67. Livingstone, D. A., Chemical Composition of Rivers and Lakes, in Data of Geochemistry, 6th Ed., M. Fleescher, ed., Geological Paper 440-G, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 64p, 1973.

R-12 References for Section 6

1. "Baseline Biota of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Study Area, North Carolina Power and Light Company, Raleigh, North Carolina,"

Aquatic Control, Research Triangle Park, N.C., 148 p.

2. Carolina Power and Light Company, "Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4, Environmental Report," as amended, November 1973, p. B.6-1.

R-13 References for Section 7

1. Letter, Doub to Dominick, dated June 5, 1973.

2. Federal Highway Administration, "1969 Accidents of Large Motor Carriers of Property," December 1970; Federal Railroad Administration Accident Bulletin No. 138, "Summary and Analysis of Accidents on Railroads in the U. S.,1 1969; U. S. Coast Guard, "Statistical Summary of Casulties to Commercial Vessels."

3. 49 CFR §§ 171.15, 174.566, 177.861.

4. Federal Radiation Council Report No. 7, "Background Material for the Development of Radiation Protection Standards; Protective Action Guides for Strontium 89, Strontium 90, and Cesium 137," May 1965.

R- 14 References for Section 9

1. Federal Power Commission, National Power Survey, 1969.

2. Environmental Protection Agency Standards, December 23, 1971.

R- 15 References for Section 10

1. Carolina Power and Light Company, "Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4, Environmental Report," p. 2.1-1, as amended, April 1973.

2. Carolina Power and Light Company, "Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4," p. 2.6-37.

3. J. E. Carson, "The Atmospheric Effects of Thermal Discharges into a Large Lake," Journ. Air.. Poll. Cont. Assoc., vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 523-528, 1972.

4. J. E. Carson, "The Atmospheric Consequences of Thermal Discharges from Power Generating Stations," Annual Report of the Radiological Physics Division of Argonne National Laboratory, 1971, ANL-7860, Part III, pp. 250-264, August 1972.

5. R. T. Jaske, "An Evaluation of the Use of Selective Discharges from Lake Roosevelt to Cool the Columbia River," USAEC-TID, BNWL-208, Battelle-Northwest, Richland, Washington, February 1966.

6. "The COLHEAT River Simulation Model," Report No. HEDL-TME 72-103, to the USAEC by the Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory, Richland, Washington, August 1972.

7. op. cit., Ref. 1, p. 2.2-15.

8. op. cit., Ref. 2, p. 2.6-10.

9. op. cit., Ref. 1, p. 3.2-4.

10. ibid., pp. B.5-1, B.5-2.

11. op. cit., Ref. 2, p. 2.6-18.

12. op. cit., Ref. 1, p. 3.2-2, 3.2-9, 3.2-10.

13. op. cit., Ref. 1, p. B.1-1.

14. ibid., p. 2.1-25.

15. op. cit., Ref. 2, p. 2.6-25.

16. op. cit., Ref. 1, p. 3.6-11.

R-16 References for Section 10 (Cont'd)

17. "Water Quality Criteria," National Technical Advisory Report to the Secretary of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-tion, p. 33, 1968.

18. F. J. Trembly, "Research Project on Effects of Condenser Discharge Water on Aquatic Life," Institute of Research, Lehigh Univ., Progress Report, 1960.

19. T. P. Graham, et al., "Ecological Effects of Hot Water Discharge by an Electric Power Generating Plant," NSF studies Program, Grant GY-9129, Univ. N. Carolina, Asheville, N.C., unpublished report, 1971.

20. R. R. Vollenweider, "Scientific Fundamentals of the Eutrophication of Lakes and Flowing Waters, with Particular Reference to Nitrogen and Phosphorus as Factors in Eutrophication," Organization for economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, Ex. 40105, 1970.

21. R. Patrich, "Some Effects of Temperature on Freshwater Algae,"

Biological Aspects of Thermal Pollution, P.A. Krenkel and F. L.

Parker, editors, Vanderbilt Univ. Press, pp. 161-185, 1969.

22. Letter, J. A. Jones, Carolina Power and Light Co. to J. F. O'Leary, USAEC, p. A-39, March 15, 1973 (Docket Nos. 50-400, 50-401, 50-402, 50-403).

23. "Radioactivity in the Marine Environment," prepared by the Panel on Radioactivity in the Marine Environment. Committee on Oceanography, National Research Council, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 1971.

24. op. cit., Ref. 1, pp 8.4-3 to 8.4-5

25. ibid, p. F.7-2

26. ibid, pp. 5.7-2, 5.7-3

27. T. J. Viehmeyer, "Evaportranspiration," Section 11, Handbook of Applied Hydrology, edited by.V. T. Chow, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1964,

p. 11-9.

28. "A Survey of Alternate Methods for Cooling Condenser Discharge Water -

Large Scale Heat Rejection Equipment," prepared by Dynatech R/D Co.,

Cambridge, Mass. for the Water Quality Office, U.S.E.P.A, July 1969 pp 52, 65, 66.

APPENDIX A E.P.A. LETTER TO NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF NATURAL AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES

' ~A- 2

- \,,

• UNITED STATES ENVIRONrIENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

"'.z mo, REGION IV 14ZI PEAC TRCE ST.. N4. E.

ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30309 Rcf: 4AEP: CI-HK July 10, 1973 Mr. Earle C. Hubbard Assistant Director Office of Water and Air Resources Department of !'Catural and Economnic Resources P. 0. Box 27687 Raleigh, North Carolina Z7611 De.ar Mr. Hubbard:

Reference is made to our meeting of June 29, 1973, relative to the Harris Nuclear Station Units 1 through 4 and to previous meetings, data submissions and the United States Atomic Energy Commission's draft and final environmental statements.

The major concern of the Environmental Protection Agency with the project is related to the water quality standards issue; however, several other related areas are of concern to this agency.

These include: land use, power plant siting and relationships with New Hope Reservoir.

Vie feel that an exception to water quality standards is not justified for the Harris Project and is not consistent with the goals and requirements of the Federal WVater Pollution Control Amendments of 1972 (P. L.92-500). The Environmental Protection Agency's policy on water quality standards requires that all streams within the State be classified at a minimum level of Class "C" for fish and wild-life protection and propagation and for secondary contact recreation.

Under this policy, provision is made for exceptions to water quality standards in only a limited number of situations.

As you know, the Regional Administrator may only approve exceptions to water quality standards where (1) present technology cannot restore the water quality to the defined standards, (2) the cost

A-3 Mr. Earle C. Hubbard July 10, 1973 of meeting the standards is economically prohibitive when compared with the expected benefits to be obtained, or (3) the natural qualities of the water are less than the National Technical Advisory Committee recommended minimum criteria levels. Requests for exceptions must be accompanied by an analysis based on presently available information and must contain sufficient data to support the request for exceptions based on one of the above reasons for granting exceptions.

The informal request for an exception in this case, which presented cost data and other information, has been reviewed by this office and does not meet the criteria for water quality standards exceptions adopted by EPA pursuant to P. L.92-500.

Since Harris Nuclear Station must operate without an exception to water quality standards, the plant must meet the requirements of Section 301 of P. L.92-500. Under this section discharges from Harris Units I through 4 will be subject to "best practicable control tezhnology currently available" (BPCTCA) as each unit comes on-line and subject to "best available technology economically achievable" (BATEA) by July 1, 1983. Although definitions of these terms are not scheduled for promulgation until October 1973, a draft report recently was submitted for evaluation. The report was prepared under contract to EPA by a knowledgeable and accepted consulting firm in the power plant design field. In this report Burns & Roe, Inc.

recommended definitions relative to the thermal component of power plant discharges as (1) BPCTCA - closed-cycle evaporative cooling (mechanical draft towers or other methods) for base-loaded plants with discharge of blowdown to surface waters and (2) BATEA - closed-cycle evaporative cooling, vith total recycle and reuse of blowdown.

Although these recommended definitions arc subject to possible change prior to promulgation as a result of public comment, they indicate the results of a comprehensive evaluation of available treatment alternatives and costs by a reputable consultant. Thus, the trend can be seen toward off-stream, closed-cycle, evaporative cooling systems in response to Congressional intent in the passage of P. L.92-500. It should be noted that under certain conditions, a variance to BPCTCA and IDATEA requirements of P. L.92-500 is possible under

A-4 Mr. Earle C. Hubbard July 10, 1973 Section 316(a) of P. L.92-500. However, in the case of the Harris Nuclear Station, a cooling scheme utilizing Harris Lake as a source of water and cooling method for condenser waste heat would not "assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous popula-dion of shellfish, fish and wildlife in and on that body of water."

Consequently, since the protection and propagation requirement remains as a condition of a variance under Section 316(a), such a variance is not a viable possibility.

Analyses conducted to date by the Applicant, AEC and your office have been based on the use of a 7, 000 to 10, 000 acre impound-rnent for cooling, make-up and recreation regardless of the alternate cooling scheme. evaluated. Such an assumption necessitates a significant inundation of land unnecessarily. Analyse:s conducted by your staff indicate that even if Proposal I (pumping limited to periods of flow in the Cape Fear River in excess of 600 cubic feet per second) is implemented, draw.'down of the impoundment will be less than 5. 0 feet. This dra-,vdown corresponds to a storage volume of considerably less than 50, 000 acre-feict, and co'ld readily be obtained from a much smaller impoundment, since more than 100, 000 acre-feet of storage would be available from a 4, 000-acre pool. Further, use of an impoundment of some 3, 000 to 4, 000 acres and natural draft cooling towers would result in less consumptive water use by the project than does the proposed cooling lake (80 to 90 cfs on an annual basis depend-ing on the required reservoir size as compared to 90 cfs for the 10, 000 acre lake). Although recreational benefits would be reduced by use of a smaller impouncLdnent, unnecessary inundation of land would be prevented and adverse effects on the Cape Fear River system would be reduced, since 'withdrawals could be limited to flows above 600 cfs as proposed by your office.

Construction of excess capacity in the make-up reservoir for recreation and/or other uses increases the consumptive water use of the project and inundates land unnecessarily, both at rate payer's expense. While not properly under the legal purview of EPA, I would like to request that the proper rate-sctting authorities in North Carolina make an additional study of the subject of land use with regard to consumptive water use, inundation, recreation, etc. which is accomplished at rate payer's expense.

A-5 Mr. Earle C. Hubbard July 10, 1973 As pointed out in meetings with mnembers of your staff and the applicant, comnbinin- of the New I-lope and Harris Projects would have been environmentally superior to separate projects. H-ad adequate planning been instituted by the parties (Corps of Engineers and Carolina Power and Light) at an early stage in the development of the New Hope Project, storage could have been provided in New Hope which would have allowed direct withdrawal of make-up from New Hope or from the Cape Fear River and would have reduced on-site storage requirements to tý:e Auxiliary Reservoir. Although significant storage would exist in the proposed 10, 000 acre Harris Lake (173, 000 acre-feet below elevation 240. 0 as compared with 1Z5, 000 acre-feet in thc New Hope conservation pool), this water would not be available to downstream users.

Finally, our analysis of the economic consideration does not indicate a significant cost penalty for the more environmentally sound alternate. Cost analysis made by this agency based on Carolina Power and Light data indicates that utilization of natural draft cooling towers. the most costly alternate, does not constitute a significant economic deterrant. Increases to powver production costs would be approximately 0. 03 mills per kilowatt hour, or approximately $0. 25 per month per household. Even with this ircrease, power costs are significantly less than the least expensive fossil-fueled alternate.

Based on the above, it is our opinion that an exception to water quality standards should not be made and that an alternate cooling scheme should be implemented for the Harris Project which would utilize a smaller impoundment.

Should you have further questions or comments, I would be most happy to discuss them with you.

I appreciate this opportunity to work with you on this matter and hope that we can continue our productive relationship.

Sincerely, Regional Admninistrator

APPENDIX B SPECIAL ORDER - NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF WATER AND AIR RESOURCES

I B-2 NORTH CAROLINA BEFORE THE NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF WATER AND AIR RESOURCES WAKE COUNTY IN THE MATTER OF: )

THE APPLICATION FILED BY CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT )

COMPANY OF RALEIGH )

NORTH CAROLINA, REQUESTING )

A VARIANCE FROM THE ) SPECIAL ORDER TEMPERATURE STANDARD )

APPLICABLE TO THE CLASSIFICATIONS)

ASSIGNED TO THE )

WATERS OF BUCKHORN AND )

WHITEOAK CREEKS AND THEIR TRIBUTARIES )

This cause having been heard before the Water and Air Quality Control Committee of the North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources on April 20, 1973, pursuant to the authority of Article 21, Section 143-215.4(d), of the General Statutes of North Carolina, as amended upon the application of the Petitioner, Carolina Power &

Libht Company, requesting a variance from temperature standards established and adopted for Buhkhorn and Whiteoak Creeks and their tributaries; and upon consideration of said application and based upon the evidence presented at the said hearing and the record of the said hearing, the Board make the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The rate of growth of electrical energy consumption in the Company's service area, due to expanding residential, commercial, and industrial activity, has place in creased demands on the Company's existing supply of power resources. To meet the electrical demands of continued growth and development the additional power resources provided by the Shearon Harris Nu£lear Power Plant will be necessary.

2. The most feasible way to generate adequate electrical power to meet the phblic necessity is through the use of nuclear-powered, steam-operated generating facilities.

3. The steam generating system cycle requires the use of an extremply large volume of cooling waters for the condensation of the turbine exhaust steam.

4. The flow of waters in Buckhorn Creek or the nearby Cape Fear River and all of their tributaries is not sufficient to furnish a reliable supply of cooling water needed for the condensation of steam at the proposed facility.

B-3

5. The Company has proposed the construction of a 10,000 acre lake system consisting of an 84,000 acre'.water storage - recirculating cooling reservoir; a 400 acre afterbay reservoir; a 300 acre auxiliary reservoir and two thermally isolated lake areas totaling 1300 acres.

6. Makeup water will be pumped from the Cape Fear River at a rate which will minimize the impact on the river and in accordance with pumping rates established by the Board and contained in permits to be issued:

7. The temperature of the cooling water leaving the condensation units will be increased 26 degrees fahrenheit peak operational load.

8. The cooling water will be dishcarged into the 84000 acre main cooling lake to dissipate the waste heat resulting from the condensation process and recirculated for reuse as cooling water supply.

9. A cooling lake has economic, social, and environmental advantages over the alter-native cooling methods of spray ponds, mechanical draft towers, and natural draft towers, to wit: capital and recurring costs range from 10-100% less, evaporative water loss is approximately two thirds (100 cfs for cooling lake versus 150 cfs for alternates) permits the ,accumulation of water during periods of high flow for use during drought; and it enhances public recreational utilization for purposes by supporting activities such as boating, bathing, and fishing.

10. A cooling lake cannot be feasibly used for this operation if the temperature standard presently in effect for the waters must be adhered to.

11. While use of the impoundment as a cooling lake will increase temperatures to above those allowed in the Water Quality Standards the adverse effects upon the public interest will be less than those of alternate methods of cooling. When compared to public benefits derived from the project, such as, deminished cost to the public, deminished atmospheric moisture and best water'conservation practices-ýthe effects on Public interest are minimal.

12. The quality of the water released from the 400 acre afterbay lake on Buckhorn Creek into the Cape Fear River will meet all applicable water quality standards and will have no significant effect upon the temparture of the river.

13. The utilization of a man-made cooling lake and afterbay reservoir system represents the best practicable techný'logy presently available for the treatment of waste thermal energy produced by the operation of the proposed facility.

14. Two thermally isolated lake areas, having a combined surface area of approximately 1300 acres, will be established near the upstream end of the main reservoir. Due to the local topography these two lake areas if left as a part of the main cooling lake would be only marginally useful for cooling purposed but are substantially valuable from the standpoint of public recreation and aquatic and wildlife habitat. These areas, which exceed the existing surface area of the creeks to be impounded by a factor greater than 10, will be isolated from the main cooling lake in a manner that will prevent heated water from entering these areas and will enhance recreational benefits derived from the project.

B-4

15. A small auxiliary reservoir of approximately 300 acres in size will be impounded in the vicinity of the plant. This reservoir will be used for cooling water purposes during shut down procedures in the event of a major emergency failure of the dam on the main cooling reservoir.

16. The Company will construct an Energy and Environmental Center on the site.

This center will provide facilities for both the Company and interested public organizations to conduct programs and studies relative to environmental enhancement.

17. The Environmental Protection Agency, by letter dated July 10, 1973, has interposed serious objection to the granting of a variance and has stated that no exception to water quality standards which would allow the utilization of the proposed reservoir for a cooling lake will be granted by that Agency.

18. The Environmental Protection Agency has taken the position that onshore cooling facilities constitutes the Best Practicable Control Technology Available and thus the only acceptable method for dissipation of waste heat at the Shearon Harris Project.

19. It was determined from telephonic conferences with representatives from the Atomic Energy Commission that substantial project delays may result from an unfavorable position as expressed by the Environmental Protection Agency.

THE BOARD FURTHER FINDS AS:

CONCLUSIONS

1. The North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources is empowered by General Statute 143-214.1 to establish water quality standards and to classify the waters of the State in accordance therewith.

2. The North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources, having adopted tempera-ture stAndards pursuant to Sub-Section 8,Section II of the Rules, Regulations and Water Quality Standards Applicable to the Surface Waters of North Carolina.

3. Sub-Section 8,Section II authorizes such a variance "for such period as the public interest may require of permit."

4. The variance requested by Carolina Power and Light Company is proper under Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of North Carolina, as amended, and the applicable rules and regulations adopted by the Board of Water and Air Resources in that the public interest will be served by both the increased supply of electricity and the recreational and other benefits to accrue from the cooling lake.

5. Based upon the Finding of Fact that the public interest with respect to Water Conservation will be best served by granting the requested temperature variance and permitting the lake to be used as the condenser water cooling facility for the project, the Board has the power and authority to grant the variance.

B-5

6. In view of the conflicting position expressed by the Environmental Protection Agency and the potential delays which may result therefrom, the Board, while not concurring with the position of the Environmental Protection Agency con-cludes that the overall interest of the public can best be served by denying the request for variance.

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of the Board, IT IS NOW, THEREFORE, ORDERED:

1. That the request for variance from temperature standards by Carolina Power and Light Company for the Shearon Harris Cooling Lake is hereby denied.

2. That the issuance of a Permit for the construction of the Shearon Harris reser-voir system is authorized provided the following conditions are stipulated therein:

(a) Adequate onshore cooling facilities shall be provided to insure the maintenance for water quality standards within the reservoir system.

(b) Withdrawals of water from the Cape Fear River shall be limited to 25% of the flow in the river except that no withdrawals shall be made from the river when the flow is 600 cfs or less nor which will reduce the flow in the river to less than 600 cfs as measured at the U.S.G.S. Lillington Gauge.

(c) Construction of the proposed reservoir System shall not be initiated until and unless the project is certified as required by Section 401 of PL-92-500.

3. Upon receipt of revised application reflecting changes in the proposal as indicated above, the staff is hereby authorized to proceed with the certifi-cation of this project pursuant to Section 401 PL-92-500 and in accordance with applicable regulations of the Board.

This /ldday of %l 1973.

K....

Chairman, North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources I, E. C. Hubbard, Assistant Director, Department of Water and Air Resources, State of North Carolina, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of "Special Order in the Matter of the Application filed by Carolina Power Light Company of Raleigh, North Carolina, requesting a variance from the tempera-ture standard applicable to the Classifications assigned to the waters of Buckhorn and Whiteoak Creeks and their tributaries."

I do further certify that said Order was adopted by the Board at its meeting called and held in Raleigh, North Carolina on July 9a, 1973.

B-6 Witness my hand and seal of the Board of Water and Air Resources this the

• .-/ day of July, 1973.

E. C. Hubbard, Assistant Director Department of Water and Air Resources

APPENDIX C CERTIFICATION OF PROPOSED WASTEWATER DISCHARGE

NORTH CAROLINA Wake County C-2 CERTIFICATION THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Public Law 92-500 of the United States and subject to Rule Number 77 of the North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources to Carolina Power and Light Company, Raleigh, North Carolina, pursuant to application filed on the 18th day of August, 1973, to discharge treated wastewaters resulting from the operation of the company's proposed Shearon Harris Nuclear Powered Steam Electric Generating Plant into the surface waters of Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina.

After publication of notice of the application in The News and Observer, Raleigh, North Carolina, on the 31st day of August, 1973, and The Chatham Record, Pittsboro, North Carolina, on the 30th day of August, 1973, and after Public Hearing on November 15, 1973, the North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources hereby certifies, subject to any conditions hereinafter set forth, that there is reasonable assurance that the proposed activity of the applicant will be conducted in a manner which will not violate conditions of Section 301, PL 92-500 and further certifies that no limitations or standards have been established pursuant to Sections 302, 306 or 307.

Conditions of Certification: (I) Applicable project construction and operation shall be conducted in accordance with the application and supporting data filed by the company on August 8, 1973, except where such application and data may conflict with other conditions of this Certification. (2) The statement made by Environmental

70 C-3 Protection Agency representative, Howard Zeller, at the November 15, 1973, Public Hearing on this matter is attached hereto and is hereby made a part of this Certification and further that the conditions contained in the statement shall apply to this Certification.

Violation of any of the conditions herein set forth shall result in revocation of this Certification.

This the 20th day of December, 1973, NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF WATER AND AIR RESOURCES E. C. Hubbard, Director Certificate. WQC-214

C-4

-pE0 , 7 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ALpliol REGION IV 1421 PEACHTREE ST.. N. E.

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309 Statement Presented to the Board of Water and Air Resources, State of North Carolina, Regarding Certification of Carolina Power and Light Company Discharge from the Proposed Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, November 15, 1973.

My name is Howard D. Zeller and I am the Acting Deputy Director of the Enforcement Division of the United States Environmental Protection , Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia.

Through a series of meetings and conferences with the Carolina Power and Light Company and our review of the Environmental Report prepared by the Company and the AEC Environmental Impact Statements for the Shearon Harris Project, EPA, Region IV, is familiar with the proposed facility, its method of operation and environmental impact.

Although a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit application has not been officially received from the Company, we have held several conferences concerning the conceptual design for cooling towers to control thermal discharge from this facility and have basically concurred in the Company's proposal.

The requirements and waste treatment guidelines applicable to Section 301, 302, 306 and 307 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 are to be defined by the Administrator of EPA at a later date. However, until implementing action has occurred,

C-5 the Act states that a permit, if issued, will contain such conditions as are determined necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act.

Thus, the EPA technical staff can develop conditions that it deems necessary to meet the applicable conditions of the Act until such time as effluent guidelines and standards of performance are published.

Based on our review of this facility, the EPA has tentatively determined that the cooling tower conceptual design and treatment of non-radioactive wastes proposed by the Company will generally meet the requirements of the Federal Act when such treatment facilities are complete. It is our intent to issue a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit to the Carolina- Power and Light Company for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant at an early date, upon completion of the requirements established in Federal Regulations 40 CFR 125. In the event that waste treatment guidelines and other requirements are promulgated prior to the issuance of an NPDES permit, the permit would be modified to comply with the requirements and guidelines.

Upon receipt of a complete application from the Company and upon consultation and concurrence by the Board of Water and Air Resources of North Carolina, a Public Notice and tentative determinations for permit will be promulgated. Any interested person who may wish to comment on the applicable conditions of the permit will be given an opportunity to do so at that time.

C-6 In conclusion, EPA concurs in the proposed certification by the State of North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant for the applicant, Carolina Power and Light Company.

C-7 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF WATER AND AIR RESOURCES IN-THE MATTER OF CERTIFICATION OF PROPOSED WASTE DISCHARGES, CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, WAKE AND CHATHAM COUNTIES WHEREAS, Carolina Power and Light did, on August 8, 1973, file with the Board of Water and Air Resources an application for Certification for proposed wastewater discharges from the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant; and, WHEREAS, Notice of intent to issue Certification was published in accordance with the Board's Regulation Number LXXVII with a closing date of October 1, 1973; and, WHEREAS, The result of the public notice reflected sufficient public interest to justify the holding of a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, Notice of such public hearing was given in accordance with the Board's Regulation Number LXXVII; and, WHEREAS, Such public hearing was held on November 15, 1973; and, WHEREAS, No sufficient evidence was presented either at the public hearing nor in briefs following the public hearing to support a finding of denial of Certification; and, WHEREAS, The Board finds that a Certification should be issued in this matter.

NOW, THEREFORE, Be it resolved by the Board of Water and Air Resources that:

(1) A Certification as required by Section 401 Public Law 92-500 for wastewater discharges from Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant be and is hereby granted to Carolina Power and Light Company.

(2) The statement made by Environmental Protection Agency representative, Howard Zeller,,at the November 15, 1973, Public Hearing on this matter is hereby made a part of this Certification and further that the conditions contained within said statement shall apply to this Certification.

(3) The staff shall issue such Certification and submit copies of same to the Company, to the Environmental, Protection Agency, and to the Atomic Energy Commission.

This the 20TH day of December, 1973.

C-8 I, E. C. Hubbard, do hereby certify that the'foregoing is a true and correct copy of "Resolution of the Board of Water and Air Resources in the Matter of Certification of Proposed Waste Discharges, Carolina Power and Light Company, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Wake and Chatham Counties",

adopted by the Board of Water and Air Resources on the 20th day of December, 1973.

E. C. Hubbard, Director Office of Water and Air Resources D .-  ;-/, .. i " .

Date

D-1 APPENDIX D MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931 (Abridged)

I. Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances.

II. Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. Delicately suspended objects may swing.

III. Felt quite noticeably indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings, but many people do not recognize it as an earth-quake. Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vibration like passing of truck. Duration estimated.

IV. During the day felt indoors by many, outdoors by few. At night some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed, walls make creaking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably.

V. Felt by nearly everyone, many awakened. Some dishes, windows, etc., broken; a few instances of cracked plaster; unstable objects overturned. Disturbance of trees, poles, and other tall objects sometimes noticed. Pendulum clocks may stop.

VI. Felt by all, many frightened and run outdoors. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys. Damage slight.

VII. Everybody runs outdoors. Damage negligible in buildings *of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. Noticed by persons driving motor cars.

VIII. Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse; great in poorly built structures. Panel walls thrown out of frame structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls, heavy furniture overturned. Sand and mud ejected in small amounts. Changes in well water. Disturbs persons driving motor cars.

D-2 IX. Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb; great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. Ground cracked conspicuously.

Underground pipes broken.

X. Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations; ground badly cracked. Rails bent. Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes. Shifted sand and mud. Water splashed (slopped)- over banks.

XI. Few, if any (masonry), structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Broad fissures in ground. Underground pipe lines completely out of service. Earth slumps and land slips in soft ground. Rails bent greatly.

XII. Damage total. Waves seen on ground surfaces. Lines of sight and level distorted. Objects thrown upward into the air.

E-1 APPENDIX E GLOSSARY In discussing the environmental effects of constructicn and operation of nuclear power plants some words and phrases may be used, the meaning of which may not. be clear. Such terms that appear in this Environmental Statement are defined in the following glossary.

aerobic living or active only in the presence of oxygen algae any plant of the algae group comprising practi-cally all seaweeds and allied freshwater or nonaquatic forms. Sizes range from unicells (microscopic) to seaweeds (up to a few hundred feet in length).

anoxic absence of oxygen aquifer a water bearing rock, rock formation, or group of formations aufwuchs all organisms firmly attached to a substrate but which do not penetrate into it.

benthic referring to bottom dwelling aquatic organisms benthos the organisms living on the bottom of an aquatic habitat biochemical oxygen the quantity of oxygen used by micro-organisms demand (BOD) in stabilizing the organic matter in a body of water (by aerobic chemical reactions) biota the plants and animals (flora and fauna) of a region blowdown release of a portion of the cooling system contents to prevent excessive buildup of solids as a result of evaporation of water dose a general form denoting the quantity of radiation or energy absorbed. In this report it is used synonomously with dose equivalent.

E-2 dose equivalent a quantity which expresses all radiations on a common scale for calculating the effective absorbed dose. The unit of dose equivalent in the "rem."

entrainment the process of carrying along or over, usually refers here to the suspended biological organisms associated with the water taken into a power generating facility.

epilimnion upper stratum of water in a lake or sea eutrophication condition of a body of water wherein the nutrients are in good supply which in some cases may result in undesirable effects hypolimnion the lower stratum of water in a lake or sea man-rem a measure of the total absorbed dose received by a large number of persons. The absorbed dose in man-rem is the product of the number or persons in the group times the average dose absorbed in rem by each member of the group.

noble gases a relatively inert gas (here usually xenon and krypton) phytoplankton plankton consisting of plant life peizometric relating to measurement of pressure of under-ground water sources plankters planktonic organisms plankton the passively floating or weakly swimming animal and plant life of a body of water consisting chiefly of minute plants and animals present value the present value of a future expenditure is the amount that must be invested at the present time to cover the cost of the expendi-ture when it occurs pristine of, pertaining to, or typical of the earliest time or conditions primitive or original

A, 0!

E-3 rem the dosage of any ionizing radiation that will cause the same amount of biological injury to human tissue as one roentgen of X-ray or gamma dose residual chlorine chlorine (in several forms) that is available.

to react after the chlorine demand is satis-fied (free chlorine is the chlorine gas component of residual chlorine) roentgen a unit of radiation exposure (r) expressed in terms of the ionization produced in air by X-ray or gamma radiation thermal inversion a reversal of normal atmospheric temperature gradient; increase of temperature of air with increasing altitude thermal stability describes temperature gradients which govern the bouyancy and mixing properties of the atmosphere trophic level division of feeding level or energy transfer within a biotic system

APPENDIX F COMMENTS ON THE REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT FOR THE SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNITS 1, 2, 3, AND 4 F-i

-- F-3 Advisory Council On Historic Preservation 50-401 50-402 February 8, 1974 50-403 Mr. Daniel R. Muller Assistant Director for Environmental Projects Directorate of Licensing U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545

Dear Mr. Muller:

This is in response to your request of January 11, 1974, for comments on the environmental statement for the Shearon Davis Nuclear Power Plant Units 1, 2, 3, and 4, located in Wake County and Chatham County, North Carolina. Pursuant to its responsibilities under Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has determined that your draft environmental statement appears procedurally adequate. However, we have the following substantive comments to make:

To insure a comprehensive review of historical, cultural, archeolog-ical, and architectural resources, the Advisory Council suggests that the environmental statement contain a copy of the comments of the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer concerning the effects of the undertaking upon these rescurces.

Should you have any questions or require any additional assistance, please contact Jordan Tannenbaum (202-254-3974) of the Advisory Council staff.

Sincerely yours, .. .....

Ann Webster Smith Director, Office of Compliance 19 Itz %t Thc Con n( is an intir 'oidl'. i n.it of /I,,, E.x'*r , Be",rantib , of l,. Ftl,-ral GoI

( rnwittr,

.. ', I,* , . i l(,1 0clober~~~~~~~

b r i t l 15w 11-o j oih

(% 11/,-fcd o f ýbrcP r r l,)I

F-5 LIYi:":; t ;,'.*.T13U ' .

I:, i,C FAG- : .VFUIC Ja-nv'.-,i-I 17, 1.974 5 0 -4 C 3 50-402 50-1,03 Mr. D. R. ",'ullor , Ass ;Jr -t~a't Di.,tect~or for Env' ronn;cntal Projeccts DircctoraLn of Licens;in.I U.S. Atomic. >nery On-'--".

War:hington, -). C. 20545

Dear Mr. I'.uller:

The Agricultlural Ra:-.?rlh Sorvicc hias revic','.2J the Draft Environruc-ca] Stattc:a relat-Cd Lo tine proro,,:cd construc-tico; of the Th1,-.aron IL ,v.s Nucle;r Po;: r Plant, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 by the C:irool.LTa Po mi. Light Co(;:pany -

and,"

Docket ,N"os. 50-ICO, 50--40i, 50--602, and 50-403.

We have no co:im*ents t:o ma -c at this time.

Sincerely,

-//

tj C, i 1( .1. , -

W. A. Raney '

Acting Assistant Admi.nistrator >

National Program Staff

F-7 50 -400 50o-4 40 LUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 40 IR7 1.974-;. L FOREST SERVICE50

- 4 0 3

.. i ,.-Washington, D.C. 20250 Mr. Daniel R. Muller Assistant Director for Environmental Projects Directorate of Licensing U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY CO9MhISSION Washington, D.C. 205t45 L

Dear Mr. Muller:

We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Statement for Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Units 1, 2, 3, 4 and our comments follow:

We find the statement sketchy in defining proposed use of the 14,000 acres (mostly forest land) contained in the project area and inadequate in assigning values commensurate with such land use. Some 4,225 acres will be inundated and

• an additional acreage will be cleared for the plant site proper.

The 4,225 acres plus will undergo drastic land use change.

The value of the present forestland which will be lost to the impoundment or plant site is the total of the annual benefits received from the land over a forty year period plus, the cost of reforesting the area to it's present size and stockingaC.

class. The value of the timber production lost (which is but one of many benefits which will be lost) should be computed on the basis of site productive capabilit* rather than the existing degree of management. The $16.00 per acre per year production figure for forestlands used in the statement is too low for pulpwood alone, and does not include the value of "other products" of forest lands.

The approximately 9,500 acres outside the proposed lake and plant site proper should be covered with a multiple-use management plan advocating intensive management practice to help mitigate forest land production lost to the impoundment.

The same would also apply to the estimated 3,672 acres in additional powerline right-of-way needed.

Though not required, the statement should contain a plan for decommissioning the plant and restoring the plant site to a condition suitable for human use. TTle cost of re..

storation is a true project cost which should be considered in computing the cost-benefit ratio for the project.

!89~ 4i

F-8 To defer, this debL Lo subsequent generaLion (who will receive nob. .reit from the facility) seems inconsistent with pro-visions of the National Environmental Policy Act.

We also believe the actual and environmental costs of disposing of radioactive waste (unique to a Nuclear Power Plant) should be included as a project cost.

We appreciate the opportunity to review this environmentjjl statement.

Sincerely, Acting Deputy Chiefl" Programs and Legislation

F-9 Lt !01 r: ( - 403 UNITC71ý CrA~rrý ID;-r.P,J-cTm~rNT or ;,u.Tu'r 5 0 .- 4: 1 5 0-4 03 NWiti cia I [oi-es i. 'it, Ncrt-h Ca rol i n3 11.O0. Cox 27fl As h-vi 1*1c , N~ort~ Cz-:ro1*ra 20"Q.202 Januawy i7, 1974 Mr. Daniel R. I ,,'ller}.S 'i Asst. Dirceictor for Environmental Projccts Directo trL.*P of Licens r;j U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, DC 20545 L

Dear Mr. Muller:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the dr-fct Envirenmental Statement for the Shearon Harris INucic.r Pow.,,cr Pl.Int Un';its 1, 2, 3 and 4. This project is locatud outside the boundaries of the Uwharrie or Croatan National Forests in No-rth Carolina. le, there-fore, have no com.ents to make in regard to th2 Statew;ent.

Sincerely, DEL W. THORSEN Forest Supervisor 618

Fiogu*atory ti"A F-Il

- OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT t,-CRETARY OF COMV1MERCE S""Washington, D.C. 20230 February 25, 1974 Docket Nos.50-400/401/402/403

• "'I' ""(

Mr. Daniel R. Muller, Assistant I.

Director for Environmental Projects -

Directorate of Licensing \ ..- .

U. S. Atomic Energy Commission /

Washington, D. C. 20545

Dear Mr. Muller:

The draft environmental impact statement for Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Units 1,2,3 and 4 which accompanied your letter of January 11, 1974, has been received by the Department of Commerce for review and A74 comment.

The following comments are offered for your consideration:

1. The environmental impact statement accurately portrays the impact of construction and operation of the redesigned plant on aquatic biota in the Cape Fear River and estuary.

2. The radiological sections of the environmental impact statement concerning pre-operational radiological monitoring programs apparently does not include analysis of benthic organisms. Benthic organisms should be analyzeC. It is suggested that the locations of the sampling stations be.

indicated on a suitable map of the area.

3. The prevailing wind from the southwest (10.6 percent) as shown in Table 2.11 does not agree with the statement on page 2-21 that "over the year southeasterly wind direction predominates." .-.

, ~.. .. ... ;,::. . .........

, E3 1,9*"74

t. 0" .: ( " .;

! <Y,3:It[: -"\"

F- 12

4. From the discussion of the gaseous radwaste on pages 3-20 to 3-22, it is unclear what the frequency and length of the routine radiative gaseous release periods to the atmosphere will be. On page 3-20 it states "no gaseous radwastesneed to be released to the environment." Pre-sumably this refers to the degassing of the primary collant which is most of the gaseous radioactivity re-ceived by the gaseous waste processing system. On page 3-21 it states "the staff estimate of releases has used a 90-day release period." Does this actually mean a release to the atmosphere over a 90-day period or rather, a quick release after a 90-day holdup? Why are releases even discussed when it was stated that no release was needed?

Thank you for giving us an opportunity to provide these comments, which we hope will be of assistance to you.

We would appreciate receiving a copy of the final statement.

Sincerely, Sidney R/GalleJ Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs

F-13 R:!2ukitory MI~S OY.

• 1 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

{

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20201 FEB 2 6 1974

!,r.. --

0~~ K>

Ar." hanicl n. !:Ullcr Assistant Director for Lnviromnrental 5 0-401 lProjocts3 DirecLorate of Licensi-rg 5 0-402 Atm*Lic !,ncrL," Cm-mission Washin-,gton, D. C. 20543 0-403 DeIar .'r. iluller:

Enclosed ara thiis ]'epartrnet's comments on 1i.,C's revis*-d draft

.liviroma.tal L2-*ac t State.-,t on tiae S iearon Earris '.;uclear Pro,.er Plant, Units 1-4 rThaik you for the opportunity to conient on this draft statement.

Sincerely, Charles Custard Director Office of ",nvirolnnntal 7Affairs Enclosure

F-14 MAEMORAND UN 01:T. [Il'.[A.TII, "").'CA'TitrN, AN!) 'IJ:LFAREL T :Mr. Charles Custard, Director DATI:: February 20, 1974 Office of Environmental Affairs T11RU: Principal Environmental Officer/Il /'1,/..

/"

IROMI Acting Consultant, EIS/Il

SUBJECT:

Atomic Energy Commission Draft Environmental Impact Statement (REVISED) - Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1-4 This is a revised draft Environmental Impact Statement based on a change of cooling systems to be employed at the plant. Originally, the plan was to use a cooling lake which the AEC staff found to be the most attractive system from an environmental standpoint, However, the Environmental Protection Agency objected to this system and the revised plan calls for the use of natural draft cooling towers which are mandated by requirement of the EPA and also by the State of North Carolina.

The approval of the proposed plant by the AEC is contingent upon a number of factors including a requirement that the applicant will continue his on-site meteorological program and collect weather data with a minimum of 90 percent recovery. Prior to operation of the plant, at least one full year of data (covering all seasons) will be collected and analyzed to enable a complete description of the site weather so that accurate predictions of the impact of gaseous releases to the surrounding area can be made both for normal and accident conditions of plant operations.

This is an important requirement from a health standpoint as explained below.

The area surrounding the plant is predominantly a rural environment. There are three cities of over 50,000, within a 50-mile radius, and six other cities over 10,000. The major population centers are Raleigh, about 20 miles to the northeast of the plant; Durham, about 25 miles to the north; and Fayetville, about. O miles to the south. Within the 40-mile radius of the plant, there is considerable dairy farming. It is estimated that about 15 percent ou" the State's milk supply is produced in this area. The applicant has estimated that there are 11 dairy herds (625 cows Lol.,il.) within a seven-mile radius.

Two of these dairy herds would lie displaced by the project. The calculated dose to a child's thyroid through the pasture-cow-milk chain where a cow could be located off side of the installation,

F-15 2.

would be 28 milleram per year. This exceeds the "as low as practical" guidelines of the AfEC. To assure that the actual dose will not exceed the guideline, the applicant will be required to provide an extensive monitoring program In the surrounding environs. This program will be delineated in the technical specifications and will relate'to measuring the iodine releases from the plant. Should the actual measured iodine releases exceed twice the design objective dose rate of 15 milleram per year--averaged over any calendar year--the applicant will be required to make the necessary modifications to the plant to reduce these releases as delineated in the technical specifications.

The draft Environmental Impact Statement is believed to be inadequate in discussing this situation in view of the high percentage of the State milk production that originates within the 40-mile area surrounding the plant. Cognizance of the importance of adequate iodine releases should be addressed in this context as well as in the context of possible doses to those residing in the immediate environs of the plant.

The draft Environmental Impact Statement in discussing the potential accident problem again does not speak specifically to the unique problem presented by the relatively large milk production from the area within 40 miles of the plant. In considering the consequences of an accidentL it would be appropriate to consider the possible impact on the State milk supply from contamination of this milk shed.

The possible consequences of contamination of other food stuffs produced in the area should also be considered. While prevention of human doses from these pathways would not require immediate remedial action, as in the case of an inhaled dose for example, provision should be included within the incident response plan developed between the licensee and the State to assure that proper cognizance is taken of these problems.

Paragraph 4.2, page 4-1', of the Statement deals with community impact during plant construction. It notes that a work force of approximately 3500 will be employed during this period. It is stated that the ease with which the local, schools will be able to absorb additional students is not known. Any problem in this area should be defined.

Frne'-t C. Anderson Sanitary Engineer Director

M C% F-17

• -,->* - 4.0',..0

"-0 United States Department of the Interior 5G 0 -402

- 4 0 1 IOFFICE OF THE SECRE504Y WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 50 - 4 03 In reply refer to: 1974 PEP ER 74/70 1P97

Dear Mr. Muller:

Thank you for your letter of January 11, 1974, transmitting copies of the Atomic Energy Commission's revised draft environmental statement for Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3, and.4, Wake and Chatham Counties, I ...

North Carolina. C Our comments are presented according to the format of the -

statement or according to subject.

Historic Significance While we find that adequate consideration has been given to cultural factors relating to the plant site, consideration should also be given to the construction and routing of transmission lines emanating from this plant. Since these lines are in effect, an integral part of the development and since the product of this plant must be distributed by transmission lines to the public, we believe the routes of these lines and their effects on the environment should be identified. Alternative routes should be identified; and the effects of these alternative routes on the environ-ment should be explored. Historical and cultural studies including archeological surveys should be carried out, and the effects on identified cultural values measured on each alternative route.

Recreational Benefits We believe the proposed 4,100-acre cooling reservoir may have significant benefits for public recreation use. The North Carolina Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP), the official recreation planning guide for the State, places the Shearon Harris site in Planning Region J, consisting of Chatham, Durham, Johnston, Lee, Orange, and Wake Counties. Planning Region J contains 11 reservoirs having a total area of 3,211 acres. Only three of these 76 76I I I..I- AAr...-.

F-18 2

reservoirs are above 500 acres in size. This region has 5.9 acres of surface water per thousand population compared to a Statewide average of 53.1 acres per thousand population based upon an inventory of water bodies of 100 acres or more.

Currently, the State has an average of 129.3 acres per thousand population of 1,000-acre or greater reservoirs within 50 miles of urban populations.

Durham and Raleigh rank 6th and 7th, respectively, out of a total of 11 urban areas in the State having less than the State average, having 56.4 and 56.6 acres per thousand population of 1,000 acres or more within 50 miles. Since the cities of Durham and Raleigh are roughly 25 miles from the proposed site, a substantial amount of recreational use might be generated by their populations if quality recreational opportunities were offered at the Shearon Harris Reservoir.

Page 1-5 states that, ". ' . the applicant has committed himself to a plan which will assure public enjoyment of the land and waters of the Shearon Harris Plant to the fullest extent consistent with the primary use of the site for generating of power. To this end, the applicant is coopera-ting with the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources in a task force effort." In addition, the North Carolina SCORP states, "A master plan for recreation should be required of all reservoirs of 1,000 acres or more in surface area con-structed in the State, and guidelines for such plans need to be developed as a part of the continuing program of the State."

Recreational plans should be described in the environmental statement since they are an integral part of the total development. The final statement should include a brief discussion of how far' the applicant and the State have pro-gressed in recreation planning for the site.

Geology Our concerns regarding the paucity of information in the previous draft for geology and seismology were sent to you on February 22, 1973. In this revised draft statement no additional information regarding geology and seismology has been presented. The brief section on geology, including seismology is inadequate for the preparation of

F-19 3

an independent assessment of the geologic environment relevant to Units 1, 2, 3, and 4. The physical properties of the geologic materials on which the plant and the appurtenant structures would be founded are not described, nor have seismic-design parameters and the methcds of their derivation been discussed. Although drill holes and pits shown on figure 2.4 appear close enough to provide a fairly detailed assess-ment of the geologic environment and related impacts, the data presented appear highly generalized for a project of this magnitude. For example, with reference to the important surficial layer of unconsolidated deposits, it is very briefly statea on page 2-7 that below an occasional thin layer of alluvial sand and/or clay, there is from 0 to 15 ft. of residual soil. Since local differences are evidently great, some indication of the areal variations in type and thickness of surficial deposits should be a minimum requirement for an adequate environmental assessment, particularly since as much as 2,000 acres of reservoir bottom would be exposed at low water levels. Among the potential problems related to geologic conditions that should be addressed are continuing erosion of exposed *sediment around the margins of the reservoir, and resultant suspended sediment in reservoir waters.

Although reference has been made to the applicant's Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (p. 2-9) and to the AEC staff's Safety Evaluation Report (p. 2-8), we suggest that a more comprehen-sive summary of the geologic and seismologic analyses in these documents be induded in the final environmental state-ment to indicate how the data have been utilized for purposes of design and construction of the proposed facility. Of particular. concern is the design of two earth dams measuring 1,215 feet long and 3,700 feet long, as no information has been provided on the type of material to be used for this purpose.

Class 9 accidents Our concerns regarding Class 9 accidents for *this project were also sent to you previously. Nevertheless, Class 9 accidents have been discussed in purely qualitative terms in this revised draft statement. However, it is noted that AEC "is currently performing a study to assess more quantitatively these risks" and that initial results of the study are expected to be available in early 1974. We presume that the environ-mental effects of class 9 accidents will be evaluated, despite their stated very low probability, and we feel that this information should be included in the final environmental statement.

F-20 4

Radioactive Wastes The solid radioactive wastes that result from operation of Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 are estimated to include annually "approximately 2S0 drums of spent resins, filter sludges and evaporator bottoms at approximately 20 curies per drum and 600 drums of dry and compacted waste at less than 5 curies per drum." Practically no additional information is provided on the ultimate disposition of the wastes or any relatad environmental effects, except that the offsite burial ground is at an estimated distance of 400 miles. It is suggested that the statement specify the kinds of radio-nuclides, their physical states, their concentrations, and the estimated tctal volume of wastes during the expected life of the reactors. It would also be advisable to discuss Federal and State licensing provisions, criteria, and responsibilities for the site in connection with (1) its hydrogeologic suitability to isolate solid wastes of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power plant from the biosphere; (2) surveillance and monitoring of the disposal site; and (3) any remedial or regulatory actions that might be necessary during the period in which the wastes will be hazardous.

Effects of Waste Heat Dissipation The incremental benefits and disbenefits over the original proposed cooling lake system should be tabulated in the final environmental statement. Although the originally proposed method of cooling is not presently considered to be an alternative due to State and EPA regulations, we believe that, since it was originally proposed, the impacts associated with it should be compared with those of the presently proposed system.

This comparison should especially be made for consumptive use of water. Previous studies have indicated that consump-tive water losses from cooling tower operation in the south-east are usually greater than from cooling lakes or once-through cooling. We suggest that the consumptive use of water for this project should be compared with that with

F-21 other plants in the final statement to more accurately identify this aspect of the project.

The discussion on pages 10-4 and 10-5 should be updated to reflect the water loss associated with the smaller 4,100-acre reservoir instead of the 8,375-acre reservoir as proposed for the original cooling system. The forced evaporation from the reservoir is given as 47 cfs and natural evaporation is given as about 50 cfs for both reservoirs even though one is less than half the size of the other. This section does not appear to have been adequately modified to reflect the change in the cooling system.

Transmission Facilities We recommend that.the final statement should include a brief description of the applicant's plans for "creating recreational opportunities" on the transmission rights-of-way associated with the Shearon Harris Plant.

Environmental Impact of Site Preparation and Plant Construction We believe this section should include the specific terrestrial resources, such as wildlife species and plant associations, which will be lost as a direct result of project construction. Habitat alterations close to the plant caused by roads or parking facilities should also be included.

Aquatic Ecology We believe the impacts of maximum withdrawal on the biological productivity of the Cape Fear River should be discussed in the final statement as the fate of plankton and fish eggs withdrawn from the river into the makeup reservoir should be quantified to the extent possible.

Chemical Releases This section should be expandec to describe those inverte-brates or groups of invertebrates susceptible to high levels of sulfate salts in the makeup reservoir and the mortality expected from such concentrations. The final statement should include an assessment of alternatives which could avoid or lessen the amount of sulfates discharged into the makeup reservoir.

F-22 6

Other likely impacts on aquatic resources in the Cape Fear River from excesnsive amounts of sulfate in the reservoir should be described inthe final statement.

The possibility of using another chemical instead of morpholine is discussed on page 5-16. We suggest that any chemical and its associated environmental imDacts should be discussed in the final environmental statement.

Reservoir Drawdcw.+/-n The final statement should include the expected freaencies of various dra;:dcwn levels in the reservoir together with the effects upon bent.hic organisms, and spawning from the varied drawdown levels.

Alteration of Bu;ckhorn Creek The final statement should estimate flows in Buckhorn Creek and present the effects of reduced flows upon all forms of aquatic resources in this creek. The discussion should not be limited to recreational fishing.

'ConsequenceS of Proposed Action The principal adverse effect of the proposed constructicn will be the destruction of about 4100 terrestrial acres to form a reservoir. We believe it is unlikely that this reservoir will be drained at the end of the stated 40-year plant lifetime. We, therefore, suggest that the commitment of 4100 acres to form a reservoir might also be considered as an irreversible commitment of terrestrial resources.

We hope our comments will be helpful to you in the preparation of a final environmental statement.

Sincerely yours,

- . t Secretary of the interior Mr. Daniel R. Muller Assistant Director for Environmental Projects Directorate of Licensing Atomic Energy CoMmM*ssion Washington, D. C. 20545

F- 23 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

.MINGTON DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P. 0. BOX 1890 W'ILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28401 L-9 8 March 1974 50 -40 0 Mr. Daniel R. Muller, Asst. Director 50-40 for Environmental Projects Directorate of Licensing 60-40 Atomic Energy Connission 60-40 Washington, DC 20545

Dear Mr. Muller:

This is in response to the request for my views and comments on the revised draft Environmental Statement for the proposed construction of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 by Carolina Power and Light Company. Most of my 5 January 1974 comments on the original draft statement have been covered in this revised statement.

On page 5-11 it is stated, "there will be no withdrawals from the Cape Fear River that will reduce flows in the river below 600 cfs as measured at the Lillington station." From this, it appears that there will be no infringement on low flow releases from the B. Everett Jordan Lake.

If this is true, the operation of Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant will have no effect on the operation of this Federal project.

It should be noted that a Department of Army permit under Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 will be required for the intake structure on the Cape Fear River. To date no application has been received for this permit.

I have no further comments at this time. Copies of this reply are being furnished to the Council on Environmental Quality. Please send me a copy of the final statement when it is filed with CEQ.

Sincerely yours, AýLBER7 C. COS ANZO C 1,.olon Corps of Engineers Copy furnished: District Engineer Mr. Timothy Atkeson, General Counsel Council on Environmental Quality Executive Office of the President 722 Jackson Place, N.W.

21J2 Washington, DC 20506 (10 cys)

F-25

.'V UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

"'4, .,o$ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR Mr. L..Manning Muntzing Director of Regulat'on+/-

U.S. Atomic Encrgy Ccr.-mission Washington, D. C. 20545

Dear Mr; Nuntzing:

The Environment,! Protection Agency has reviewed the revised draft envi'roi1nmc3ntal :1.,'oact statement ,issued in conjunction with the application of Carolina Power and Light Compnany for a construc-tion permit for the proposed Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Units 1, 2, 3, and 4. Our detailed co-,wnents are enclosed.

We are pleased that the applicant is now proposing to adopt a natural Craft coolin; t7ower system at the Shearon .harris plZant.

In our opinion, this svstem will enable the facility to ooer{-te in compli{n(.ce i th t'he federally .approvedw..ater quality stana3rds foiL tile S Of.Eot CaO.Linia arid will conform to Section 301 requirements of the Federal 2.ater Pollution, Control Act Amen" -ents of 1.972. We are d'stt'rb'ed, ho,-wever, that the thEC staff has concluded in this statement that, although the presently proposed system is an acceptable alternative, the originallv prcposed 10,400 acre imoundment with a once-through cooling system is preferable environmontally. We do not agree with this conclusion, as our suggestions for conducting a more thorough and reliable environmental and cost-benefit evaluation reveal. We believe the AEC has unce2-estimatcd the imnact of thermal discharaes and entrainment effects on the proposed cooling lake fishery, overemphasized the possibility of recreational drawbacks in the make-up reservoir of the cooling tower system and failed to consider possible rccreational drawbacks in the cooling lake due to heat and algal b)looms, and overestimated the costs for the cooling towers and their operation.

F-26 2

Our principal radiological concern with the Shearon Harris plant is that the potential thyroid doses (to a child via the radioiodine-cow-milk pathJav) calculated by the AEC and EPA could exceed the 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix I dose guidelines.

Since the plant will be utilizing state-of-the-art gasecus waste treatment systems, the applicant should improve the inplant monitoring program and periodically determine the location of milk cows near the plant.

We are also concerned about the ultimate disposal of re-cycled t~itiated liquids and retained noble gases, which may develop through the use of recycling capabilities of the waste treatment system, as described by the applicant. The enclosed comments do not sTecifically address these issues, but our concerns, as expressed in our previous formal comments on the Palisades, McGuire, and Suzmer draft statements, also apply to this plant.

In light of our review and in accordance with EPA procedures, we have classified the project as LO (Lack of Objections) and have rated the revised draft statement Category 2 (Insufficient Informýtion). If you or your staff have any ouestions concarn-'rg our classification or comments, we will be happy to discuss th;.-l with you.

Sincerely yours, Sheldon Meyers Director Office of Federal Activities Enclosure

F-27 EPA# D-AEC-06121-NC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Washington, D. C. 20460 March 1, 1974 ENVIROLNMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT COMMENTS Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS

.PAGES INTRODUCTION AND CONCLUSIONS 1, NON-RADIOLOGICAL ASPECTS 3 Water Quality Classifications and Thermal Standards 5 Thermal and Biological Effects (Cooling Lake Alternative) 6 Entrainment Effects (Cooling Lake Alternative) 13 Environmental Effects (Cooling Tower Alternative) 14 Cost-Benefit 19 RADIOLOGICAL ASPECTS 22 Radioactive Waste Treatment 22 Dose Assessment 22 Transportation 24 Reactor Accidents 25 APPENDICES

F-28 INTRODUCTION AND CONCLUSIONS The Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the revised draft environmental impact statement issued (January 11, 1974) by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission in conjunction with the application of Carolina Power and Light Company for a permit to begin construc-tion of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Units 1, 2, 3 and 4.

This plant is planned for a site located in Wake and Chatham Counties close to Raleigh, North Carolina.

1. We are pleased that the applicant is now proposing to adopt a natural draft cooling tower system at the Shearon Harris plant.

In our opinion, this system will enable the facility to operate in compliance with the federally approved water quality standards for the State of North Carolina and will conform to Section 301 recuire-ments of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Armendments of 1972.

We are disturbed, however, that the AEC staff has concluded in this statement that, although the presently proposed system is an accent--

able alternative, the originally proposed 10,400 acre impoundment with a once-through cooling system is prefereble environmentally.

We to not agree with this conclusion, as our suggestions for conducting a more thorough and reliable environmental and cost-benefit evaluat.*in reveal.

2. In our opinion, the AEC staff has underestimated the thermal impact of the originally proposed once-through cooling system on the 10,400 cooling lake (cooling lake alternative). Although once-in-ten-years critical surface temperatures were given, the AEC impact analysis was based on areas of 51F above ambient and. not on maximum temperatures. We believe it is the areas of maximum temperavures that will be restrictive to acuatic life.

In addition, by concentrating on the critical conditions (i.e.,

surface temperatures everywhere greater than 92 0 F), the AEC staff appeared to overlook the adverse conditions (i.e., surface temper-atures everywhere greater than 90 0 F) which would still be damaging to certain important fish species and are more significant because they occur more frequently than once-in-ten-years.

3. According to our calculations, the once-through sjstem would (pumping 4,600 cubic feet/second) have pumped through.a volume of water, in 12 days, equivalent to the entire eoilimnion of the proposed cooling lake. Certain zooplankton, copepods and cladoccrans, important as a food source for larval fish, would exhibit up to 100 percent mortality on entrainment in the cooling system during summer high temperature periods. Since regeneration times of these zooplankton at 86 0 F are around 14 days and generally increase with temperature above 90 0 F, the plant would have virtually eliminat-:

these zooplankton as a food source for the larval fish. To compound the effect, the larvae would be killed directly by entrainment as well. Such effects would cause significant changes in the cooling lake fishery.

F-29

4. The proposed liquid and gaseous radioactive waste systems at Shearon Harris will include state-of-the-art equip-ment. Proposed operation and maintenance of these systems are expected to result in radioactive releases that can be considered "as low as practicable." However, the AEC and the EPA indepen-dently calculated that the postulated radioiodine releases to the atmosphere could result in a child's thyroid dose (due to the consumption of milk produced by cows grazing at the nearest potential pasture land) which would exceed the 10CFR Part 50 Appendix I dose guidelines. Although EPA agrees with the AEC on the conservative nature of the calculational models, we strongly suggest that the applicant should improve the in-plant monitoring system and shoula periodically determine the location of existing milk cows near the site to insure that these excessive dose levels are not reached.

5. In our opinion, the 4 to 5-foot average drawdown of the make-up lake (cooling towqer alternative) would not be a hinder-ance to recreational activities such as fishing, boating, swimming, or picnicking, as is indicated in the draft statement.

Proper planning, involving well conceived docks, boat launching ramps, and swimming beaches, would avoid most problems.

6. In the cost-benefit evaluation of the cooling lake alternative, the AIC staff did not properly consider the effect of algal blooms and heat on the recreational potential, particu-larly since such blooms and high water temperatures are likely to occur during peak recreational periods.

7. The AEC in the revised draft statement chose the higher values in the accepted ranges of capital and operating costs for cooling towers. No rationale is given for these choices.

This is significant since such costs are important to the out-come of the cost-benefit evaluation of the two principle cooling system alternatives.

F-30

-3 NON-PADIOLOGTCAL ASPECTS The Carolina Power and Light Company originally proposed, in its application for a construction permit for the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant, that condenser cooling be accomplished using a once-through system with cooling water being obtained from and discharged to a 10,400 acre reservoir system formed by damming the Buckhoin Creek just below its confluence with Whiteoak Creek. For the purposes of our discussion this system will be called the cooling lake or cooling lake alternative. This system was assessed by the AEC staff in an earlier environmental impact statement (issued in draft and final form November 21, 1972'and May 16, 1973, respectively) where the AEC staff concluded that it was the most preferable system environmentally of the alternatives considered. EPA, however, after review of these earlier statements and other available information, did not agree with this position.

As was noted in EPA's comments dated January 10, 1974,

"...federally approved water quality standards for the State of North Carolina would apply to this impoundment

[and] unless a variance were granted by the State, the proposed system would..." result in a violation of, such standards. Our com:ments went on to indicate that EPA did not believe a variance was justified and had recommended this to the State on July 10, 1973. In part, this recommendation was based on our determination that such a large on-stream reservoir should not be constructed for the sole or main purpose of providing a heat sink for the Shearon Harris plant. In our opinicn, the waters involved are public and must be maintained in a manner conducive to full utilization by the citizens of the area, particularly if such utilization is to be considered in the cost-benefit evaluation of the plant. This can only be accomplished if water quality is consistent with the demands of each and every reasonable water use. North Carolina subsequently denied the application for a variance on July 19, 1973.

In addition to the violation of standards, EPA's comments indicated that the cooling lake alternative would not comply with the requirements of Section 301 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (FWPCA). This section, which is applicable to steam electric power plants, specifies the employment of "Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available" by July 1, 1977, and the "Best Available Technology Economically Achievable" by July 1, 1983. Although

"F-31 the definition of these terms (as contained in effluent limitations for this type of facility) has not yet been finalized by :PA, it is likely that some form of off-stream closed-cycle cooling will be required. The proposed guidelines have been submitted to the Federal Recgister for publication and include this requirement.

Section 316(a) of the FWPCA can offer relief to the applicant from thermal effluent restrictions im-posed by Section 301. Such relief, however, can only be granted by the Administrator (of EPA) if it can be demonstrated by the applicant that the imposed restrictions are "...more stringent thEn necessary to assure the pro[t]ection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on the body of water into which the discharge is made ..... "

However, as is indicated by the analyses of the AEC staff (in the earlier final statement on this facility) and is further deo`:nstrated by our comrments which follow, it would be e.trme difficult if establish or maintain any consistently viable, balanced aquatic community in the 8,400 acre main portion of the previously proposed cooling lake. Thus, in our opinion, the available evi-'n-ce fails to provide a basis for exemption under Section 316 (a).

As a consequence of EPA objections and the denial of a variance by the State of North Carolina, the applicant is now proposing to employ natural-draft cooling towers in conjunction with a make-up reservoir of reduced size (4,100 acres) at the Shearon Harris facility. For the purpose of our discussion we will call this the cooling tower or cooling tower alternative.

We commend the applicant for his decision to adopt this system. Not only does such a course avoid the previously outlined problems in complying with the specific requirements of the FWPCA and State standards, but it is in keeping with the overall objective of the Act which is to "...restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." This to be accomplished, in part, by realization of "...an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife..." and an ultimate goal "...that the discharge of pollutants [including the thermal component] into navigable waters be eliminated by 1985."

In the revised draft statement the AEC staff concludes that the presently proposed closed-cycle system, "...which

[is) mandated by requirements of other agencies, [is],

F-32 on balance, an acceptable cooling alternative." However the AEC staff continues to believe the cooling lake alternative to be "...superior to the presently proposed cooling tower system." It appears this position is based on an AEC assessment of the specific environmental effects of the two principal cooling system alternatives and an overview comparative cost-benefit evaluation in which a number of economic and environmental factors were considered.

On balance, after review of the revised draft statement, EPA does not concur with the AEC staff's position. We are of the opinion that the assessments presented do not properly consider or include all significant impacts and that the cost-benefit evaluation is not sufficiently definitive or complete. When appropriate changes are incorp.orated into these assessments and evaluations, the evidence does not support the AEC position. It is important, therefore, that the final statement reassess the impact of the cooling lake alternative in light of the considerations discussed in the following comments. We are confident that such a reassessment will demonstrate that the cooling tower alternative uresentlv proposed is not only a system that is in com'-:Iiance with the FWPCA, but also the preferable cooling alternative from a broader environmenta]. and multiple-use perspective.

Water Quality Classifications and Thermal Standards Natural and impounded waters of the State of North Carolina are classified according to present and projected water use designations. In general, impoundments are given the same classification as the pre-impounded streams, rivers, or other water bodies from which they are formed. The Harris impoundment has not yet been classified, but, as we understand, one will be assigned by the State when the appl.icant has submitted plan for water use and recreational develooment.

Therefore, the classification will, of necessity, be one consistent with the extent to which such waters are to be used for multiple purposes, including fishing and water recreation. It is long-established Federal policy, however, that no waters subject to standards be used for the sole or primary purpose of waste assimilation.

Regardless of the ultimate classification assigned by the State of North Carolina to this impoundment, the thermal criteria of all classes under the North Carolina standards are the same. They call for water temperatures "...not to exceed 5*F above the natural water temperature, and in no case to exceed ... 90*F for lower piedmont and coastal plain

F-33 waters." Further, according to Regulation No.IV of these standards, conformity aith the above temperature restrictions will be determined from samples "...collected outside the limits of prescribed mixing zones [which] will be defined by the Department [North Carolina Department of Water and Air Resources] on a case-by-case basis...."

Thermal and Biological Effects (Cooling Lake Alternative)

Although the revised statement acknowledges the 90'F maximum and 51F above ambient criteria of the existing thermal standards (page 10-10) , reference of the AEC staff to the EPA letter of July 10, 1973 (page 1-6), mentions only the 51F above ambient criterion. Consistent with this, in evaluating the thermal effects and consequent biological impact of the cooling lake alternative, the AEC analyses are limited, for the most part, to areas where temperatures exceed 51F above ambient and/or dissolved oxygen (D.O.) is less than 4 milligrams per liter (mg/l). No apparent projections have been made of areas where temperatures will exceed specific maximum temperatures, even though Tables 5.3 and 10.1 of the revised draft statement showi that temperatures at or above certain levelýs are lethal to several fish species (that may be imnortant to the proposed cooling lake fishery), if such temperatures are encountered for periods of from 24 to 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> duration. Higher temperatures, of course, would be intolerable for shorter periods of time.

Since it would be the maximum temperatures and their durations which become restrictive to aquatic populations, predicting the portion of the originally proposed cooling lake where temperatures would be in excess of specific values .(for longer than appropriate tolerance periods) is more important to an evaluation of the impact on aquatic biota of that alternative than predicting areas of 5°F above ambient temperature. This importance is delineated by a prevailing question as to the actual volume of water conducive to aquatic life that would be available in the cooling lake (as opposed to the make-up reservoir of the cooling to-ver alternative), particularly during adverse and critical summer conditions. The AEC staff's arguments regarding the possibility that a greater volume of this water would have been available in the cooling lake than will exist in the make-up reservoir, hinge on assumptions made with regard to this question.

F-34 The only indication in the revised draft statement of areas of maximum tepceratures is in Figure ).0.2. This figure prc:cnts the projected extreme surface thermal patterns ;:,,hich c be e>-:7De.ctcd in the cooling lake for one (1) full mronth C.1. during the sumrumer under critical conditions (occurinc- on the average of once every 10 years). Al.thouCh Cuantified areal predictions for various isotherms are not gi-en, it appears that the entire surface of the lake and most of the afterhay would, under such conditions, exceed 92 0 F. Although we agree that the impacts under critical conditions should be analyzd, th _t that these conditions would have occurred very seldom tends to obscure the situation. it seems to have led the A1C staff to the assumption that, :hila the imn.ediate effects of such critical conditions -:ould have undoubtedly been severe, the effectivae imeact on the continuing viability of the cooling lake fishery would have been minimal (i.e., the fishery could be restocked and a number of good years would likely pass before another critical period arose).

We disagrce with the implication that severe impeacts will only occur to the fishery once in ten years, and that critical conditions (i.e. surface temeeratures everywhere greateer than 920r.) are the only important criterion for deterwmininc the viability of a fishery.

We believe, it is more imnortant to assess the more frequent periods of adverse maximum su7mm.ter temperatures (i.e. surface temperatures everywhere greater than 90OF or at such low.-er values as are indicated for important fish species).

In our opinion, to conduct a preliminary evaluation of adverse impacts, it is recommended that a specific maximum temperature of 90'F be utilized. Further, the evaluation should be based on conditions where such temperatur'es w..ould persist in the cooling lake for periods of one week. After this, a more refined evaluation should. be conducted based on somewhat lower temperature, since deleterious effects (such as reduced growth and/or susceptibility to disease in populations of several species of concern) would occur at teitperatures lower than lethal levels. The specific temperature chosen should reflect the sur-a.er max'imum weekly average temperatures for arc:th and the short-term maxima for survival and should be based on the least tol.erant species of importance in establishing a balanced, viable, and economically maintained fishery. Appropriate

F- 35 temperaturc tolerances can be obtained from EPA's proposed "Criteria for Water Quality, Volume I, October 1973."

Although thcse criteria are presently being revised, we have provided (Appendix A) the most recent information pertaining to some of the fish species important to the Shearon hiarris site. It should be noted that Table III-i (pace 43) of the "Renort of the National Technical Advisorv Committee, Aoril 1, 1968, (the source of Table 10.1 in the revised draft statement) is not as useful or up-to-date as the Appendix A criteria and, thus, should not be used exclusively for the purpose of AEC evaluations.

the cooling Finally,lake and alt-crvt~

probably

-" most

," important to evaluating tecoi lk tntV,consideration must be given to situaticns where longer exposures to adverse summer ternperatures wou2.d occur. This is important, since, at the Shearon 'Harris site, occasionaJ. periods exhibiting dC-:iagina temperatures can be expected to last from 7 to 30 days or more. Also, because these periods would occur more often than the once-in-ten-years critical conditions, the effect on maintaining a fishery would be significant. Under such conditions (and even more so under critical conditions) the total volume available in the cooling lake conducive to fish and other aquatic life would be restricted. This would occur, in part, because we exoect the lake would be stratified and (as we will discuss below) we expect most fish life would reside in the enilimnetic layer.

With surface and near-surface water temoeratures everywhere at or above the growth and/or short-term tolerance limits for certain inmportant species (e.g.,

ranging from SGF and above at the intake to 1121F and above at the discharge), these species would likely be precluded from much of the epilimnion. With the habitat restricted, the effects of temperature, over-crowding, low D.O. levels, and diminished food supply per individual would h;ave serious consequences. It is anticipateci that this would occur several times in a 10 year period; therefore, mainta'[.-.; a balanced,viable fishery would be difficult if not impossible.

The draft statement indicates (pages 10-11 and 10-12), that, during periods of stratification in the cooling lake, the epilimnion wou].d have an average depth of about 15 feet. In addition, it is indicated that the hypolimnion beneath would be nearly devoid of dissolved

F-36 9-.

oxygen and that the "...anoxic conditions in the bottom water in summer would tend to restrict the habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms to the inlets along shore that are out of the main circulation path of the lake." Further, it is indicated that even these areas may not be a suitable habitat due to possible overcrow.,ding and invasion of warm water driven by density currents.

We concur with these conclusions.

Of importance here is the implication that the entire hypolimnion of the cooling lake would have been unsuitable for aquatic life during su-mmuer conditions. Our review of the plant's design and cooling lake characteristics leads EPA to agree with this implication. It is disturbing to note, however, the ar-arently inconsistent statement on page 10-5 where it is claimed that on the average, D.O. levels would not decrease to below the stated critical concentration of 4 npm (mcg/l) until depths of 25 feet or more below the lake surface. It would seem that the AEC staff believes that the upper 10 feet of the hypolimnetic layer, beginning at elevation 235 feet and extending down to 225 feet -- comprising some 139,000 acre feet (A-ft), is a zone of transition where D.O.

levels are less than those in the epilimnion, but greater than 4 mg/l. Although we concur that a zone of transition ",;ould exist in such a stratified coolirig lake, we cannot agree that it would likely be 10 feet thick on the average or, more importantly, that the water of this zone should be included with that of the epilimnion that would be suitable habitat for fish.

With regard to the above, it should be noted that the thickness of this laver or zone of transition would be a function of the shear between the epilimnion and the hypolimnion--generally becoming thinner as the relative horizontal velocities of the two regions increase.

Although this shear may not be very large in the main portion of the cooling lake, it could be large in some other lake areas due to the arrangement of dikes or the characteristics of the shoreline and lake bottom contours.

Where increased shear occurs, the transition zone may not extend down to the 25- foot depth 'and thus, the critical 4 mg/l D.O. levels, or lower (typical of the hypolimnion) may be reached closer to the 15-foot depth.

Fish habitat would be correspondingly constricted in those areas.

Regardless of the spatial variations in transition zone thickness, we believe that fish generally would not find the environment of this zone acceptable for extended

F-37

- 10 -

periods of time. This would be due, in part, to the eddy currents common to such zones which cause considerable fluctuations in temperatures and D.O. levels. Fish would tend to move into regions with less severe fluctuations of these parameters, if available.

With the above in mind, it is EPA's contention that during stratified summer conditions in the cooling lake, the entire hypoJinwnion, beginning at an average depth of 15 feat and extending dow:nward to the cooling lake bottom, would have been considerably isolated from the surface, been somewhat mixed, and, thereby, would have exhibited a more or less uniform or gradual variation of temperature and D.O. level with depth.

Under such circumst:ances, the entire hypolimnion should be considered as unsuitable for fish and many other types of aquatic life. Thus, in a period of adverse sumumer conditionh, these aquatic organisms would be forced to exist only in that portion of the epilimnion between the lo,.:er reaches of the surface discharge plume and the hypolimnion.

For the most Dart, the question of how much cooling lake volume would have been available to fish during adverse sunu--er conditions deoends cn the projected surface and near surface w.eater tem;Deraturcs, the nature of the species critical to the fishery, and the depth of the thermal plume. For the purpose of our discussion, we have assumed that adverse conditions could be characterized by surface temperatures everywhere above 90'F and critical conditions as everywhere above 9 2 CF, based on the surface temperature at the plant's intake being the lowest anywhere in the main circulation path of the cooling lake.

Further, we have assumed that the intake water temperature, as it leaves the intake structure and enters the piping on route to the condensers, would be slightly lower than surface temperatures--representing a mixture of surface water and lower level water. With regard to this, however, it is difficult to tell from either the AEC's draft statement or the applicant's, environmental report, the probable mixing characteristics of the intake structure. It would have been helpful had intake modelling studies been available indicating the relative amounts of water withdrawn from levels ranging from the 250-foot normal water level, in 10-fcot increments,,

down to the 210-foot elevation of the intake channel bottom. In the absence of this, we have assumed that some water from the lower levels (and at lower

F-38

- ii -

temperatures) will be draý%m into the intake. As an example in support of this conclusion, we may examine the case of critical summertime conditions. According to the AEC staff, the discharce temcerature would be 1l6 0 F under such conditions. Therefore, with a 261FLT across the condensers, the intake temperature would be 901F.

Obviously, such a temperature would be achieved by assuming a mixing of 921F surface w.,ater (Figure 10.2, page 10-6) and cooler deeper water existing at the intake structure or that the pump's intake comes from a 90'F stratum of water. From the cross-sectional diagram of the intake structure it is noted that the inlet to the cooling water pickup pipe is quite deen.

Thus with a 901F projected intake temperature, either situation argues for high temperatures well down into the eilimnion. Although, in general, temperatures could be exiected to decrease somewhat with depth in the surface layer dominated by the thermi.al plume, the lower reaches of the coilimnion could -,till have temperatures in the upper 80'F ranac when surface temperatures are everywhere above 900F or 92°F.

To determine the average depth of penetration of the thermal plume, we have assumed a temrncrature of 88'- as a convenient reference since it Js at the point where thermal impacts begin for certain i!m1aortant indigenous species such as bluegill, crappie, and large-mouth bass, particularly for long exnosure pcriods. In response to temperatures of 88'F or more, therefore, these species and others would move to qreater den)ths and cooler water, if it were available at acceptable D.O. levels.

In our opinion, and in light of the stated surface temperatures greater than 92'F during critical summer conditions, the 88'F lower boundary of the thermal plume could be expected to extend to depths of 10 feet or more over essentially all the cooling lake.

In fact it is likely that it would move much deeper in the portion of the cooling lake in the first half of the circuit from the discharge to the intake point. Under adverse summer conditions, when the surface of the cooling lak3 is everywhere greater than 901F or even 88*F, a sizable portion of the lake will experience sufficiecntly high temperzitures to affect certain species down to the 10-foot depth.

If we assume under adverse conditions that the average depth of the thermal plume would be 10 feet and fish cannot move into the hypolimnion (i.e., into waters

F-39

- 12 -

deeper than 15 feet).due to low D.O. levels, the balance is only a 5-foot thick layer where conditions are tolerable.

Amendment 1o.25 of the applicant's Preliminary Safety Analysis Report includes an area-depth-volume curve for the Shearon Harris cooling lake.- From this curve it can be shown that the projected volume between the 10- and 15-foot depths in only 30,000 A-ft. According to the draft statement, the volume in the entire cooling lake complex (excluding the afterbay reservoir) would be 275,000 A-ft and the cooling portion 250,000 A-ft.

This leaves a 25,000 A-ft maximum volume of thermally unaffected water at normal pool elevations. If it is assumed that the entire afterbay. reservoir of 8,500 A-ft is suitable for aauatic life, the total volume for the entire cooling lake complex would be as follows:

30,000 A-ft (maximum) Cooling Portion of Lake 25,000 A--ft Thermally Isolated Areas 8,500 A-ft Afterbay Reservoir 63,500 A-ft (total) Cooling Lake Alternative 68,000 A-ft* (total) Cooling Tower Alternative Thus, under adverse summer conditions occurring several tiTreS in 10 years, we estimate the cooling lake alternative would have at best some 4,500 A-ft less volume for fish and aquatic biota. than the presently proposed cooling tower alternative.

During critical summer conditions, the averaqe depth of the thermal olume could have been expected to move deeper than the 10-foot depth. This would have further restricted the volume available for fish and aquatic biota in the cooling portion of the cooling lake alternative.

In the extreme, none of this portion would be available and the total volume for the entire cooling lake complex would be as follows.

0 A-ft (minimum) Cooling Portion of Lake 25,000 A-ft Thermally Isolated Areas 8,500 A-ft Afterbay Reservoir.

33,500 A-ft (total) Cooling Lake Alternative Therefore, under critical summer conditions occurring once in ten years, the cooling lake alternative would probably have 34,500 A--ft less volume for fish and aquatic biota than the presently proposed cooling tower alternative.

• Revised draft statement pages 5-18 and 10-10.

F-40

- 13 -

It should be noted that it is probably unrealistic to assume, particularly with respect to critical neriods, that the total volume of. the afterbay rcservoir is suitable for fish. Any decrease in this acreage, of course, would further restrict the total available volume.

Thus, we are led to the conclusion that the AEC staff's contention that "...even under sunrmer conditions.. .the original cooling lake concept -,ould have provided about one-third greater volume [94,000 A-ft vs. 06,00 A-ft] of fish habitat..." is in error. It is our belief that adverse conditions will occur frequently enough to reduce the effective habitat volume, in terms of maintaining a continuing viable fishery, to less than that of the cooling tower alternative.

Entrainment Effects (Cooling Lake Alternative)

Aside from the direct influence the thermal discharges have on the fishery potential of the cooling lake alternative, another effect may prove ecually damaging -- that of zooplankton and larval fish mortality.

According to the original final statement, "...the loss of zooulanlton Dassinc throuurh the condensers at the Shearon Harris plant [would] be high, particularly wren cooling water intake temperatures e:ceed 80 0 F.11 In our opinion, during much of the summer ( and most assuredly during periods of adverse and critical conditions) -ortality would be effectivelv 100 nercent. It is appropriate here to examine the couenods and cladocerans since they are commonly observed and exttremely important as a food source for larval fish. We assume most of these zooplankton would have been killed, in transit through the plant's condensers and in the areas of the cooling lake iimmediately downflow from the point of discharge, due to very high temperatures and long exposure times.

The mean regeneration time of copepcds at 86 'r is in the range of 14 to 21 days. As temperatures are increased slightly to 901F, this time decreases som*what. Above 901F, however, it increases dramatically, with these zooplankton exhibiting ever poorer reproduction as the temperatures rises. At 861F, cladocerans exhibit reproduction times of 3 or 4 to 20 days, depending on the specific type. For these too, reproduction time increases rapidly above 90'F. As a useful index, however, we can use a range of 10 to 14 days as being representative.

F-41

- 14 -

Our calculations indicate that, with the 4600 cubic feet per second pum;ning rate of the originally proposed once-through system of the cooling lake alternative, a volume of approximately 110,000 A-ft Cequivalent to the entire 15-foot thick epilimnetic layer of the thermally affected portion of the cooling lake) would move through the plant in 12 days. If one considers the volume pumpend to be that down to the 225-foot elevation (25-foot depth), the 159,000 A-ft comprising this layer would take 17 days for pump-through.

Of importance here is the fact that where copepod and cladoctran population reproduction times are approximately equal to or longer than the system's purmp-through time, mortality rates could be ex.pected to have critical effects on their population levels in the epilimnion, and thus, the food source for larval fish. This coupled with the acknowl.,'edged high mortality of larval fish due to entrainment (page 5-10, original final statement) makes it unlil-ke.y that any appreciable population of these organisms will exist .fter long periods of high temperatures occurring during the suraroer months.

It is somewhat difficult to predict with any certainty the degree or exact manner in which the cooling lake fishery would be changed. However, high mortalities of copepods and cladocerans Would stimulate selection in favor of other types of zooplankton--more thermally resistant types or those types whose populations can develop rapidl.y during the high temperature summer periods. It is likely that these types would be smaller in size. As a result, the energy and material transfer from plants to fish would be substantially changed. Dramatic changes in the preponderant types and numbers of fish species would likely occur, probably to the detriment of the soorts fish species. If comparable or even worse conditions are repeated in subsequent seasons, the difficulties in establishing a viable fishery which can be economically maintained would be further increased.

Environmental Effects (Cooling Tower Alternative)

In our opinion, most if not all of the 4,100 acre make-up reservoir will be suitable for the protection and propagation of a desirable fishery and other aquatic biota. This will be due, in part, to the significantly lower amounts of heated discharge and greatly reduced entrainment losses over the cooling lake alternative.

F-42

- 15 -

As indicated in the revised draft statement, the range of water level elevation to be expected in the presently proposed 4,100 acre make-up reservoir is:

Normal pool - Elevation 220 feet Maximum pool - Elevation 243 feet Minimum pool - Elevation.205 feet The minimum pool is based on the once-in-100-years drought conditions. Although the flood frequency leading to the maximum pool is not given, it is presumed to be a once-in-100 years occurrence also. According to the AEC staff,, the ". .. usual reduction from the nominal elevation will be about 4 to 5 feet." In addition, there will be a one-in-a-hundred probability that the reservoir will rise 23 feet or fall 15 feet from normal pool.

On the basis of such low probabilitiesý however, it is possible that these extremes will never be experienced during the projected 40 year life of the plant.

According to the draft statement, "Recreational uses of the reservoir including water skiing, boating, swimming, fishing and picnicking wi!ll be impaired, some perhaps severely, by the relatively large' fluctuations in water level with concomrmitant changes in shoreline and area of exposed lake bottom." It J.s not clear, however, why there is concern with respect to realizing the recreational potential of the cooling tower alternative when little discussion was included in the earlier statements on the cooling lake alternative concerning impediments to its potential. For example, no mention was made-of the effects on recreation of nuisance algae blooms or high water tempera-tures in the thermally affected cooling lake, most likely to occur during the warm sumner months of peak recreational demand.

Although not clarified by the AEC staff, we assume the predicted effect of drawdown on the above recreational activities in the make-up reservoir was based on impeded access to the reservoir water. An accurate assessment of such effects, however, would depend on a complete survey of the reservoir shoreline and nearshore bottom contours' Such an assessment and proposed mitigating measures should be included in the revised final statement.

In our opinion, with proper planning, most of the potentially adverse effects of drawdown on recreation can be avoided. For example, as variations in water level might affect boating (waterskiing) and swimming, a 4- to 5-foot

F-43

- 16 -

differential should be no problem with properly located, designed, and maintained docks, boat launching facilities, and swimming beaches. Level fluctuations of similar magnitude are found in many natural bodies of water. Further, such variations are less than the fluctuations which occur in other North Carolina picdmont reservoirs which presentlv support high levels of recreational use and excellent fishing.

In addition, the maximum drawdown of 15 feet is considerably less than most TVA and Corps of Engineers flood control reservoirs. Examoles include: Hartwell - 40 feet, Clark Hill - 23 feet, Chatuge - 68 feet, Allatoona - 60 feet, and Norris.- 90 feet. These reservoirs too support recreation and good fisheries. In our opinion, therefore, the draft statement does not support the AEC contention that the recreational potential of the make-up reservoir will be jeopardized by the water level fluctuations.

With respect to the effect of drawdowns on reservoir fish populations, many fishery managers are of the opinion that occasional severe drawdowns can stimulate reservoir fisheries. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission utilizes severe drawdowns on a four-to-five-year interval in the management of state controlled laikes in the Sandhills Wildlife Management Area. Also, the State of Arkansas uses this procedure. There are no data published in the open scientific literature, of which we are aware, that demonstrate that drawdowns of the magnitude discussed in the revised draft statement will have a deleterious effect on the recreational potential of the planned Shearon Harris fishery.

According to the revised draft-statement, the proposed operation of the project will control water flow in such a manner that little or no water flow will occur in Buckhorn Creek for five or more months during the year. This proposed operation is not co,*isistent with maintaining established water quality standards in the Creek. It is, from therefore, the Cape recommended that additional water be pumped Fear River to allow minimum releases of two c.fs except for periods of low flow in the Cape Fear River (i.e., less than 100 cfs) when one cfs should be maintained (including direct seepage through the dam). Even without the additional pumping from the Cape Fear River, the release of one cfs for five or more months would only result in an insignificant addition to reservoir drawdown (one cfs continuously for one year is only 730 A-ft).

F-44

- 17 -

In addition to complying with Section 301 and other requirements of the FVPCA, certain factors should be considered in the design and operation of the plant and a description of how these factors -ill be imnlemented should be included in the application of Carolina Power and Light for a Section 402 permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. They are as follows:

1. Blowdown from the cooling tower system should be from the cold side of the towers and should not exceed the minimum discharge of recirculating water for the purpose of discharging materials contained in the water, the further buildup, otherwise, of which, would cause concentration in amounts exceeding limits established by best engineering practice.

2. Chlorine addition should not exceed levels necessary for biological control and in no instance should discharge levels exceed 0.2 mg/l average during the period of addition or 0.5 mg/l maximum instantaneous (measure-ment at the point of discharge from an individual condenser unit). Methods to reduce discharge levels to below these values should be instituted. For example, blowdown could be discontinued during chlorine additions and subsequent periods of high concentrations in the cooling system.

3. Water treatment plant sludges and similar materials and intake screenings should be disposed of by sanitary landfill or other acceptable method and not discharged to the watercourse. However, viable aquatic organisms collected on the intake screens should be returned to the watercourse.

4. Floor drains, water treatment wastes and other in-plant non-radiochemical waste streams should be treated to assure that discharges do not contain more than 15 mg/l of total suspended solids or i0 mg/l of oil and grease prior to mixing with other plant wastes which provide dilution. The pH of the wastes discharged shall be within the range of 6.0 to 9.0.

F-4 5

- 18 .

5. Treatment of sanitary wastes should conform to requirements of 40 CFR 133, 38 FR 22298, August 17, 1973.

An accoustical survey should be made to project the maximum sound level due to the Shearon Harris plant. These data should be checked against standards published in U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Circular 1390.2. If these noise criteria are exceeded in terms of existing or proposed land uses, noise abatement measures should be specified. In addition, noise abatement procedures to be used during land clearing and construction phase of the project should be specified, and these procedures should corrmply with local or state ordinances.

F-46 19 -

Cost-Benefit Although a number of factors related to the cost-benefit evaluations provided in the revised draft statement have been discussed previously, some additional points need to be addressed. These points are keyed to the attached cost-benefit table (Appendix B) and should be discussed in the revised final statement.

In estimating the capital costs of natural. draft cooling towers (a), the AEC staff has picked a value of $73 x 100.

This value appears to be the upper limit according to many estimates. In addition, in predicting the operating costs of these towers, the AEC has picked a value $2.49 x 106/year (b) that seems higcher than is realistic. EPA, using a 0.5 percent powrer consumption, estimates $0.60 x 106/year. The final statement should provide a rationale for using the higher values in both instances, since this is important to determining the true costs, economic and otherwise, of the cooling tower alternative. Further, it should be noted that our total present worth estimate (c) assumes 30 years at 8.75%.

Our estimates of the total incremental costs (d) were based on a cost to the consumer of $0.02/kwh and an average family consumption of 1,000 kwh/month. These figures are consistent with the 1972 CPL Annual Report.,

With respect to permanent loss or displacement of terrestrial biota, some 6,000 acres (or 10 mi 2 ) more will be affected with the cooling lake alternative (e). The creation of any lake as large as 10,400 acres generally has a signifi-cant ecological effect on land surrounding the impoundment.

The revised draft statement does not attempt to estimate this effect.

In evaluating the annual yield factor in the cost-benefit table, the lower limit was based on a local estimate of $50/acre/year. The upper limit on the higher regional value of $200/acre/year (f).

According to the Department of Natural and Economic Resources, State of North Carolina, January 15, 1973, more sawtimber and plywood than pulpwood has been produced on the site property over the last 10 years (g). Thus, in our opinion, the AEC staff's estimate of $16/year/acre for timber yield may well be too low.

The extent of damage to benthic fauna is not quantified by the AEC staff (h). Although it seems obvious that less

F-47 benthic fauna will be destroyed by the cooling tower alter-native, the final statement should estimate the advantage.

In estimating the effect of entrainment, we noticed that the AEC staff is in error by an order of magnitude in their estimate of 2 to 3 percent of the make-uo reservoir volume/

day. If one considers the total volume of the reservoir, this should be 0.2 percent of volume/day (i). In addition, our estimate of 4 percent of cooling lake volume/day is based on the total volume of the lake. This would give a pump-through time of approxi.-ately 25 days. If, as was done in our previous comments, we assume that mostly epilimnetic water is drawn into the plant, then the pump-through time would be approximately 12 days.

With respect to the operation of the cooling tower system, the concentration factor (CF) presentesd by the AEC staff of 8.5 and by the applicant of 7.7 both appear high. If average make-up, evaporation, and blow.:down rates are to be 80 to 85, 65, and 15 cfs respectively, we estimate the CF will be in the range of 5.2 to 5.6. It should be noted that the applicant has proposed a low:er blowdo%..,wn rate which would account for t he higher Cr. Although we do not expect chemical releases to be detrimental, with the possible exception of morpholine, chlorine, and sulfate salts (j), the final statement should clarify the question of CF and blowdowon rate. If the CF or the blowdown rates are in fact different than presently suggested, the impacts of the discharge water attributable to dissolved chemicals should be reexamined.

We have estimated that the natural draft cooling tower system will lead to an additional one to four cfs consumptive water loss (k). In our opinion, this range is not mathematically significant and is within the accuracies of the underlying assumption. Regardless, it is insignificant in comparison to the 3,200 cfs average flow of the Cape Fear River.

It is not clear from the AEC staff's analysis that the visual impact of the cooling towers is truly significant (1).

There are no historic sites within 5 miles of the plant and within the radius only approximately 1,500 people are expected to reside by the year 1990. -If this seems to be a problem, however, the final statement should contain more information on visibility as a function of distance, direction and topograzphy as well as the population suffering the impact in various directions. In order to have a balanced approach, comparison of the two alternatives should consider the aesthetic and practical effort of eutrophication in the cooling lake during adverse and critical summer conditions.

There would be odor and taste problems affecting recreational potential and other water uses.

F-48

- 21-With resrpect to our considerations of economic benefits of the two cooling alternatives (m) , the capacity penalty and power costs associated with opcration of cooling towers was included in operating costs (Section I-A of Appendix B).

The overall recreational benefits (n) indicated in the draft statement do not consider whether there will be much demand for the additional potential of the Harris Reservoir.

The proposed New J.ope Reservoir, to be located 5 miles upstream off the Cape Fear River, will dwarf either of the proposed Shearon fiarris reservoirs and is not considered in the draft statement. Altogether, there are '3 reservoirs planned or under construction within 50 miles of the p.ant site.

Only 1,300 acres of thermally isolated water behind dikes can be assured as a good habilLtat for fish (o) Alt-houghs estimates indicate that between 10 and 252 of the total 10,400 acres will be suitable for fish, this includes some inlet waters out of the main circulation path of lake. As was indicated previously, however, this cannot be counted on due to possible invasi.cn of warm water. The 4,000 acres maximum cited in Appendix B is, therefore, optimistic.

The loss of some 8,200 acres available for boating by adopting th.. cooling tow..er alternative (p) will be mitigated somewhat by the fact that fishing would not have been good over much of the 10,400 acres of the cooling lake proposal.

In addition, in light of the predicted average reservoir sur-face temperature patt.erns, it is doubtful that the main portion of the cooling lake would have been attractive for swimming in the sununer (q) or for boating.

F-49

- - U 22*

RAD!OLOGICAL ASPECTS Radioactive Waste Treatment The applicant is proposing the use of state-of-the-art equipment for both the Shearon Harris liquid and gaseous waste treatmient systems. Proper operation and maintenance *of these systems is expected to result in radioactive releases that can be considered "as low as practicable." Because of the poor atmosphere dispersion characteristics of the site and te-po-tential for buildup of radionuclides in the make-up reservoir, calculations indicate that potential individual whole body doses (liquid pathway) and thyroid doses (air pathway) could exceed the proposed 10CFR Part 50 Appen&ix: I dose guidelines. EPA agrees with the AEC statements on dose model conservatism and believes that the flexibility of plant ooerations to reduce radioactive releases and the extensive environmental monitoring procrams being provided to assure that such doses do not exceed "as low as oractica])le" guidelines, represent reasonable solutions to this problem.

Dose Assessment Based on the present clant design, our calculations indicate a child's thyroid do'e of about 60 mrem,/yr due to the consumption of milk produced by cows grazing at the nearest potential pasture land (NE, edge of the site boundary). This dose is approximately four times the presently accepted Regulatory Guide 1.42 value, and is about twice the dose calculated by the AEC (28 mrem/,yr).

Although a conservative pathway-dose model similar to the AEC's was utilized, variations in assumed parameters (deposition rates, grass-cow transfer rates) may account for the difference in dose estimates.

The assumptions used by the AEC to estimate the release of radioiodine (such as steam leak rates, partition factors, primary coolant concentration of radioiodine, steam generator leak rate, and failed fuel fractions) have many uncertainties associated with them. Using the "best available" information, the AEC calculated that 75% of the radioiodine emissions from the plant would result from steam leaks in the turbine building. This release pathway is not specifically treated for radioiodine removal, but could be reduced if the measured thyroid doses exceed the Regulatory Guide 1.42 level, e.g. plugging steam generator tube leaks, locating and reducing turbine building stehm leakage, increasing steam generator blowdow.,n rate, or replacing defective fuel.

F-50

- 23 -

Since the statement indicates that cows may not be pastured at the location for which the thyroid doses are calculated, a dose estimate for a real cow-milk-child pathway should be presented in the final statement. Also, the applicant should plan a system for periodically determining the location of existing milk cows.

Therefore, although thyroid doses near the plant could exceed existing "as low as practicable" regulatory dose guidelines, operational procedures could be taken to reduce the discharge of iodine from the plant, if it is shown to be a problem once the plant is operating. The applicant should also establish a system to monitor the discharge of radioiodine from the areas in the turbine building where steam leaks could occur. Furthermore, the utilization of on-site meteorological data, which will be available prior to plant operation should provide a more representative basis for evaluating doses than the Research Triangle Institute Park data currently being used.

The AEC calculated that even with the small (0.1 Ci/

unit/yr) radioactive liquid releases, the whole body doses to individuals may e:Kceed Appendix I dose guidelines. The AEC indicates that the majority (60%) of the radioactivity released from the plant in the liquid wastes through this pathway can be reduced by increasing steam generator blo;down, plugging looking steam generator tubes, or reducing the leakage of condensate liquids from the secondary coolant system. However, the capability to sample these potentially radioactive liquids discharged to the make-up reservoir is not indicated.

It is therefore suggested that the applicant monitor turbine building drains for radioactivity content so that, if necessary, appropriale steps can be taken to reduce the discharge of radioactivity in liquids from the turbine building before a problem develops in the make-up reservoir.

Monitoring of the turbine building drains would be complemented by the extensive make-up reservoir environmental surveillance system to be required by the AEC.

The release of radioactive liquids to the make-up reservoir may also result in a long-term buildup of the long half-life radionuclides. The AEC calculated the offsite doses resulting from this buildup by assuming that all radioactivity remains in the liquid phase and also, by assuming that the reservoir will remain after the plant is decommissioned. However, the applicant has not made a commitment to maintain the lake after decommissioning of the plant. If the lake is drained and the area returned to its original status, radionuclides could be deposited on the land that was originally the lake bottom. Thus,

F-51

- 24-we strongly sugcest that the AEC evaluate *the potentially irreversible environmental impact of these radionuclides in light of the long-term com-mitment of this plant site.

This evaluation should include potential direct exposure and ingestion from food pathways. If the impact is indicated to be unacceptable and could be avoided by inplant w.,aste treatment, the AEC should ensure that the buildup of long-lived radionuclides in the lake sediments will be minimized.

The EPA expects that the results from current and planned joint EP_-A-BC and industry cooperative field studies in the environs of operating nuclear power facilities will croatlv increase knowledge of the processes and mechanism involved in the exposure of man to radiation produced through the use of nuc.lear power. We believe that, overall, the cumulative assumptions utilized to estimate various human doses are conservative. As more information is deveIoped, the models used to estimate human exposures will be modified to reflect to best

'data and most realistic situations possible. Based on the results of these coo'::erative *studies, it is possible that the scope and extent of present environmental monitoring programs may be relaxed.

Transportation EPA, in its earlier reviews of the environmental impact of transportation of radioactive material, agreed with the AEC that many aspects of this problem could best be treated on a generic basis. The generic approach has reached the point where on February 5, 1973, the AEC published for comment in the Fedcral Register a rulemaking proposal concerning the "Environmental Effects of Transportation of Fuel and Waste from Nuclear Power Reactors." EPA commented on the proposed rulemaking by a letter to the AEC, dated March 22, 1973, and by an appearance at the public-hearing on April 2, 1973.

Until such time as a generic rule is established, EPA is continuing to assess the adequacy of the quantitative estimates of environmental radiation impact resulting from transportaticn of radioactive materials provided in environmental statements. The estimates provided for this station are deemed adequate based on currently available information.

F-52

- 25 -

Reactor Accidents EPA has examined the AEC analysis of accidents and their potential risks .Ihicn the AEC has developed in the course of its engineerinc evaluation of reactor safety in the design of nuclear .plants. Since these accident issues are common to all nuclear pow,-er plants of a given type, EPA concurs with the AEC's approach to evaluate the environmcntal ris-k, for each accident class on a generic basis. The AEC has in the past and still continues to devote extensive efforts to assure safety through plant design and accident analyses in the licensinq ero-cess on a case-by--case basis. EPA, however favors the additional steo now being undertaken by the AEC of a thorough analysis on a more ouantitative basis of the risk of poteri,-i~l accidents in all ranges. W1e continue to encour!ace this effort and urge the AEC to press forward to its time].y com-rlecion and publication.

EPA believes this will result in a better understanding of the possible risks to the environment.

We are pleascd to note in the draft statement the dis-cussion of the Pc.ict.or Safety Study r,,,nid the commitment for timely public presentation of its results. If the AEC's effor, ind..icat. that unwrra.nted risks are being taken at the -..,,n Harris Nuclear Power Plants, we are confident that the AEC wil.l assure aprpropriate corrective action. Similarly, if EPA efforts related to the acci-dent area uncover any environmentally unacceptable conditions related to the safety of the Shearon Harris plants, we will make our views known.

.1

APPENDIX A F-53 Recently Pro~posed Maximum Weekly Average Temperature for Growth and Short-Term Maxima for Survival During the Summer*

(Centigrade and Fahrenheit)

Species Growth Maxima Black Crappie 27 (80) 32 (90)

Bluegill 29 (84) 32 (90)

Carp 34 (93)

Channel Catfish 33 (91) 36 (97)

Largemouth Bass 30 (86) 33 (91)

White Crappie 27 (80) 30 (86)

White Sucker 27 (80) 29 (84)

• Based on 24-hour median 1lthal limit minus 20 C (3\.

60 ) and I,

p acclimation at the maximum weekly average temperature for summer grow-,th for that month.

r f

i 4

Cost/Benefit Analysis of Natural Draft Cooling Tower Alternative With Respect to Cooling Lake Reference Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 I.

Natural Draft Incremental Derivative Cooling Lake Cooling Towers Costs Public Local Reqional T

I. Costs A. Economic

1. Capital

a. Impoundment $64 x .106 $24 x 106

b. Cooling Towers(a) $47 to $73 x 106

-'I

2. Operating Costs(b) 6 /yr 0.04 x 10 $.60 to $2.49 x Lfl 4:.-

10 6 /yr

3. Total Present Worth(c) $64.4 x 106 $ 7 7.3 to $123.1 x +$13 - $59 x 106 x 106 Incremental Power Costs +.04 to .20 mils/

kwh

+.2 to 1% electric bill (d)

+4 to 20C!month(d)

4. Family Relocation 50 Families 25 Families -25 Families x

B. Environmental

1. Terrestrial Permanent loss Permanent loss or !-Permanent loss or x Ecology or displacement -,c7i c ccn t o ji s!;acCment of.

of terrestrial terre<:t;-il biota, it,rrcstrial biota on biota on %10,400 on " . c, -

.A I-e

( ; ..

Natural Draft Incremental Derivative Cooling Lake Cooling Towers I Costs Public

_ Local Re..,ional

2. Land Use

a. Farmland 1400 acres con- 500 acres con- - -900 acres con-verted to verted to indus- verted to indus-industrial trial trial

°annual yield(f) -$45,000 to

$130,000/yr

°permanent worth(c) -$0.5 to $2 x 106

b. Timberland 8900 acres 3200 acres inun- -5760 acres inun-inundated dated dated Oannual yield(g)

->$90,000/yr U' Opresent worth('c) ->$1 x 106

3. Aquatic Ecology

a. Effect on impounded Benthic Fauna Less Benthic -Benthic Fauna destroyed Fauna destroyed destroyed

b. Effect on Cape Fear River

i. Impingement Av. of 29 cfs Av. of 15 cfs Insignificant withdrawal at withdrawal at 0.5 0.5 ft/sec ft/sec ii. Thermal Max. 6T of 1IF Insicnificant Insignificant

c. Impounded Water N)

i. Impingement Av. of 4600 cfs Av. of %85 cfs at -Death to some at 1.1 ft/sec. at 0.5 ft/ý;cc. larval fish Death to soml

];irv.1i 1-i!;h ....................................qnir*.°........................-.t...

Natural Draft Increýmental Derivative Cooling Lake Cooling Towers Costs Public Local Reqional I

ii. Entrainment Probable death Probable death of -Death of plank-of all plankton all plantKton and ton and small and small fish small fish drawn fish drawn into cool- into cooling sys-ing system from tem from mechani-mechanical, cal, chemical, chemical, and and thermal shock.

thermal shock. q.0.2% of ma-ke-up

^4% of cooling reservoir volume/

lake volume/day; day(i)

A-8.3% of epilim-nion/day iii. Thermal High surface No effect on -Volume with in-temperatures and reservoir tolerably high anoxic condi- temperatures and tions restricts anoxic conditions habitat of aauatic biota i cooling portioni of lake (not including 1300 acres of ther-mally isolated water) iv. Chemical All chemicals All chemicals +Possible toxicity Discharge below toxic below toxic levels of sulphate salts levels with with the possible near discharge(J) possible excep- exception of mor-tion of morpho- pholine, chlorine, line and chlorin and sulphate salts K~mu~ - -.

• 1 Natural Draft Incremental Derivative Cooling Lake Cooling Towers Costs Public Local Recional

-~ 1-

v. Drawdown Insignificant Av. of 95 ft., Insignificant with 1% probabil-ity of 15 ft.

Not expected to have adverse effect on fishery and may be good for fish produc-tion

4. Water Consumption 71 to 73 cfs 72-75 cfs +1 to 4 cfs(k)

5. Air Impact r1 U,

a. Fogging and Icing Infrequent aggra- Rare, if ever -Infrequent. X -J vatien of natura. fogging fog and ice on Highway No. 1 and NC 42

b. Climatological None None Influences

c. Interference with No No Air Traffic

d. Chemical Deposition None 100 lb/acre/yr at +100 lb/acre/yr from Drift 1500 ft. at 1500 ft.

6. Aesthetics Potential odors Visual impact Incomplete and bad taste from 4-480 ft. analysis(1) from reservoir high cooling eutrophication towers S .-- -.---...~--...-,..~.-----.-...-..,...~.

Natural Draft Incremental Derivative Cooling Lake Cooling Towers Benefits Public

, Local EPcionaJ II. Benefits A. Economic(m) ,625 x 109 kwh 'L25 x 109 kwh yr yr electric power electric power B. Recreational(n)

1. Hunting 8900 acres re- 3200 acres re- Insignificant moved from moved from hunting hunting

2. Fishing %1300 to %4000 n.4500 acres suit- +3200 acres to acres suitable able habitat for --500 acres I-)

CO habitat for fish fish(O)

3. Boating "U12,700 acres 14500 acres for -8200 ac rs for for boating boating boatingqp

4. Swimming '1-1300 acres A,4500 acres for +3200 acres for for swimming swin-ming swimming I

F-59 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA -"

JAMES E. HOLSHOUSER, JR.

GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION WILLIAM Lj EONDURANT SECRETARY REPLY TO:

CLEARINGHOUSE AND INFORMATION CENTER I16 WEST JONES STREET RALEIGH. N. C. 27603 (919) 829.4375 March 4, 1974 Mr. Daniel R. Muller Assistant Director for Environmental Projects ".>-

Directorate of Licensing 4 -.*IC" /

U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545

Dear Mr. Muller:

Re: Revised Draft Environmental Statement, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Units 1,2,3, and 4, Docket Nos. 50-400, 50-401, 50-402, and 50-403 We are enclosing herewith the comments of the North Carolina Department of Transportation relative to the subject draft environ-mental statement. You will note that the concerns expressed pertain to transportation of hazardous materials and possible regulation of air space. The only other State agency that has submitted any com-ments to this office is the Division of Health Services, which offered no criticism of the draft statement as written.

Should we receive any further substantive comments from State or Regional agencies, we will forward them to you.

Sincerely yours, RANDOLPH HENDRICKS Planning Coordinator RH: pg 1869

F-60 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAMES E. HOLSHOUSER, JR. February 25, 1974 WM. JOHN CAMERON GOVERNOR ASSISTANT SECRETARY BRUCE A. LENTZ SECRETARY MEMORANDUM TO: Randolph Hendricks FROM: Jim Daughtry

SUBJECT:

Comments on Revised Draft Environmental Statement, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, File No. 005-74 The copy of the revised subject draft environmental statement which was originally sent to John Cameron, Assistant Secretary for Planning was referred to me by John for comments on behalf of the Department of Transportation. The comments were origin-ally due by February 18, 1974; however, we hope that in spite of the delayed comments that our input will prove to be con-.

structive and useful. The comments are as follows:

Perhaps in transporting the hazardous nuclear wastes, care should be given to minimizing population exposure. The minimum population routing should be utilized, that is, within economic reason.

There are some pretty strong facts to encourage the use of rail shipments. "About 18 truckload shipments will be required each year for replacement fuel and about 60 truckloads for the initial loading. About half that number of rail carloads would be required for the transport of new fuel."

The applicant did not identify the site to which the irradiated fuel would be shipped for reprocessing. The staff estimates a shipping distance of 300 miles. The shipments will be made by truck and rail in casks. The casks will weigh perhaps 30 tons for truck shipment or 100 tons for rail shipment. By rail, 7 to 12 fuel assemblies can be carried in one carload and one fuel assembly can be carried by truckload. Most of the shipment will be made by rail. To transport the irradiated fuel from the reactor, an estimated 31 rail shipments will be required.

The applicant estimated about 1,000 drums of solid waste from each unit annually. The staff estimates that there will be about 180 truckloads to be shipped offsite for disposal each year from the 4 units. The shipping distance is estimated at 400 miles for the fbid Offm Am 252M Off~ ~E Pm., Zbkiah~!~.

North CamIina 77PI1

F-61 Randolph Hendricks February 25, 1974 Page 2 shipment of solid radioactive wastes.

I don't completely buy the philosophy that safety in trans-portation is provided by the package design and limitations on the contents and external radiation levels and does not depend on controls over routing.

"Regulations require all carriers of hazardous materials to avoid congested areas wherever practical to do so, in general, carriers choose the most direct and fastest route."

Choosing the most direct and fastest route may not be the best safety criteria for the movement 'of hazardous radioactive materials. The worst case radiation exposure of the public should be taken into account in selecting the route for such a potentially dangerous material. What happens in the event of an accident which does break the sealed casks and exposes a large population to radiation? Most direct and fastest route is not a very acceptable criteria.

"Routing restrictions which require the use of secondary highways or other than most direct route may increase the overall environ-mental impact of transportation as a result of increased accident

.frequency or severity."

Granted that this may in fact be the case, I believe that environ-ment is secondary to exposing the general public to the potential of great harm inthe transportation of hazardous radioactive materials through heavily populated areas that may be along the most direct route. The most direct route that exposes a minimum number of the population is a better criteria.

"Any attempt to specify routing would involve continued analysiJs of routes in view of the changing local conditions as well as changing of sources of material and delivery points".

So what? It would appear to me that continued surveillance of routes and route structure is absolutely essential, if this provides a route that will expose less people to the potential dangers of transporting radioactive wastes throughout North Carolina.

There obviously are trade-offs to criteria based on only population safety and only on "shortest and fastest" routing.

Somewhere between these extreme positions lies a workable

F-62 Randolph Hendricks February 25, 1974 Page 3 criteria for the movement of hazardous radioactive material.

If North Carolina is going to depend on nuclear power as a major energy source in the future, then a long hard look and detailed analysis to provide such criteria is necessary.

Most of my comments are directed at the accident case. The amount of radiation in accident cases is discussed, but I don't completely buy the argument that the packaging is the complete answer for safety. This is a mute argument if its you or your personal family that happened to be exposed to the 1 in 1,000 event accident case.

As a matter of practicality, I believe that a close look should be taken at the regulation of airspace and air route structure over proposed nuclear power plant sites, in order to minimize any potential, be it ever so small, of a crash of an aircraft at a power plant site.

JD/

cc: John Cameron

F-63

,.STATE OFTSTATE NORTHo CAROLINA JAMES E. HOLSHOUSER, JR.

STAT OF ORTHCAROINAGOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION WILLIAM L. FONOURANT SECRETARY REPLY TO:

CLEARINGHOUSE AND INFIROMA*tON CENTEIR 11 WCST JONES STREET RALIGM. N. C. 27603 C919) 829.4375 March 8, 1974 Mr. Daniel R. Muller Assistant Director for Environmental Proj ects 4(

Directorate of Licensing U. S. Atomic Energy Commission <

• 2~.

Washington, D. C. 20545 *.,,.,{ ',O ,-!

Dear Mr. Muller:

Re: Revised Draft Environmental Statement, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Units 1,2,3, and 4, Docket Nos. 50-400, 50-401, 50-402, and 50-403 By letter of March 4, 1974, we transmitted to you the comments of the North Carolina Department of Transportation relative to the subject draft environmental statement. We are now enclosing the comments of the North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources.

Sincerely yours, ryours, OLPH HENDRCKS Planning Coordinator RH: pg Enclosure

I F-64 kNN orth Carolina Department of Natural &Economic Resources ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOX 27687, RALEIGH 27611 JAMES E. HOLSHOUSER, JR., GOVERNOR - JAMES E. HARRINGTON, SECRETARY TELEPHONE 919 829-4984 March 6, 1974 MEMORANDUM TO: Randolph Hendricks FROM: Art Cooper

SUBJECT:

Revised Draft Environmental Statement, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, File No. 005-74 The Department has reviewed the subject EIS and has the following comments.

The Water Quality Division is still firmly convinced that the project as proposed in the subject EIS will have greater effect upon the environment and is inferior to the project as originally proposed (i. e. , utilizing surface cooling as a means of waste heat dissipation). The present alternative is, however, totally acceptable and will not result in severe environmental impact on the water resources of the area. The staff concurs with the EIS in its exposition of potential radiological impacts on water quality.

The Recreation Division feels that, although thermal conditions in the reservoir will be improved under the present proposal, the fluctuations in water level that will occur in the pool of greatly reduced size will result in a lake with reduced value and potential for recreation. The staff prefers the earlier plan with 1300 acres of reservoir thermally isolated from the remaining 8000 acres. They feel that AEC staff estimate (page 8-1, item 8. 1 of the EIS) that "Recreational uses of the reservoir. .. will be impaired, perhaps severely. . . " is accurate.

Following are comments of the Wildlife Resources Commission:

"Construction of the plant, makeup reservoir, and auxiliary reservoir will result in the destruction of about 4, 500 acres of terrestrial flora and habitat, and the likely destruction of benthos of streams to be impounded. " (Paragraph 3, page i.)

"About ;three mailes of Buickho= Crzek from the main dam to the Cape

F-65 Memorandum to Randolph Hendricks Page 2 March 6, 1974 A

Fear River River will be significantly altered or destroyed as an aquatic habitat. " (Paragraph 3, page i.)

In other words, all fish and wildlife within the project area will be destroyed.

The other area of Commission concern relates to the withdrawal of water from the Cape Fear River.

"The makeup reservoir intake and the Cape Fear pumping station will be equipped with 3/8-inch mesh traveling screens through which the water will flow at velocities of 0. 5 fps or less. " (Pages 5-14)

"The applicant has stated that there will be no withdrawals from the Cape Fear River that would reduce flows in the river below 600 cfs as measured at the Lillington Station. Additionally, water withdrawals will not exceed 25% of the river flow at the point of withdrawal. " (Pages 5-11.)

-In the first two parag.raphs quoted above, the AEC states the effects upon fish and w.ildlife witlhin the project area will be total habitat destruction.

This appears a very defensible conclusion.

The protection afforded the Cape Fear River by limited withdrawals, and that granted aquatic life through screening the intakes, as described in the third and fourth paragraph quDted above, appears as complete as the Commission could reasonably expect.

We do wish to point out, however, that the total destruction of fish and wildlife habitat within the project area apparently has been dismissed as irretrievable commitments of resources. The Environmental Impact Statement may not be the proper form for a discussion of mitigation for resource destruction but this factor- should be considered somewhere in the planning process for the Shearon Harris Plant.

F-67 March 5, 1974 Mr. J. F. O'Leary Dircitoratc of Liccnsing Office of Regulation U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 RE: DOCKET NOS. 50-400, 50-401, 50-402, 50-403

Dear Mr. O'Leary:

Carolina Power & Light Company has reviewed the AEC's revised Draft Environmental Statement for the Shearon I-larris Nuclear Power Plant Units 1, 2, 3, and 4, and our corments are attached as Appendix A to this letter. We hope these comments will be of assistance to you in preparing the revised Final Environmental Staterent.

Yours very truly, J. A. Jones Executive Vice President JAJ/cls

F-68 APPENDIX "A" t/' ,..

".. .' .... .'A ¢" ' ."

PA..T I - SU.IMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

.. \

Page i Item 2, Paragraph 2: The staff lists the size of the makeup reservoir as 4100 acres. The applicant's analyses were based on a size of 4000 acres. The actual size of the lake will approximate 4000 acres.

Page i Item 3, Paragraph 3: The staff indicates that only a 5-.year construction period is anticipated. It is assumed this refers to the total period for all four units. This is incorrect.

Starting January 18, 1974, a period of approximately eight years will be required.

J

F-69 PART II - MAIN TEXT OF REVISED DRAFT STATEMENT Sectien 2 -Tr SrITE

\'< \ I.1. . / .- '

Section 2.6 - Pvdrolo  : (Page 2-18) The statement that "There are'o wells proposed for the Shearon Harris Plant" is not technically correct. Wells will be utilized during construction and are presently in use.

Section 2.8 - Ecolopy: Reference 31 in Tables 2.17, 2.21, 2.22 and 2.24 is incorrect. This should be reference 32.

Section 3 - THE PLANT Section 3.2 - Reactor and Steam-Elcctric System: (Page 3-1) The design power rating for the plant is 11,600 t1.Wct. The initial power level will be the 11,140 1WT stated in the DFS.

Section 3.3 - l:cat Dissip,,tien Syster.s: (Page 3-4) The staff states that "the auxiliary reservoir will supply cooling water for the emer-gency core cooling system." A more appropriate statement is "the auxiliary reservoir is the preferred source of eu,ergency cooling water."

(Pag, 3-4) The size of the auxiliary dam will be 3900 feet long not 3700 feet long.

Section 3.5 - Chor.ical a;r. .iocice Svytoe,_: (Page 3L23) The staff states that waste water will be discharged via the cooling water blow-down system. Thelre is not a separate system tor cooling tower blovdown; it is considerced a part of the circ,:lating w:ater r.ys;tcir.

There is a typographical error in Table 3.5. The volume of backwash water should be 2.74 x 10 7 gals/yr.

A-2 18 Si

F- 70

- ~ ~ iPG OFvo~S.rT 1T :.TAffKA PL.ANT c..'J2:C'h:

SectLion L. - o:.-t t,: (Page 4-1) The staff states that more than a year will W.x.e p;.snd from the time of project announcement until the arrival of a significant number of workers. In reality, nearly three years will have passed from announcement until any con-struction work.

SECTION 5 - V: . R ;2OYVv .'.. TYP 'CTS _ _ l G i. _,',.TT.ON Section 5. 2 .atcr l.jci;: (Pagu 5-5) Although the water evaporative ýnd uslpe rates in parag;raph three are generally correct, it is indi-cated thaa water will be pumped from the river in order to winan-tain an avcra,:n re ase of 19 cfs Trori the iain reservoir. This incorrectly sr.c:s to imply that the only purpose of pin:,pir,g from the rivcr is to mnaintain a release Froe the rescrvoir..

(Page 5-1.0) ] sta ff has idicadc coa:arn over the total.

diss;olved soli :n conc uI:vation in tl.,t , lo%:u oin, '-nspccinr.I'y in¶ drought conditions. CP&L is proceeding i-ith a further evaluation of this possible situation.

Section 5.6 - Padivloý!ic.lj7.rct = oM other Bicta: (Page 5-29) The dis-confusin, U.e ssuron that this is rcdcrrini: to the cooling tot,'cr blo',7dc'oý-m point of c.*i s 1...;

,L.

A-3

F-71

- .-.-.-. *w~ .~b o-; h.*

.2 *'-C:'r~i,:,-!.!-*_:

• !. tli2 third, paraý,rziph, page, 10-5, th)e s a rfefcrences Fii.u:rc:%-i 5.1, ".2, 5.4, and 5.5 for surfaco thermal patterns; durin; winter conditions. Uc believe the staff is referring to Figures 10.4 and 10.5.

Suction 10. 2 -irt "'*7e"1rs .--

,fr: C.c:

On pae 10-1.7, the revised DZS states thai: "The applicant con-tended that the. bes*t locat.'or) would be to the northeast of the prpopcW c.cdtic.n uf the reactors and other plant co..:poncns, perhaps veceritting relocation of -the plant from the proposed site. The staff cnrsicer5 that such relocettion, 5.f nccessary,

,oUld not be a:n ."ser-cunt;ble problc.m. If the prc;(!mt. site were u,:c.d, the applicant belic:xesf thart: -nrddtional nnr f]ie.:[ng- crc-;.:.'. v.ote].d ,h,'vc to be divcr'ucd fr:o.m- it:z prr' 'urt coursuc L'ýO.:i" C,.:d.J.1i S,' ,U t' t UL:15:, 0 .

LA;ý. .ieu J;. eCut:y 'L,.

i-echanical. dr.ft CocCIr>L to;.:cr".;C 'jo:reunot: consi.ercd fcasiJblc

.at the present site because of land use li-ritations. Because of higher d*i.ft rates ed loi:vr pJr,-:e J.i:itucwes, mechan:!.eal draft to-,.-ers bC loc;:tvd at il-iL't 1000 fect Inocin fron elect:rical thi.,; dl,I- . . Li.:,: . Of;y,pl.n:  : tLei: th~e :..A ei .eui.d .U",:

to be -odific(d to idd approv'-;.i.atcly 105 acres of additional fill into the lake area for mcchanical draft cooling t:owezs. Appro:xi:-:L ely 3,1:00,C',`0 cubic yr c- of c..rth ,ould havce t, he ro r..ovcd :rd ,:-

pacted. This rmateri.d7 would have to be borrowed frur areas not within the it.*n:Giate plant site, since borrow areas for this r.A1ch1 l" .d fi.l 3 1 e11o,,.nioC.t r et for th*e sitc sCo.le 'tj0,. The 3,400,000 cubic yards of earth would be removed and brought to the pl;u-nt site by truck. The an.,,sociated cnvironrw:*-ntal irpact of crieatinj, off-.site bc-rrow. areas and hav:ing vo trucl-: this fill

,:at c:'r .. on to0 t( e F;ite -.,ould ,c : sub, tc;t:-nT.t . In addiLion, the fill arca would require that a natural flowing creek be divorted A--4

F-72 fr.. it: presert . c" t3 makc room for m.ch.nical draft coolingh to'.:c:'. The above.e environmental and land use costs wc;:c not con'.:crcd to be acceptable by CPFL when closed cycle systems wcre evaluated. Therefore, if it were deternined during the course of the environmental review that mechanical draft towers were required, a substantial additional delay in the construction and operation of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant ý:ould be incurred with the concornitant economic costs to Carolina Power & Light and its customers.

Since the environmental ir.pact associated with modifying the land at the present site to accept rechanical draft cooling towers is not considered to be acceptable, the possibility of moving the plant within this site to a location more suitable for mechanic:il draft cooling towers might be investigated.

Such a course of action would result in an additional delay of about 3.7 years. This 3.7 years is based on an approximate 2-veer alternate location investigat.*on and boring program Lnd appi7oxir:ately 1.7 years re-engineering and licensing effort to bring the new plant to the present status of the Harris units at the present location. The economic costs associated with such a delay would be enormous and in addition, such a delay would require early commitment to provide large fossil units (with their ascociated fossil fuel. usage) for the CP&L system to rep~lace the 3-(-(..ýcncration of c .-',,ccted froi' the* ! Tarris units, whether or not an alternate location w.,as found. The total delay associated with the Harris units wuuld be nearly six years beyond their origin&T schedule dates of March 1977, 1978, 1979, and 1980.

For the above reasons, mechanical draft cooling tow.ers for the Shearon liarris I1uclear Po'wer Plant are not considered to be a viable cooling water system.

A-5 . ./A

.. .. , ' i 1 '

F-73 FEDERAL r'OV,'L:R COOMNIISION WASHINC;TON. D.C. 20426 f iAR 6 1974 Mr. Danie! . , >Mul11r I Ie Assi.s tant l):-L,:cloor for E:ivi roa:cntal ct' Projects 1:i0cc tor!z LtCo[ Licens ing-Office . ,f Kc('f , s tJo.

U,ý. Aton:ic Lnei'-y Co:i-:-ission "

Washihng ton, D. C. 20545

Dear MO. i,

!ullCr:

This is in respmnse to your letter dated January 11, 1974, requesting co:-,ucnts on the AEC Revised Draft Environmchntal Statement related 'to the proposed issuance of a construction permit for the Sihcaron Narris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 (Docket Nos. 50-400, 50-ý01, 50-402 and 50-403) to be constructed by the Carolina Power and Li<ght Company (..\pplicantc).

The 900 n.%;:att units are scheduled to be available for comi:iercial service as follows:

Unit No. 1 October 1979 Unit No. 2 October 1980 Unit No. 4 October 1981.

Unit No. 3 March 1982 These comments bv the Federal Power Co::m.mission's Bureau of Power staff are wade in compliance with the National Environ-mental Policy Act of 1969 and the August 1, 1973, Guidelines of the Council on Environmental Quality, and are directed to the need for the capacity represented by the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, and to related bulk power supply matters.

In preparing these comments, the Bureau of Power staff has considercid the AEC Draft Environmental Statement; the Applicant's Environmental Report andAmendoents thereto; related reports made in accordance with the Commission's Statce.ment of Reliability and Adequacy of Electric Service (Docket No. R-362); and the staff's analysis of these documents together with related infor-mation from other FPC reports. The staff generally bases its

F-74 evaluation, of the need for a specific bulk power fncility upon long;-ter: n con-;id..rations as..ell! Vs Upon the Noad-nM:!!PPQ SN~ua-Lion For M pca.:k load priod imr.*ediatcl.v f o .ilO.j; Mzce availability Df che new facilitV. It Mould be nLod .hat the useful life of eoch She*cron Ha.rris gCnCratin; Wuit ic.:.ccLtUd to be 30 v. ars or more. During that perid,, eca U Will Mak a sigif icu n cont.ribution to the rc]liability and adqtuacy of electric power supply in the Applicant's service arcua.

The Applicant is a ecnvher of the VACAR subregioen of the Southeecastern Kiec 1: .c liability Council (S3'C) vwich coor.-

Re dinates uhqe planning of thi mcbecrs' bulk paovr 1cil ities.

The App licancit i8 interconnected wiLh oWher ut'lity s'stums located in the V',CAR area .ich includes the States of Virginia, North Carol i:-na. a:nd Souti!L Carolina. O-h r ,-:dler a d.utilities ef the VACAR sub', :ion aref: NO:. P.. r Co'i . S" b c ", 'lina Electric and Can Codpony, Suuth Caroli.a .nuhlic Sc-'vce Authority, SOuth,estern Poa.r Adc.inis ura:tion of Mie U.S.

• Departmept of the Interior, Virginia Electric and P'ower Company, and Yadkin, Incorporated.

I The historical annual perak (summer) londIs on the Applicant's system during the 1965-1972 period reflctn aon annual. rane of load gro.:th of !1.3 perccnut which is subsutntially above the 7.

percenL annual rate of load gro.:th for the contiguou. United States. The Applicant's loads are projected through the 1973-1981 petied aM a 10,9 percent annual, rate of load growth.

The Bureau of Pcc.er staff has extrapolaved the load projection through the 1964 summer peak period at appro;.imately tihis saim:

rate.

The total generating capacity on the Applicant's system at the time of the 1973 summer pcak was 5,2SO wmeg:zatts.

Planned new capacity additions for the 1973-1932 period are tabulated below:

F-75 A]'P]L- C.':T ' S P"i'T':. (:..:. T , !. . '1IQ*S 1973-9, Sm.:.,,er IScheluI cd Commnercia I U_ t Ca j. tv '..j , I/ O :2i. i. Date DzJr .inton o CL 630 GT 3-1-74 BKll.sw.:c ,!ý. 2 821 N 3-1-75 lrt'"l'.;ici" ,o. 1 821 N 3-1-76 Ro:.xboro No. 1 720 C 3-1-76 Sh;0,I:jHarris o. 1 900 N 10-].-79 tlndcsi,-, j L.d 720 U 1980 SCC'VIl illJL'ri ..o. 2 900 N 10-1-80 SIci ii I iarpir i .s 4 900 N 10-1-81 S)cmar o iiarris "'o. 3 900 N 3-1-82 Ui .esi.

I% atei d 3,150 U 1982 Undc:r; J ;n*atod 720 U 1982 I/ GT - Gas Turbine, N - Nuclear, C - Coal Fired U - Undc.tcrn:-ined.

The tabu.to-ct below indicates Lhe projcocL0d installed capiacity, fin.rr p,-.;_2r purc-cs and sal]ic:, peaZ lIads and reserve marJns. for the. t L!Io'ical.t systecm 6u1rin; the 1973-1..4 period.

F-76 APPLIC~f',! S SUL[P PEA, V L.',i)'-SUPP.,Y S ITUATION

- I 4 LJAŽI 1973-i Installed Peak- Net Firm Load Reserve '1-,*-in fear Capabi lity l.oad Pu rcL cs eesp)onsibilit, is,4 of }iI " nI 197 3 1_ 5,280 4,711 90 4,621 659 14,3 1974 6,049 5,206 91. 5,115 934 18.3 1975 6,870 5,783 .73 5,710 1,160 20.3 1976 8,411 6,440 73 6,367 2,044 32.1

.1977 8,411 7,152 213 6,939 1,472 21.2 1978 8,411 7,943 100 7,843 568 7.2 1979 8,411 8,819 100 8,719 -30S 1930 10,031 9,776 - 9,776 255 2.6 1931. 10,931 10,801 - 10,801 130 1.2 19S2 12,731 12,000 - 12,000 731 6.1 19S53 14,601 13,200 - 13,200 1,401 10.6 1984 14,601 14,800 - 14,800 -199 2/ -

I/ Actual 1973 Annual Peak data, as reported in FPC Form 32-E, dated Septem-ber 1973.

2/ Capacity addition plans for 1984 if any, not known.

The following tabulations show the projected capabilities, loads, and reserve margins for the Applicant'c's system and for the VACARU subregion of SERC, including the Applicant's system.

The tabulations show the effect of the capacity of the four 900-megawatt Shearon Harris units on the projected reserve capacity margins on the summer peaking Applicant's and summer peakin-; VACAR svstcems at the peak load periods which are the initial operating periods inmmcediately following the scheduled commercial service dates of each of the units. The Applicant

,Ž.aces that its minimu reserve margin criterion is the larger of 18 percent of annual peak load or the capacity of the largest unit plus 100 megawatts in order to maintain system reliability. The Bureau of Power staff has used the Applicant's criterion of 18 percent of annual peak load in its analysis, which is the larger for the period of the analysis. The VACAR systems operate in close suppcrt under normal and emergency conditions.

TYhe interconncctions between systems make such assistance practical and contribute to the reliability of the area bulk power supplv. The Applicant's reserve margin criterion of 18 percent falls within the 15 to 25 percent range generally reported to the Federal Power Commission by electric utility industry entities.

F-7 7 APPLICAUT'S S:M".rR CAPABILITIES 1.OADS AND RESERVE :*,AR(;INS 1960- 19*32 1980 19981 1982 I.,ith Shearon Harris Units (900 >.!fr:atts each)

Installed Capability (ý,S) 10,031 10,931 12,731 Load Responsibility (>r) 9,776 10,801 12,000 Reserve .ar .n (:i.7) 255 130 731 Reserve Margin (Percent) 2.6 1.2 6.1 Desired Reserve ',Margin (<1,')

(Applicant's Criterion) 1,760 1,994 2),160 Desired Reserve .-Margin Deficiency (2,.) 1,505 1,814 1,429 Without Shearon' Harris Units Installed Capability (M-Iv) 9,131 9,131 9,131 Load Responsibility (2..T) 9,776 10,801 12,000 Reserve iaLrgin (1,M) -645 -1,670 -2,869 Reserve Margin (Percent)

Desired Reserve ,1argin (NN)

(Applicant's Criterion) 1,760 1,944 2,160 Desired. Reserve :v[argin Deficiency (,,W) 2,405 3,430 5,029 With the Shearon Harris Units in commercial operation as presently scheduled, the above projections indicate a period from 1978 through 1984 in which the reserve margin, 'n five of the seven years, ranges from 1.2 percent to 10.6 percent of the annual peak loads; and is negative for the other two years. If the Shearon Harris units du not become available as scheduled, the projected reserve margins for the seven-year period from 1978 through 1934 are all negative, and projected capacity deficiencies range up to 3,800 megawatts in 1984, T'he tabulation below projects the capabilities, loads and reserve margins for the VACAR systems, including the Applicant's.

F-78

...(\l S~. K SI.::'i T JI ~5'*'" 7[) !lp,:iK)Q:.I:; v:,t',i;US

!nst~aV] .d Not Ponk Load leservc .a..:v aL!cZr Ccar,:;.hi . it..  :-~,'[c:* I,,:'ad R,,sjpr,.; ~.IJ~i lt H.i. 'ore-u, 1973 95C>222970S'? 22,933 3,890 17.7 1')7 29 5 5 575 25,309 24734 4,819 19.5 1975 30, 731 325 27,978 27,653 7,078 25.6 1976 3 S590 325 30,858 30,533 8,057 26.4 1977 41 613 325 34,015 33,690 7,923 23.5 1978 43 ,16 325 37,442 37,117 6,029 16.2 1979 06,204 400 41 172 40,772 5,512 13.-

1980 50,764 300 45, 217 44,917 5,847 13.0 1981 56,501 300 49,572 49,272 7,232 14.7 1982 62,8I3 300 54,30S 54,008 8,805 16.3 The abov, projcnci:nn- prc;,:m. thaL the capacity addition pla'-s of tWe. A.pp].icant and owher VAC."R entities arc accoA.jJ!ishc'd o."

schedule. The reCsJ tant resrve, av maryins s how.n ranqc lyn;-- 13.0 to 26.4 pcrcct '.;hich .are h;e:neral.y within the 15 to 25 percent range ho*rt~ofore nnoed, 'ovuvore, any delay in the tii.,tly sch.edule.-d c'c rati.on of a" oW cla now oni Is, particula: rly those of the s.,. of tWe Shtearon Harcris units, could reduce projectea reserve *a rsins sOlo..' a loval sa: 7icient to w.itLhstand to contin j.,cthat: has shown to occur on elcctric bulk

.hLIistLory power s yS tS*

The Bureau of Power soa :f cncludcs that addit-io:nn1. capacity equiva.c:ut to that :.purosented -sv Lthe proposed Shebaron Har ris Units No. 1, 2, 3 and .Ai<s dsi-.lte to prov.ide for the pro-jecLecd load growth of the afu cecd systems and afford a reason-able level of reserve capacity ,ith which to meet normally encountered contingencies, thus as;suring a high level of reliability of service to the consumers.

Vary truly yours Chief, Bureau of Power