ML20245F495
| ML20245F495 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1989 |
| From: | DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236E453 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8906280153 | |
| Download: ML20245F495 (31) | |
Text
--ey-mi 0
I CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN TWO-UNIT AMBIENT NOISE SURVEY APRIL 1989 gem mggy 0
1
)
4 4
i -
INTRODUr. TION 1
I Duke Power Company is required, by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), to submit an annual environmental operating report
-documenting the impact of Catawba Nuclear Station (CNS) on the environment. As stated in the Catawba Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), Duke Power Company will conduct an operational-phase ambient noise survey as part of the report.
This report summarizes the data collected during the two unit summer and winter noise surveys and concludes the CNS Ambient Noise Survey. Results of the one unit noise surveys were presented in the Annual Environmental Operating Reports submitted in 1986 and 1987 for Catawba Nuclear Station.
MATERIALS AND METHODS The methodology used in this survey is described in the Environmental Stuity Design Document titled - Catawba Nuclear Station Noise Survey (Keener 19851.
The requirements of EPP Section 4.2.2 were adhered to with- respect to sampiing methodology and analysis.
RESULTS Hourly A-weighted L99, L90, L50, L10, L1, and Lmax noise data were collecte1 for sites A, B, C, D, and E flig'are 1) during January-February 1987 and Ly 1988 for two unit continuous operation. However, data collectid at Site C during the winter of 1987 are not presented. These data were invalidate,s because of a malfunction in the microphone jack.
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _~
l l'
1 ;
i
~
I i
i l
l l DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION l
l A-weighted sound pressure levels that statistically exceed 90% (L90) and 10% !
l (LIO) during a one-hour time period were plotted against pre-operational data collected 1978 and 1979 for comparison. The L10 noise level is considered a measure of intruding noise levels. The sources of these levels are intermittent in character, such as automobiles, boats, aircraft, animals, etc.
The L90 sound levels are considered the background noise levels. Sources of these values are continuous, such as cooling tower fans.
In Figures 2 through 5, L10 comparison plots for winte* two unit operational data are presented with winter data collected during the pre-operational noise survey in 1978 for sites A, B, D, and E. The expected pattern for L10 values would be a higher hour-to-hour variation in sound levels between 0700 and 2200 hours0.0255 days <br />0.611 hours <br />0.00364 weeks <br />8.371e-4 months <br /> corresponding to human activity around the site. Lower sound levels with less hour-to-hour variation are expected during night, when human activity is at a minimum. This diurnal pattern is most noticeable in the L10 values for site E (Figure 5). The highest LIO levels during the winter operational survey were measured at site E. These were due to housing construction near the site.
Comparison of summer L10 operational with pre-operational data, presented in Figures 6 through 10, show higher L10 values for each site when compared with l l
the winter results. This was expected because of the increase in outdoor I
activities during the summer months. Sites A and D (Figures 6 and 9) show a 1 noticeable increase in LIO values above pre-operational data. Both sites are i
1
___._._j
located on Iake Wylie (Figure 1) and che higher values probably. reflect the increase in lake traffic near the sites. During sampling for Pure Tones (presented later in the discussion) in the summer of 1988 around sites A and D, a considerable amount of outdoor activity was noticed around these lake sites, such as lawn mowers, boats, and in the case of site A aircraft traffic. During each. site visit, no intermittent sounds originating from CNS were audible at the time.
Noise emanating from a continuous source, such as cooling tower fans, is expected to ' impact the background (L90) levels, especially at night, when-outside intermittent noise sources are at a minimum. Figures 11 through 14 present the comparison plots of L90 values for the winter sampling period. L90 noise levels for sites A, B, D, and E during the winter of 1987 were on the same magnitude as the pre-operational data from 1978. Figures 15 through 19 present the comparison plots of L90 values for the summer sampling period.
Site A, the nearest.to CNS, shows L90 levels consistently above pre-operational data (Figure 15). These levels ranged from 32 db(A) to 48 db(A). This increase in the L90 levels during the operational survey is a result of the operation of the cooling tower fans at CNS. Nighttime Pure Tone surveys indicated that the background sound level at site A was dominated by the operation of the cooling tower fans. The L90 noise levels for sites B, C, and E show noise levels similar to the pre-operational data; however, site C (Figure 17) does show some increase. Site C is located near a highway and sound levels at the site are dominated by highway traffic and other human activity in the area. During the Pure Tone survey, no sounds that could be attributable to CNS were discernible from the background sound. Figure 18, for
_-_____-_______-__._______-____-______________-_____-___--_n_-____-__--__-_. ._-____-_-_ ___--
site D, shows the widest L90 range during the operational survey, of 79 db(A) to 38 db(A). The high L90 levels associated with this lake site early during the sampling period were a result of lawn mowing activity around the sensor.
In 1979, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) established standards for noise exposure for new housing construction. The standards were based on the day-night equivalent sound level or Ldn. The Ldn is calculated by adding the A-weighted sound levels between 0700-2200 (day) and 2200-0700 (night) hours. The nighttime noise levels, which are considered more annoying, are penalized 10 db(A). HUD divided Ldn levels into three categories -
acceptable (not exceeding 65 db), normally unacceptable (above 65 but not exceeding 75 db), and unacceptable (above 75 db).
The Ldn values calculated for 24-hour periods during the winter and summer operational surveys are listed in Tables 1 and 2 respectively. Pre-operational Ldn values calculated for the October-November 1978 data are presented in Table 3 for comparison purposes. Comparison of tbe data in Tables 1 through 3 indicate that the Ldn values have increased for Sites A and D and possibly to a lesser extent at Site C over pre-operational values. The increase at Site A, which is closest to the CNS plant site, is probably attributed to the operation of the cooling tower fans, while the increase at Sites C and D are possibly a result of increased human activity around these sites. All Sites were expected to show some increase in the Ldn levels above pre-operational values, since human activity has steadily increased around the Lake Wylie area in the past 10 years.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ n.
e PURE TONES One of the ' requirements of the CNS EPP is to include,'as part of the noise s urvey, sound level' data which identify pure tones (definable noise sources) associated with the operation of the plant. This was accomplished by taking short-term sound measurements at locations 1 through 12 (Figure 1). During the
. noise survey, pure tone measurements were taken bv sampling and listening at the same time. .Thus, measured scand levels can be assigned a source description, and the pure tone for the source is obtained at the location.
During the summer, pure tone measurements were taken when the meteorological conditions - (morning inversion conditions) indicated that the sound emanating f rom a source, such as the CNS cooling tower fans, would be audible. The following sound levels are typical of the pure tones associated with the I
cooling tower fans:
4 LOCATION db(A) SOURCE A 47 Cooling Tower Fans 1 64 Cooling Tower Fans 1
2 54 Caoling Tower Fans !
3 56 Cooling Tower Fans 10 36 Cooling Tower Fans Pure Tones could not be determined at the other locations.
j i
I
___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ __ _ . _ J
@ + .
4 h i.
l
. NOISE-RELATED COMPLAINTS
~
'As required.by the EPP, a~ list of noise-related complaints are attached to this-report.
l
-CONCLUSION r Data . collected during, . the two unit operational noise survey indicate that operation of the CNS cooling tower fans have impacted comunity noise levels. at
' Site A. - Ldn values at Site A' appear to have increased about 5'db(A)'over pre-operational 'leve'Is. Pure tone measurements at locations 1,' 2, and 3 show -
that noise. levels associated with the cooling towers were below 65 db(A), f.dn I values from the Sites show that:.all areas were below the 65 db(A) HUD noise criterion considered acceptable.
~ Since measured noise . levels were within acceptable noise limits, no mitigat ive .
~
noise measures are recommended. Additional community noise surveys are not recommended unless.they are related to any future noise complaints.
I I
_ _ -- _-_._-n-_-_-_-___-
-o k '
.u, n w-s
)v, g\ -.
.*~,. e. 2 -
v
.. . t . %-... .[s -- s.,,
& ,. - --'-r,L _. . .....
g
'. s
~* - ;r s,
. y . ., y 7
, ,4 %- . , : (3. .Q.: . ; ':,l ~ . '
. - M ,, ~
yg, b.- d, ,-
. s t, , c$
, s. -
o
- n. _j.. = .,,- ' . . m, ,. 5. ',
. m, ~s.a :s.
.- <~ , ;.
s .,j,_
a ~.,
p,- ; r. r. .
.e _- ; u i~u ' . '
' '#y g ,
'6 ~- V >s * ..~' .c : <. . i rr ~ . , . . _.
N.'. ,(% e- 3
("
., s. - -
/~
./
~
w v. ,. ',ci, .c ; . .. ./ y C .J.9_ * - %: ./ _..- .
._.f ;- : . .~, C..
m~~ . , , ., ., ,e
.- .~ 4 . . .
m.-
..a. j ./. . .
- r. ; . g i
.i . f- ~
.V ~ c . c:*- .s. .,.* $ .
"'1 .',o
' s. .
n ,.
/
! .
- A <
8 's \
\,
as-Q .7 -l
.. . , + ,
f.
l, ~.- '
~
p . - ,, . 4 %g-6
/
f I
- . -,,a .. -; . ., ; .
.,.\
- 5. !
.# .~ s w '
,_ p . _ ' ,
q c. ..
i V
,,Q
' -^ , ) L' s a f,. . .' .-
%gy., .
(.
b
.. : ;. t . :n .
.4 %. < ;. ' ", -
' : .s* , ar-
, ~ . .. t..+.. e.
s i ,r . , @. e, .
, j
. . ~
-. .;.. .,w--
,. a ,e
~.y a%. . . ., ., ... - ,. v .. l . ;, . s. v-g- s ..,.
s
.., . ..,,.s...,,, ,-. . . .
g
> - q c - . .
- ,t
- - . < ,;, x %
~
L. E 'y,s, , l . -.' j - = ~-~~ .* - %
G .
.,-- : fr. -
' ,T, ~- -_ i ,;0,.-M.
.4 . . -; ,, ._. A.y
,e s .4 t
- . v, . + s i -u S .A ,/.,@,.,U. ~-
\, . , t.
1
-f\ 'MY. .f./._.
..s ,. ., ...
.. , %a- m ,
- 9. .. s, g , asq's.'
o . ,, g S;'4 E ' = ,8 -* M .,
s . ,< 7 c . . '-'
af,
- u ..
,*.4 .p L.-= '\, . -- ,,
s - s
.y._ . :, s
.c- w .%... w g
- - ', J.,.. ,,,.. 3
/* 'f 4
.. i t . ..
. Cg. ~
~~
% + ., f;"* -J ..;.,g:,
c.) :.. +..
. - . ..' , y
-
- d ,%- .g ,,.-.
n ,, . - ,
d". '
C
, s,..i, .
~ ', 1 ,. ;, - . c. r ?- .,'.. --
~e.- t,,, q:. ,
4, p ,,
, 3
- a. '
- '- t, -
/- .
, : -s. , . ..:,j. 3.+. .
.- - ' -/ ' .
- .r Q. g N 7_r,
~
g,y
,N" ..,
<, A e
? ,,.
3 g[W $ pQ'
> ' , a . .f..':-,y y;, :'
zg ,
1,., .~. n. .
d *
~ , -
7 s
\w- .
.i 4
.,y ', 11 g s
, , , a Q
> ,n. ,- -
a le
.. ,o . . : 1 - . , < **'- .
~~ ci ' '
,' , ., n>g 'l'T.p '
- ,. .i
. m .)
, ' . . Y- . -
/ a
, i
,/ - .
/ ,.,,,e
' Y y^' 7 _.- ' ' 4. . 'j, _- ,b. '
. ;i.^ WW '.- ~.7,*.,
- N ~ ,_
p-
- 3. .
- s
. > q., .,, ;
- Q. m-,e( ... f .s. ::.-, .-,
3 .
~ ,
- ~. ~
, n! r.,,v. :
{
\ .
. - s: 1.
~-
. , :. l4 -; ;. g, ;\ g ,,,, ,. .p a j
- -' - ' ~ ~ g-
, , i g ,pc~ .,
l u
j . .
- ,
- , ,, , .- . I
'1.
- s. -- .2,, -
s
- 2. --- ... : ,
i
- _ , -f.w~
.- * - - / , ., , o :
s ='= ,. ,
s, a *, ; . u. ,. : .
~
s ,..y- .
- /' l
,. f-
, j.,
, , ~ . ,&.
- .s 0 24- soor monitor toc. tion. N , ,,,, _
e Residential Measurements Figure 1. Measurement locations near Catawba Nuclear Station (Barner 1979).
1 l
a
- l. I j .
1 1
4 i
Hour :: Hour Saund Level Distributi:n C;mparison fcr Site A L10 ;
1975 vs. 1957 dinter SOUND LEVEL {db (A) }
EO -
1 1 f & 7 V'
"~
x a 30 - N+/v 20 -
10 -
0, , , , , , , , , i 1500 2000 0100 0600 1100 .t 500 2100 0200 hcur-Tc-Heur Variar!:n in 5:unc Levels Figure 2. Comparison Plot of L10 Sound Levels between Operational and Pre-Operational data for Site A.
8
. _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____n__-____-______-___-__- -
1 D .
1 l
i i
1 1
1 l
l 1 1 1 1
! 4 l X Hour-Tc-hour Scunc Level Distrit:u:1:n I Comoarison f r Site a L10 l 1975 vs. 1957 Win;sr SOUND LEVF.L {cb (A) }
60 -
I X
\ -
4
=0- in H' s' x 4 i , yf_ %Y}
40 - / /
/k / 1978 g +1987 g N 9 r ++< >
30-2 0 _.
10 !
l
,f
- i i i . . i i e i 1900 2400 0500 1000 1500 2003 0:00 0600 h:ur-T:-hour Varis:i:n in 5:unc Levels Figure 3. Comparison Plot of L10 Sound Level ~ between Operational and Pre-Operational data for Site B.
-g.
- _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ ._ ______-_a.__-__-_____- _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ .
1 4
I l
1 Hour-To-Hour Sound Level Distribution Comparison for Site D L10 1978 vs. 1987 Winter SOUND LEVEL (db (A) }
60-X 50- Y s / 1987 40 -
V\
1978 30-20-iu-0 , , , , , , , , , ,
1900 2400 0500 1000 1500 2000 0100 0600 1100 Hour-To-Hour Variation in Sound Levels .
i Figure 4. Comparison Plot of L10 Sound Levels between Operational and Pre-Operational data for Site D.
--__?____ ---__---_-__----_-_____a
1 Hour-To-Hour Sound Level Distribution l
Comparison for Site E L10 1978 vs. 1987 Winter SOUND LEVEL (db (A) }
60-50-1978 l 40 -
1987 30-20-10 -
0 i , , , , , , , ,
1900 2400 0500 1000 1500 2000 0100 0600 Hour-To-Hour Variation in Sound Levels Figure 5. Comparison Plot of L10 Sound Levels between Operational and Pre-Operational data for Site E.
. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ O.
i l 1 l-
]
1 i
)i l
l l
Hour-To-Hour Sound Level Distribution l Comparison for Site A L10 1979 vs. 1988 Summer SOUND LEVEL [db (A) }
70 -
60-1988 50 -
1979 4
40 -
'I
30 -
20-10 -
0, , ; , , , , , , ,
1800 2300 0400 0900 1400 1900 2400 0500 1000 Hour-To-Hour Variation in Sound Levels Figure 6. Comparison Plot of L10 Sound Levels between Operational and Pre-Operational data for Site A.
O
Hour-To-Hour Scund Level Distribution Comparison for Site B L10 1979 vs. 1988 Summer !
SOUND LEVEL [db(A)}
70-60-
\ ( -
\ 1988 40-30 -
20 -
10 -
0; , ; , , , , i i ; i i i i 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 0100 0300 0500 0700 0900 1100 1300 Hour-To-Hour Variation in Sound Levels Figure 7. Comparison Plot of L10 Sound Level between Operational and Pre-0perational data for Site B.
)
{
i
)
' __-_______J
Hour-To-Hour Sound Level Distribution Comparison for Site C L10 1979 vs. 1988 Summer SOUND LEVEL (db (A)}
70 -
60- M ,
50- .
21988 1979 40 -
30-20-10 -
0 , , , , , , , , ,
1600 2100 0200 0700 1200 1700 2200 0300 Hour-To-Hour Variation in Sound Levels l
Figure 8. Comparison Plot of L10 Sound Levels i.etween Operational j and Pre-operational data for Site C.
i l
l l
1 l
1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - - . _ _ .Q
Hour-To-Hour Sound Level Distribution Comparison for Site D L10 1979 vs. 1988 Summer SOUND LEVEL (ab (A) }
80 -
70-60-l t c
[H % M[. '
1988 X T
30- 1979 20 -
10 -
0, , , , , , , , , , ,
1500 2100 0200 0700 1200 1700 2200 0300 0500 Hour-To-Hour Variaticn in Scund Levels Figure 9. Comparison Plot of L10 Sound Levels between Operational and Pre-operational data for Site D.
1 t
l
_ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ -___ _ _ .. __ .O. . ._ -____ ___
l' l
l l
l Hour-To-Hour Sound Level Distribution Cc:parison for Site E L10 1979 vs. 1958 Summer SOUND LEVEL [db (A) }
EO-k 50 - i k[Q jM{M /
f /g'\979
'{ j 30 -
ftN l 20 -
10 -
O g , , , , , , i i 1800 2300 0400 0900 1400 1900 2400 0500 ::::
Hour-To-Hour V3ristien in Scund Levels Figure 10. Comparison Plot of L10 Sound Levels between Operational and Pre-operational data for Site E.
Hour-To-M ur Scunc Level Distribution C tDarison for Site A L90 1975 vs. 1997 dinter SCUND LEVEL (ab (A1 )
50 - ^
/
4[.
'g t
'( W. [
i
( 1978 40 -
/g "(w/
4 w t,
l N L"',,,,L
%wa; ' ' ' "Hygig 30 - 987 20 -
10 -
0 6 4 . , , , 4 4 ,
1500 2000 0100 0600 1100 1500 2!00 0200 heur-To-hour '/aristi:n in Scunc _evs'.s Figure 11. Comparison Plot of L90 Sound Levels between Operational and Pre-operational data for Site A.
l l
1
- 17 -
(
' - J
H:ur-T:-Hour 3:ur.3 '_ses! Cistelbuti:n C::aaris n f:r 51:s 5 L90
.. a_ , a._ ve..
.._..:, a:.-,.,..
o .
- iw4n i c<:;w.u -- __ .i. n.s t . , a-50 q g i \
l k j h 40 ~
xA q k..' 1987 Ag' YY I ( \'y N '
I s 4 't H/k ^T'5-9 'N s. 3 M
3n q N/ yQ ~'
1978 i
30 i i
I 10 -
0l , . ,
, e
. c n. .
c- ,o5.
-, =_ n, n. .. n. n. n. ,...
= , n. 2,se.
..w e. ., n. n. wovu H ar-T -Hour Variat!:r. in 3 an: ' cVe.s _
Figure 12. Comparison P'ot of L90 Sound Levels between Operational and Pre .,perat!onal dhta for Site B.
e
l l
Hour-TO-Hour Sound Level Distribution Comparison fCr Site D L90 1978 vs. 1987 Winter SOUND LEVEL lab (A) }
EC -
50-1987 A0- gg xgt
' L 1978 30-20 -
10 -
0 6 i e i . 4 i , , , ,
1900 2400 0500 1000 1500 2000 0100 0600 1100 Hour-TO-Hour Variation in Sound Levels Figure 13. Comparison Plot of L90 Sound Levels between Operational and Pre-operational data for Site D.
4 Hour-To-Hour Scund Level Distributi;n C mparisen for Site E L90 1978 vs. 1957 Winter SOUND LEVEL {db (A) }
60-50-40 - igg 7
-- 1978
'N 30- -
20 -
10-0 , , , , , , , , ,
1900 2400 0500 1000 1500 2000 0100 0600 Hour-To-Hour Variation in Sound Levels Figure 14. Comparison Plot of L90 Sound Levels between Oper,ational and Pre-operational data for Site E.
l
i
)
I i
I i
Hour-To-Hour Sounc Level Distribution Comparison for Site A L90 1979 vs. 1988 Summer SOUND udVEL {cb (A) }
50 -
40 - 19gg
1979 c0- .
y,,,,
20-10 -
0 , , , , , , ,
1S00 2300 0400 0900 1400 1900 2400 0500 100:
Hour-To-Hour Variation in Sound Levels Figure 15. Comparison Plot of L90 Sound Levels between Operational and Pre-operational data for Site A.
l
_ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ . O
i Hour-To-Hour Sound Level Distribution Comparison for Site B L90 1979 vs. 1988 Summer SOUND LEVEL {db (A)}
50-40 - , , .
g -
1988 30-20 -
10-0 , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 0100 0300 0500 0700 0900 1100 1300 Hour-To-Hour Variation in Scund Levels Figure 16. Comparison Plot of L90 Sound Levels between Operational and Pre-operational data for Site B.
- 27. -
1 E_________ __ o
J Hour-To-Hour Sound Level Distribution Comparison for Site C L90 1979 vs. 1988 Summer SOUND LEVEL {db (A) }
60-50 -
40- g
. 1988
~
,,,; ' / 1979 20 -
10 -
0 , , , , , , , , i 1600 2100 0200 0700 1200 1700 2200 0300 Hour-To-Hour Variation in Sound Levels Figure 17 Comparison Plot of L90 Sound Levels between Operational and Pre-operational data for Site C.
- l
\
L__ _ __--___. . ]'
Hour-To-Hour Sound Level Distribution Comparison for Site D L90 1979 vs. 1988 Summer SOUND LEVEL (db (A) }
80-60 -
1988 H
40 - M }y &
20 -
0, , , , , , , , , , ,
1600 2100 0200 0700 1200 1700 2200 0300 0E00 Hour-To-Hour Variation in Sound Levels Figure 18. Comparison Plot of L90 Sound Levels between Operation:1 and Pre-Operational data for Site D.
I o
4
{
Hour-To-Hour Scund Level Distribution C;mparis:n for Site E L90 1979 vs. 1958 Summer SOUND LEVEL {db (A) }
50 -
40-
+-( Ai ' w - 1 19 s . , ,
20 -
10 -
0, , , , , , , , , ,
1800 2300 0400 0900 1400 1900 2400 0500 1000 Hour-To-Haur Variation in Sound Levels Figure 19. Comparison Plot of L90 Sound Levels between Operational and Pre-operational data for Site E.
4 Table 1. Day - Night Equivalent (Ldn) Sound Levels for the 1987 Two Unit Operational Winter Survey.
Site Date Ldn (db)
A 2/26/87 54 A 2/27/87 52 B 1/20/87 45 B 1/21/87 48 C
D 1/27/87 54 D 1/28/87 49 E 1/08/87 49 E 1/09/87 49 Table 2. Day - Night Equivalent (Ldn) Sound Levels for the 1988 Operational Summer Survey.
Site Date Ldn (db)
A 5/1~./88 56 A 5/I3/88 58 B 5/16/88 58 C 5/13/88 61 C 5/14/88 59 0 5/9/88 62 0 5/10/88 60 E 5/18/88 48 E 5/19/88 48 l
o
Table 3. Day - Night Equivalent (Ldn) Sound Levels for the pre-operational study.
Site Date Ldn (db)
A 10/31/78 47 A 11/02/78 50 A 11/03/78 47 8 10/31/78 54 C 11/05/78 58 0 11/01/78 56 D 11/04/78 53 D- 11/05/78 52 .
E 11/02/78 48 E 11/03/78 52
(
L_'_________________ . _ _ . . _ _ _. .O. I
SECTION 4.2.2 - SOUND LEVEL SURVEY Date Description of Complaints Comments of Noise Coming from Catawba 10/25/84 A continual humming sound. The cooling tower fans Duke Power personnel visited were not in operation.
the resident's home and were The " hum" may possibly unable to detect any noises have been due to the outside the usual night exhaust fans used for sounds. ventilation in the turbine buildings.
03/12/85 Loud noises sounding like The noise was steel dropping, for approx- identified as construc-imately a half-hour duration. tion related, and not related to the cooling towers. Nothing unusual was identified on site.
09/04/85 A roaring noise identified Not related to cool-as steam generator blowdown ing towers. Unit being vented to the 1 was at 100% and atmosphere. Unit 2 was in hot functional testing.
Mgat. took immediate steps to reduce the noise by rerouting the S/G blowdown on Unit 2.
01/22/86 A noise sounding like a Not related to cool-lot of steam being let ing towers. Steam off. A stren was also generator PORV had heard. been lifted and a start-up was in progress. Also, Div.
Ops had been testing a siren.
04/30/86 A sound like an ' air A steam release. Not compressor' or ' jack related to cooling hammer.' tower fans.
02/20/87 A resident raported The PA system was not 3 disturbing noises: related to the cool-
- 1) the Plant PA ing towera, however system, 2) a low the low steady hum steady hum, and 3) possibly was. The a loud sudden noise loud sudden noise was like a jet engine. most likely a steam )
vent during a unit trip.
O
~
SECTION 4.2.2 - SOUND LEVEL SURVEY Date. Description of Complaints of Noise Coming from Catawba Comments 05/16/88 A loud noise sounding like Not related to a lot of steam being let cooling towers. A off. unit had tripped and a steam release was what was heard by the resident.
05/27/88 A loud noise sounding like Not related to a lot of steam being let cooling towers.
off. The noise was identified as steam being dumped due to a tripped unit.
June 1988 The noise heard from the There has *?en an operation of the cooling ongoing discussion, towers. since 1987, with a particular resident living near the plant concerning the noise from the cooling towere.
Studies havs been conducted. Due to the location of the resident's house and the direction of the wind, the noise from the cooling towers may be heard at certain times.
l l . .
Duxe POWER COMPANY P.O. BOX 33189 CHARLOTTE. N.C. 28242 ..c=
MANAGER ,,,
E, 3 NL' CLEAR TECHNICAL $ERYlCES 1704p 373 8300 N. /
November 9, 1988 South Carolina Emergency Response Commission Stan M. McKinney, Chairman Division of Public Safety Programs Edgar A. Brown Building 1205 Pendleton Street Columbia, S.C. 29221 york County Emergency Preparedness Agency Cotton Howell 155 Johnson Street Rock Hill, SC 29731
Subject:
Catawba Nuclear Station Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)
Follow-up Release Notification File: CN-208.20, CN-302.29, CN-118.00 Pursuant to Subchapter J of 40CFR, Part 355, (Emergency Planning and Notification), Duke Power Company hereby provides written follow-up emergency notice of a reportable SARA release. As your offices were verbally notified between 1230 and 1300 on October 13, 1988, approximately 40 gallons of ignitable hazardous waste were released to soil due to an equipment failure. Cleanup of the spilled material and contaminated soil began immediately and was packed into drums.
Since the spilled matorial was isolated and cleaned up immediately, Duke Power Industrial Hygiene personnel have determined that there were no potential health risks to the Public as a result of the release, due to the short time of exposure and the nature of the hazard. Consequently, no action is required by the Public. Th'e spill area was inspected by Paul Wise of the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Centrol on October 13, 1988, and was determined to be under control. A follow-up inspection of the area will also be conducted by Paul Wise.
Questions concerning this notification may be addressed to Steve Davenport 4 at (704) 373-2758. l
'ff0J W.A. Haller, Manager l
Nuclear Technical Services SDD/56/rhm I
xc: Paul Wise, DHEC-Fort Lawn District l l
i l k
l t
e bc: T.B. Owen R.F. Wardell W.R. McCollough R.M. Glover D.P. Simpson R.R. Wylie M.D. McIntosh D.C. Mobley N.A. Rutherford M.A. Lascara R.F. Gray :
1 M.W. Comer Alexander Almaguer CN-1005.01-01 rJ-3000.02-15
__ _ - _ _ _ _ _