ML073201240: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
 
==SUMMARY==
AND CONCLUSIONS This Environmental Statement was prepared by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Reactor Licensing.
: 1. This action is administrative.
: 2. The proposed action is the issuance of a construction permit to the Duke Power Company for the construction of the Cherokee Nuclear Station (CNS) Units 1, 2, and 3 located in Chero-kee County, South Carolina (Docket Nos. STN 50-491, 50-492, and 50-493).The station will employ three identical pressurized water reactors to produce up to approx-imately 3817 MWt each. A steam turbine generator will use this heat to provide 1280 MWe (net) of electrical power capacity per unit. The exhaust steam will be cooled by a flow of water in a closed-cycle system incorporating circular mechanical-draft wet cooling towers utilizing makeup water from the Broad River. Blowdown from the circulating water system will be discharged into the Broad River.3. Summary of environmental impact and adverse effects: a. A total of 2263 acres will be removed from public use for the CNS site. Construction-related activities on the site will disturb about 751 acres. Approximately 654 acres of land will be required for transmission line right-of-way, and a railroad spur will affect 83 acres. This constitutes a minor regional impact. (Sect. 4.1)b. Station construction will involve some community impacts. A total of 17 families will be displaced from the site. Traffic on local roads will increase due to construction and commuting activities.
The influx of construction workers' families (an average of 1600 work force) is expected to cause no major housing or school problems. (Sects. 3.10, 4.4.1)c. The heat dissipation system will require a maximum water makeup of 55,814 gpm, of which 50,514 gpm will be consumed due to drift and evaporative losses. This amount repre-sents 4.5% of the mean monthly flow and 23.8% of the low flow of the Broad River. The cooling tower blowdown and chemical effluents from the station will increase the dis-solved solids concentration in the river by a maximum of 44 ppm. The thermal alterations and increases in total dissolved solids concentration will not significantly affect the aquatic productivity of the river. (Sect. 3.4.1)d. It is assumed that aquatic organisms entrained in the service water system will be killed due to thermal and mechanical shock. The applicant is committed to releasing water equal to plant consumptive requirements from already existing upstream reservoirs when such consumptive use would cause natural flow inthe Broad River to drop below 470 cfs (the 7Q1o flow). Therefore, the maximum impact will be the destruction of approximately 23% of the entrainable organisms present in the river. This could constitute a significant impact during periods of low river flow and requires additional data on important species before the impact can be quantified. (Sect. 5.5.2.1)e. While there is a potential for impingement of aquatic organisms at the intake structure, the staff does not consider that serious impingement losses will occur. (Sect. 5.5.2.1)f. There exists no serious potential for ground-level fogging and icing due to operation of the cooling towers. Drift effects on terrestrial ecosystems are considered to be minimal. (Sect. 5.1.1.1)g. The risk associated with accidental radiation exposure is very low. (Sect. 7.1)h. No significant environmental impacts are anticipated from normal operational releases of radioactive materials.
The total annual dose to the U.S. population (total body plus thyroid) from operation of the plant is 210 man-rems which is less than the normal fluctuations in the background dose this population would receive. The occupational dose is approximately 1400 man-rems/year. (Sect. 5.4.2.5)i
: 4. Principal alternatives considered were: a. Purchase of power b. Alternate energy systems c. Alternate sites d. Aiterna'te heat dissipiaifon methods'5. The following Federal, State, and local agencies were asked to comment on the Draft Environmental Statement issued in March, 1975: Adiory oin'clon His'tori, Prese~rvation Department of Agricultur'e bdpa'rtrnent;of the Ary, top of Eniers -b epa'rtm'e`n't"of Co~m~e~rce!'
'Departmentof Health, Education-,
Department of Housing and Urban Development
* Department of the Interior Deparg tReanrc' h of T r Iption -" -, -Energy Research aind Development Administrat .ion,, Encvi .onmetlProtecto enc."Federal Energ~ ,Admini'stra't'ion Federal Power Commission C]State of jpa earl r g.,. House , -ohai rman,, oar of Comm issloners, Chermlee County, Gaf.fey, South Cariolina,..
.Comments on tihe D'ra ft 'Eni'oh`ental, Statementwr cIv~ from te, followi ng: Department of the Army, Coros of Engi ne.ers De partmen:ot o< _Agricu Ar c ultural: Rsearc h ServCe partmenf grlcu S Conservation ,Serv-ice ,De'part.ent of Interi.or,.
*Energy''Re~ea:ry:h and e.* De opmet Admii1s trjati on.Department 9 of Commerce.
..-- .D Department of Agriculture, 'Forest Service* epartment of :Health, E, ucation ai efr Department of Transportation State of South Carolina fi Wildlife and Marine Resources Uepartment State Land Resources Conservation Commission
-'Department of Archives and History Public Service Commission Department of Health and Environmental Control State of North Carolina Department of Administration Duke Power Company*Environmental Protection Agency Federal Power Commission Copies of these comments are appended to this Final Environmental Stateient as Appendix A.The staff has considered these coranents, and the responses are located in Section ll..6. This Environmental Statement was made available to. the public, to the Council on Environmental Quality and to other specified agencies in October, 1975'.7. On the basis of the analysis and evaluation set forth in this statement, after weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits of Cherokee NuclearStation,.Units
'1,.:2, and 3, against-environmental and other costs and considering available alternatives, it is concluded that the action called for under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and 10 CFR Part 51 is the issuance of a construction pen'iit' for the-fac-ility subject to the following conditions for the protection of the environment:'
" a. The applicant shall take the necessary mitigating actions, including those summarized in Sect. 4.5 of this Environmental Statement, during construction of the station, associated transmission lines, and railroad spur to avoid unnecessary adverse environ-mental impacts from construction activities.
: b. The applicant will be required to submit a detailed erosion control plan prior to initiation of construction activities.
The plan must identify those areas where serious erosion could occur as a result of clearing and construction,-and it must describe in detail, for each of these areas separately, actions that will be taken to impede the erosion (Sect. 4.3.1).c. Because' the staff's analysis indicates that there is doubt that the present discharge system can meet state thermal standards under all conditions, the applicant is required to develop alternate discharge arrangements or procedures so that.,state standards are met. (Section 5.3.1)d. In view of the superior environmental aspects of either of the al.ternative blowdown -discharge methods and locations, the staff will approve the proposed discharge method and location only if the applicant will commit to meet a chlorine design objective of total residual chlorine of. not more than 0.1 mg/l and not 'discharge blowdown containing total residual chlorine when leakage'through the dam is the only flow in.the river downstream of the dam. (Sections 5.3.1, 5.5.2.2 and 9.2.3)e,. Before engaging in a construction activity not evaluated by the Commission,.:the.appli-cant will prepare and record an environmental evaluation of such activity.
When the evaluation indicates that such activity may result in.a significant adverse environmental impact that was not evaluated, or that is signifijcantly greater than thatevaluated in this Environmental Statement, the applicant shall.provide a written evaluation of such activities and obtain prior approval of the Director of Reactor Licensing for the activities'.
f The applicant shall establish a control program which shall'include written procedures and instructions to control all construction activities as prescribed herein and shall provide for periodic management audits to determine the adequacy of implementation of environmental conditions.
The'applicant shall maintain sufficient records to furnish evidence of compliance with all the environmental conditions herein.g. If unexpected harmful effects or evidence Of serious damage are detected during facility construction, the applicant shall provide to the staff an acceptable analysis of the problem and a plan of action to eliminate or significantly reduce the harmful effeci.s or damage.iii CONTENTS Page
 
==SUMMARY==
AND CONCLUSIONS
...............................
..........
..... i LIST OF FIGURES. ..........
......................................................
viii LIST OF TABLES .......................
...................................
.... .ix FOREWORD ..........................
.........................................
..xi 1. INTRODUCTION
..... ............
.................
........................
1-1 1.1 THE PROPOSED PROJECT................................................
... 1-1
 
==1.2 BACKGROUND==
 
........................................
1-1 1.3 STATUS OF REVIEWS AND APPROVALS
...............
........................
..1-2 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 1 ................
...........
..........................
1-2 2. THE SITE ...................................................................
2-1 2.1 LOCATION .......................
....................................
..2-1 2.2 REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHY, LAND AND WATER USE ...........
....................
..2-1 2.2.1 Regional demography
.............
...........................
..2-l'2.2.2 Land use ...................
............................
.... 2-1 2.2.3 Water use. ......................................................
2-3 2.3 HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND NATURAL LANDMARKS
.... ...........
..2-4 2.3.1 Historical sites .................
............................
..2-4 2.3.2 Archaeological sites .................
..........................
2-4 2.4 GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY
...............................................
..2-4 2.4.1 Geology ................
........................
..........
..2-4 2.4.2 Seismology
.....................
...............................
2-4 2.5 SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER
..................
.........................
2-4 2.5.1 Surface water. .................................................
2-4 2.5.2 Groundwater
....................
................................
2-5 2.6 METEOROLOGY
........................
..................................
..2-5 2.6.1 Regional climatology
..............
...........................
..2-5 2.6.2 Local meteorology
................
...........................
..2-5 2.6.3 Severe weather .................
.............................
..2-5 2.7 ECOLOGY OF THE SITE AND ENVIRONS ..............
........................
2-6 2.7.1 Terrestrial ecology .............
...........................
..2-6 2.7.2 Aquatic ecology ..............
.............................
..2-8 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2 .........
...........................
.............
2-14 3. THE STATION ..... ..................................
................
..... .3-1 3.1 EXTERNAL APPEARANCE
......................
..............................
3-1 3.2 REACTOR AND STEAM-ELECTRIC SYSTEMS .......................................
3-1 3.3 STATION WATER USE ....................
...............................
..3-,I 3.4 HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM ..................
............................
..3-1 3.4.1 Cooling towers .................
..............................
..3-1 3.4.2 Intake structure
...................
............................
3-4 3.4.3 Discharge structure
................
........................
I. .3-5 3.5 RADIOACTIVE WASTE SYSTEMS ................
...........................
..3-6 3.5.1 Liquid wastes ................
..............................
..3-8 3.5.2 Gaseous waste ..................
.............................
..3-13 3.5.3 Solid waste systems..
..............
.........................
..3-16 3.6 CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDAL EFFLUENTS
..............
........................
...3-16 3.6.1 Condenser cooling system ........ ........ .................
... 3-18 3.6.2 Filtered water treatment
............
........................
...3-18 3.6.3 Demineralizer regeneration
............
.......................
..3-18 3.6.4 Reactor coolant chemicals
.............
.......................
..3-18 3.6.5 Secondary coolant feedwater
..............
......................
..3-19 3.6.6 Miscellaneous
..............
...............................
..3-19 3.7 SANITARY WASTES AND OTHER EFFLUENTS
..............
.......................
3-19 3.7.1 Temporary sewage ...................
............................
3&#xfd;19 3.7.2 Permanent sewage ...................
............................
3-19-3.7.3 Auxiliary heating systems .............
.......................
..3-19 3.8 TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS .................
..............................
..3-19 3.8.1 Switching station .... ..............
...................
..... .3-19 3.8.2 Transmission routes ..................
...........................
3-20 iv 11 Page 3.9 TRANSPORTATION CONNECTIONS
................
...........................
...3-21 3.9.1 Railroad spur .................
..............................
.. 3-21 3.9.2 Access roads ..................
..............................
...3-21 3.10 CONSTRUCTION PLAN .....................
...............................
...3-21 4. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF SITE PREPARATION AND OF STATION AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION
........................
...............................
4-1 4.1 IMPACTS ON LAND USE .................
...............................
...4-1 4.1.1 Station site ..................
..............................
...4-1 4.1.2 Intake sedimentation basin .............
.......................
..4-3 4.1.3 Transmission lines ................
...........................
...4-3 4.1.4 Railroad spur line ..................
..........................
..4-4 4.1.5 Access roads .. .........
.... .......................
..4-4 4.1.6 Makeup and blowdown pipelines
............
......................
...4-4 4.1.7 Conclusion and summary of land use impact ...... ................
...4-4 4.2 IMPACTS ON WATER USE ..................
..............................
...4-4 4.2.1 Surface water .................
......................
........ ..4-4 4.2.2 Groundwater
.....................
...............................
4-5 4.3 EFFECTS ON ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS .....................
.........................
4-5 4.3.1 Terrestrial
....................
...............................
..4-5 4.3.2 Aquatic ecology .................
.............................
..4-9 4.4 IMPACT ON PEOPLE .................................
4-12 4.4.1 Physical impacts ..................
............................
..4-12 4.4.2 Population growth and construction worker income ...... ............
..4-14 4.4.3 Impact on community services .............
......................
...4-14 4.4.4 Impact on local institutions
.............
......................
...4-14 4.4.5 Impact on recreational capacity of the area ....... ...............
...4-14 4.4.6 Radiation exposure to construction personnel
........ ..............
..4-14 4.5 MEASURES AND CONTROLS TO LIMIT ADVERSE EFFECTS DURING CONSTRUCTION
..........
..4-14 4.5.1 Applicant commitments
.................
..........................
4-14 4.5.2 Staff evaluation
..................
............................
..4-15 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4 .................
...............................
...4-16 5. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF OPERATION OF THE STATION AND TRAIISMISSION FACILITIES
' ...5-1 5.1 IMPACTS ON LAND USE .................
...............................
...5-1 5.1.1 Station operation
................
............................
...5-1 5.1.2 Transmission lines and railroad spur ...........
..................
..5-1 5.2 IMPACTS ON WATER USE ..................................................
...5-2 5.2.1 Surface water ...............
.......................
....... ...5-2 5.2.2 Groundwater
................................
5-2 5.2.3 Water quality standards
.... ...........................
5-2 5.3 PERFORMANCE OF THE HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM ...............
...................
5-3 5.3.1 Heated water discharge into the Broad River ..........
...............
5-3 5.3.2 Cooling tower performance
..............
........................
o.5-4 5.3.3 Water quality standards and effluent limitations
.................
..5-7 5.4 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ..................
..............................
...5-9 5.4.1 Impact on biota other than man .............
.....................
...5-9 5.4.2 Radiological impact on man .............
.......................
..5-11 5.4.3 Environmental effects of the uranium fuel cycle ..... .............
...5-14 5.5 NONRADIOLOGICAL EFFECTS ON ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS ..........
.................
..5-14 5.5.1 Terrestrial
....................
...............................
..5-14 5.5.2 Aquatic ....................................
5-17 5.5.3 Sanitary and other wastes ........ ................
........ 5-24 5.6 IMPACTS ON PEOPLE .........................
...............................
5-24 5.6.1 Physical impacts ..................
............................
..5-24 5.6.2 Population growth and operating personnel income ...... ............
..5-26 5.6.3 Impact on community services .............
......................
...5-26 5.6.4 Impact on local institutions
....... ................
5-26 5.6.5 Impact on recreational capacity of the area ....... ...............
...5-26 5"6.6 Tax payments by the station ............
.......................
..5-26 5.6.7 Conclusions
..................
...............................
...5-27 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5 .....................
..............................
.. 5-28 6. ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND MONITORING PROGRAMS ........ ..................
..6-1 6.1 PREOPERATIONAL PROGRAMS .................
.............................
..6-1 6.1.1 Meteorological
...................
.............................
...6-1 6.1.2 Ecological
....................
...............................
..6-1 Page 6.1.3 Radiological..........
...........
..... ..6.2 OPERATIONAL PROGRAMS....................................
6.2.1 Radiological.........
.........6.2.2 Terrestrial ecology .................6.2.3 Aquatic ecology ....................REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6 ..... ........7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF POSTUALTED ACCIDENTS......
......7.1 PLANT ACCIDENTS INVOLVING RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS
.7.2 TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENTS INVOLVING RADIOACTIVE.
MATERIALS REFERENCES FOR SECTION 7.................................'..
: 8. THE NEED FOR POWER GENERATING CAPACITY .... ...............
8.1 APPLICANT'S SERVICE AREA AND REGIONAL RELATIONSHIPS.
i .* .<...8.1.1 Applicant's service area...........
8.1.2 Regional relationships
............... .8.2 POWER REQUIREMENTS
.... .... .. ........... ...8.2.1 Energy consumption
.... .... ..... ..... .8.2.2 Peak load demand ..... ...................
8.2.3 The impact of energy conservation and substitution on peak load demand..-
................
..8.3 RESERVE REQUIREMENTS
........ ... .....................
..8.3.1 Applicant's reserve requirements
....... ....8.3.2 Regional
.8.4 POWER SUPPLY ...... ..........
.........
................
85 STAFF FORECAST AND ANALYSIS OF RESERVES.................
8.5.1 Peak load forecast'.,...
...................
8.5.2 .Analysis of the auequacy of reserve margins.8.6
 
==SUMMARY==
AND CONCLUSIONS.'.,....
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8........
.......6-2 6-4 6-4 6-4 6-6 7-1.... .....7-2 7-5 8-1 8-I 8-1.... .... ..8-1 8-1 8-1 8-5 hne r"gy and 8-6 8-9 8-9 8-10 8-11* .* , ,. .8-11 8-11 8-17 8-17.... .-.-...." : .* 8-19 9. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
......9.1 ALTERNATIVE BASE-LOAD ENERGY SOURCES AND SITES 9.1.1 Alternatives not requiring creation of 9.1.2 Alternatives requiring the creation of 9.2 ALTERNATIVE PLANT DESIGNS. ....... ........9.2.1 Cooling systems..
......9.2.2 , Intake system .... ..........
.....9.2.3 Blowdown water discharge....
....9.2.4 Transmission lines....
........9.2.5 Railroad spur ...........
........REFERENCES FOR SECTION 9 ..... .. ..n e ..g.e .. -i .c p i.new ,generating capacity new 'genera..ti'ng, ic.a :a&#xa3;.i. ty 10. CONCLUSIONS
...........
..... .. ........ .. .10.1 .UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIONMENTAL EFFECTS ..",-'....10.1.2, Abiotic effects ..... ... ............
....10.1.2 .Biotic effects ..10.2, RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES 'AND LONG-TERM
:PRODUCTIVITY....
10.2.1 Scope ......7.. ,.. -...... .., 10.2.2 Enhancement of productivity.
..,,. , ...10.2.3 Uses .adverse to productivity.................
10.2.4 Decommissioning.........
... ...... .... .....10.3 IRREVERSIBLE ,AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES.
10.3.1. Scope.....
..........
10.3.2 Commitments considered
....... .10.3.3 Biological resources.
.10.3.4 Material resources
...... .. ..10.3.5 Water and air resources
...... .. ....10.3.6 Land resources.........
...10.4, COST-BENEFIT .BALANCE ..........10.4.1 Benefit description of the proposed facility ... .- -..-10.4.2 Cost description of the proposed facility..............
10.4.3 Cost-benefit balance of Commission's RM-50-2, "as low as practicable".
10.4.4 Summary of the cost-benefit!balance.....
'.. ...'.., REFERENCES FOR SECTION. .. ..............................
....9-1'9-1 9-1 9-2 9-11 9-11 9-12 9-13 9-13 9-14 9-15 10-1 10-1 10-1 10-1 10-2 10-2.10-2 10-2 10-2 10-3.10-3 10-3 10-4 10-4 10-6 10-6 10-6 ,10-7 10-10-.10.-10 l0-11 vi
: 11. DISCUSSION.OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFTP'ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT'.
11.1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS BY THE APPLICANT II2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS BY FEDERAL AND
: 11.3 LOCATION OF PRINCIPAL CHANGES IN THE STATEMENT.IN RESPONSE:TO:COMMENTS.
-..Appendix A. COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT BY AGENCIES AND INTERESTED PARTIES .............
.......Appendix B. APPLICANT'S COMMITMENT LETTER RELATING TO THE STAFF'S "UPPER BOUND" RADIOLOGICAL DOSE ANALYSIS ..... ... .... .... ..Appendix C. DESCRIPTION OF THE UPPER-BOUND PROCEDURE FOR .CALCULATING POPULATION DOSES- ...............
Appendix D. COST ESTIMATES FOR ALTERNATIVE BASE-LOAD GENERATION SYSTEMS ........ ........ .........
.... ..Page ,1 1-3 11-3 11-9 A-1 B-i C-I D-1 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 2.2 2.3 Region surrounding the Cherokee Nuclear Station ....... ...........
Population within 50 miles of site ...........
.........................
W-ind roses for the Cherokee site (a) 33-ft level and (b) 135-ft level from September 11, 1973 to September 11, 1974 ....... ....................
Page 2-2 2-3 2.4 Layout of principal features of Cherokee Nuclear Station ..... ..............
3.1 Station water use ..................................3.2 Heat dissipation system for Cherokee Nuclear Station ..... .................
3.3 Conceptual sketch of circular mechanical-draft cooling tower proposed for Cherokee Nuclear Station ...... ... ... ............................
3.4 Design of makeup water intake structure
....... ...... ................
3.5 Relative elevations of the water intake system ....... ...................
3.6 Sketch of cross section through intake water structure on Nlinety-Nine Islands Reservoir
...........
..........................
3.7 Liquid radioactive waste system, Cherokee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3 .. ...... .........................3.8 Gaseous radioactive waste system, Cherokee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3 .................................3.9 Proposed transmission line and rail spur rights-of-way routes ................
4.1 Land use plan ...................................5.1 Staff's analysis of hours of additional ground level fog caused by operation of the cooling towers at the CNS .........
.....................
5.2 Staff's estimate of drift deposition due to operation of the cooling towers at the CNS ..........
..... ..................................
5.3 Exposure pathways to biota other than man ....... .......................
5.4 Summary of residual chlorine toxicity data ...... ... .....................
6.1 Locations of aquatic sampling stations in the CNS site area ............
6.2 Proposed radiological sampling stations ..8.1 Duke Power Company service area ..................... .....8.2 The area encompassed by the Southeastern Electric Reliability Council, its FPC Power Supply Areas, and areas of load concentration
............
9.1 Consumption of natural gas in the United States by electric utilities for electrical energy generation
...... ..... ..........................
9.2 Load-generation regions in Duke Power Company's service area ..... ............
D.1 Use of the CONCEPT program for estimating capital costs ..... ...............
2-6 2-9 3-2 3-4 3-5 3-7 3'_7/3-8 3-10 3-14 3-20 4-2 5-6 5-10 5-21 6-3 6- .8-2 8-3 9-4-9-8 D-2 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Vegetation types of the Cherokee Nuclear Station site ..... ..............
2.2 Occurrence and relative abundance of the fish species collected from the Broad River, Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir, and tributaries near the CNS site, October 1973 through September 1974 .... .........................
3.1 Cherokee Nuclear Station water use ... .... ..... ..... .....3.2 Cooling tower data ..............................3.3 Principal parametersand conditions used in calculating releases of radio-active material in liquid and gaseous effluent from Cherokee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3 .................
.... ............................
3.4 Liquid radioactive source term (Ci/year/unit) for Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 .....................
...............................
3.5 Gaseous radioactive source term (Ci/year/unit) for Cherokee 1luclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 .....................
...............................
3.6 Chemicals added to liquid effluent during station operation
...............
3.7 Increase in chemical effluent concentration due to cooling tower blowdown .3.8 Estimated average construction employment at Cherokee Nuclear Station .......4.1 Land area requirements for Cherokee Nuclear Station..
.... ...............
4.2 Land use inventory for Cherokee County, South Carolina, as compared with land use for all counties 1958-1967
............
......................
Page 2-7 2-12 3-3 3-6 3-9 3-12 3-15* 3-17* 3-17 3-21 4-3 4-5 4.3 Summary of environmental impacts due to construction
....... ...............
4-13 5.1 Freshwater bioaccumulation factors (pCi/kg organism per pCi/liter water) ....... 5-11 5.2 Annual integrated dose to the U.S. population
..........
.........
....... 5-12 5.3 Environmental impact of transportation of fuel and waste to and from one light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor ...... ................
..5-13 5.4 Summary of annual doses to the U.S. population
....... ...... ...........
..5-14 5.5 Summary of environmental considerations for uranium fuel cycle .............
..5-15 5.6 Thermal tolerances of several fish species found in the Broad River .... ....... 5-19 5.7 Summary of environmental impacts due to operation
...... ................
..5-25 6.1 Sampling stations, gear, and methods used in the applicant's preoperation aquatic ecological monitoring program ..... ................
..6-2 6.2 The preoperational radiological monitoring program ..... ................
..6-4 7.1 Classification of postulated accidents and occurrences
.............
....7-2 7.2 Summary of radiological consequences.
of postulated accidents
.............
..7-3 7.3 Environmental risks of accidents in transport of fuel and waste to and from a typical light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor .... ...........
..7-4 8.1 Energy consumption, and summer peak load Duke Power Company, historic and forecast, 1964-1988
.....................
...............................
8-4 ix Table Page 8.2 ,,:,Percentage consumption of electricity in several categories for the United.States in 1960; for the United States, and the South Atlantic States in 1972, and for the applicant's service area in 1973 ....... ... .... ... ... ...... .8-5 8.3 Statistics on cost and consumption of electr~icity:
(196,4-1.971)......
............
8-7 8.4 Planned power capacity at the time of summer peak Duke Power Company 1975 through 1988 ........ ... ................................
... 8-12 8.5 Electrical capacity projections
........ ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ....... 8-11 8.6 Annualized compound rates of growth for ,qross national product, consu;1ption, investment, employment, and productivity
... ...........
.*.. .8-14 8.7 United States population, employment, personal income and earnings, actual and projected, selected years 1962-1990
..........
.....................
8-15 8.8 Average annual percentage rates of.change, United States population, employment,, personal income and earnings, actual and projected, selected periods 1962-1990
.8-15 8.9 Population, employment, and personal income, total of BEA economic areas 025, 026, and 028 and SMSA 065, historical and projected, selected years 1962-1990..
8-16 8.10 Average annual percentage rate of change, population, employment, and personal income, historic and projected, BEA economic areas 025, 026, and.028, and SMSA 065, selected periods 1962-1990
...... ................
...............
8-16 8.11 BEA economic areas 025, 026, and 028 and SMSA 065 as a ratio of United States average annual rate of change of population, employment:and income, historic and projected, selected periods 1962-1990
..........
....................
8-17 8.12 Reserve margin analysis for applicant and staff peak load forecasts 1983 throuqh 1990 ....... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... ..... ...........
..... ... ...8-18 9.1 Estimated capital and operating costs for 3840-rIWe nuclear (PWR) and coal-fueled power stations utilizing mechanical.draft cooling towers....
.--. " 9-3 9.2 Duke Power Company's four major load-generation regions, their major rivers, and their approximate 1983 base-load power capability....
............
9-9 9.3 Comparison of the applicant's feasible site-plant alternatives 9-10 10.1 Estimated quantities of materials of construction of water-cooled nuclear power plants .... ..........................
.............
10-5 10.2 Benefits from the proposed Cherokee Nuclear Station ....... ...............
10-7 10.3 Environmental costs of Cherokee Nuclear Station ....... .................
10-8 D-l Assumptions used in CONCEPT calculations
...........
....................
D-3 D-2 Plant capital investment summary for, a 3840.MWe pressurized-water-reactor-nuclear power plant utilizing mechanical-draft-evaporative coolint; towers D * * -4 D-3 Total plant capital investment cost estimated for a three-unit 3840 MWe coal-fired plant with mechanical-draft-evaporati.ve cooling ,towers as an::alternative
..to the Cherokee Nuclear Station ....... .........................
... D-5 x FOREWORD This environmentafl, statement was prepared.
by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (staf&#xfd;f) i'n ,accordance with- the Commission's regulation, 10 CFR Part 51, which implements the .requirements of.the National Environmental Policy, Act of '1969,(NEPA)..
The NEPA states', among other things, &#xfd;that it is the, continuing responsibili'ty of the- Federal Government to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerationsiof 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 environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences.
Preserve important historic, cultural ,and natural aspects of 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.&#xfd;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, (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 that would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51, the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation prepares a detailed statement on the foregoing considerations 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 appli-cant submits an environmental report to the NRC. In conducting the required NEPA review, the staff meets with the applicant to discuss items of information in the environmental report, to seek new information from the applicant that might be needed for an adequate assessment, and generally to ensure that the staff has a thorough understanding of the proposed project. In addition, the staff seeks information from other sources that will assist in the evaluation and visits and inspects the project site and surrounding vicinity.
Members of the staff may meet with State and local officials who are charged with protecting State and local interests.
On the basis of all the foregoing, and other such activities or inquiries as are deemed useful and appropriate, the staff makes an independent assessment of the considerations specified in Section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA and 10 CFR 51.xi This evaluation leads to the publication of a draft environmental statement, prepared by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, which is then circulated to Federal, State and local governmental agencies for comment. A summary notice is published in the Federal Register of the availability of the applicant's environmental report and the draft environmental statement.
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 questions and objections raised by the comments and the disposition thereof; a final benefit-cost analysis, which considers and balances the environmental effects of the facility and the alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects with the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits of the facility-and a conclusion as to whether--after the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits are weighed against environmental costs and after available alternatives have been considered--the action called for, with respect to environmental issues, is the issu-ance or denial of the proposed permit or license, or its appropriate conditioning to protect environmental values.Single copies may be obtained as indicated on the inside front cover. Dr. Robert A. Gilbert is the NRC Environmental Project Manager for this statement.
Should there be questions regarding the contents of this statement, Dr. Gilbert may be contacted at the following address: Division of Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 (301) 443-6990 Effective January 19, 1975, activities under the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission regulatory program were assumed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in accordance with the Energy Reorganiza-tion Act of 1974. Any references to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) contained herein should be interpreted as Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).xii
: 1. INTRODUCTION l.i THE PROPOSED PROJECT Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission's regula-tions in Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, an application with an accompanying Environmental Report was filed on March 29, 1974 by Duke Power Company (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) for construction permits for three generating units designated as the Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (Docket Nos. STN 50-491, 50-492, and 50-493), each of which is powered by a pressurized water reactor (PWR) and is designed for initial operation at approximately 3817 MWt with a net electrical output of 1280 M14e. Condenser cooling will be accomplished through the use of circular mechanical-draft cooling towers. Makeup water for the cooling towers will be obtained from the Broad River, and the tower discharge (blowdown) will be returned to the Broad River.The proposed facilities will be located on the applicant's 2263-acre site in Cherokee County, South Carolina, about 21 miles east-northeast of Spartanburg and about 8 miles southeast of Gaffney.Integration of the power from CNS will be accomplished by three double-circuit 230-kV lines folded into the Cherokee switchyard.
This will require the construction of approximately 20.5 miles of 230-kV circuit transmission lines into existing electrical systems. A 230-kV switchyard will be located on the Cherokee site in proximity to the generating units and will constitute the terminus of the 230-kV circuits over which the output of the station will be delivered to the load centers.
 
==1.2 BACKGROUND==
 
10 CFR Part 51 requires that the NRC analyze the applicant's Environmental Report and prepare a detailed statement of environmental considerations.
It is within this framework that this Environmental Statement related to the construction of the Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, has been prepared by the Division of Reactor Licensing (staff) of the Nuclear Regulatory
*Commission.
Major documents used in the preparation of this statement were the applicant's Environmental Report (ER), and supplements thereto, and the applicant's Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR). In this Environmental Statement, the ERI is cited extensively and the PSAR 2 is cited a number of times; however, their full titles and documentation are given only in the list of references for Sect. 1. Elsewhere in this statement, references to these two documents will appear as the abbreviations ER and PSAR, respectively, followed by the number(s) of specific sections, pages, tables, figures, and appendices.
Independent calculations and other sources of information were also used by the staff as a basis for the assessment of environmental impact. In addition, some of the information was gained from visits by the staff to the site, the Town of Gaffney, and the surrounding areas in August 1974.Members of the staff also had discussions with representatives of the South Carolina State Environmental Health and Safety Commission, State Wildlife and Marine Resources Commission, local officials of the Town of Gaffney and Cherokee County, South Carolina, and local conserva-tion officers.As a part of the Commission's safety evaluation leading to the issuance of construction permits and operating licenses, it makes a detailed evaluation of the applicant's plans and facilities for minimizing and controlling the release of radioactive materials under both normal conditions and potential accident conditions, including the effects of natural phenomena on the facility.Inasmuch as these aspects are considered fully in other documents, only the salient features that bear directly on the anticipated environmental effects are repeated in this Environmental Statement.
Copies of this Environmental Statement and the applicant's Environmental Report are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C., and at the local Public Document Room, Gaffney Library, Gaffney, South Carolina.1-1 1-2 1.3 STATUS OF REVIEWS AND APPROVALS The applicant has provided a status listing of environmentally related permits, approvals, and licenses required from Federal, State, regional, and local agencies in connection with the pro-posed project (ER, Sect. 12). The staff has reviewed this listing and has consulted with some of the appropriate agencies in an effort to identify any significant environmental issues of concern to the reviewing agencies.
As a result of this effort, no potential non-NRC licensing problems have been identified.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 1 1. Duke Power Company, Environmental Report, Cherokee'Nuclear Station, Units Z, 2, and 3, Docket Nos. STN 50-491, 50-492, and 50-493, March 29, 1974, Amendment No. 1, September 20, 1974.2. Duke Power Company, Pre7liminary Safety Analysis Report, Cherokee NucZear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Docket Nos. STN-50-491, 50-492, and 50-493, March 29, 1974.
: 2. THE SITE 2.1 LOCATION The proposed construction site of Cherokee Nuclear Station (CNS) lies in eastern Cherokee County, South Carolina, about 21 miles east-northeast of Spartanburg and 8 miles southeast of Gaffney.The center reactor is to be located at 350 02' 12" north latitude and 810 30' 43" west longitude about 1000 yd west of the Broad River. Figure 2.1 (ER, Fig. 2.1-1) shows the cities, towns, major roads, and other nuclear installations within 50 miles of the site.The site is bordered on the north and east by the Broad River and is directly west of Ninety-Nine Islands Hydro Station, which impounds the Broad River contiguous to the site. Details of present site usage and site development plans are given~in the applicant's Environmental Report (ER, Sect. 2.1).2.2 REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHY, LAND AND WATER USE 2.2.1 Regional demography The proposed site is located in an area of relatively low population density; only about 500-600 residents live within a 2-mile radius. The estimated 1970 population within 10 miles of the station was 31,877. Within a 50-mile radius, the 1970 population was estimated to be 1,308,327 as indicated in Fig. 2.2. The nearest towns of any size are Blacksburg, with a population of.2000, and.Gaffney, the Cherokee County Seat, with a population of &#xfd;13,000. Draytonville Elemen-tary School, approximately 4.3 miles west of the site, is the only school within a 5-mile radius.The nearest public hospital (164 beds) is located in Gaffney about 8 miles west-northwest of the site.Although there are no major industries within 5 miles of the site, the nearest industry is Burlington Industries (250 employees) in Cherokee Falls about 3 miles northwest of the site.However, there are a number of industries, ranging in size from 3 to 1000 employees, within 10 miles of the site.The applicant determined the population within 5 miles of the site by a house count in Cherokee County (made 'in November 1973) and from tax assessor records in York County. Beyond that point, the applicant used 1970 census data. Population projections for the years 1984 and.2024 were based on extrapolations of projections made by Region IV Environmental Protection.
Agency.' The staff's review and assessment of census data.are in agreement with the applicant's census data.More detailed treatment of the local and regional demography is found in the applicant's Environ-mental Report (ER, Sect. 2.2).2.2.2 Land use .The area surrounding the near vicinity of the site (within a 5-mile radius) is rural and lightly populated.
Both counties adjoin.ing the site, York and Cherokee,..are largely rural in character.
However, both counties demonstrate~a pattern of industrial development adjacent to the major transportation routes. The towns of Gaffney and Blacksburg are the major urban areas in Cherokee County. Most of the industries in Cherokee County are located in or adjacent to these urban areas.The major cultivated (farming) areas of Cherokee County lie west of theBroad River with row crops and orchards,as well as cattle farms, predominating.
The pountry industry, the largest agricultural income producer in the area, is concentrated in the eastern part of Cherokee County.While there are no wildlife preserves within a 5-mile radius of the site, there are several areas to the south and southeast within 3-5.mi.les of the site that have been donated to the South Carolina Game Management Program. These areas can be hunted by the public after acquisition of a permit. For further details of land use, see the applicant's Environmental Report (ER, Sect. 2.2).2-1 2-2 0)C, (n ch 0)ci,U 10 V)a.10 4-)(a 0)U'0) 2-3 ES -628 1970 LL N 18073 43778 1040 403-I_ 1846 8431 63630 2.2.3.1 Surface water In the vicinity of the site, the Broad River is the major source of water supply. The nearest downstream municipal intake is about 21 miles downstream and has a capacity of 3.5 Mgd. There are approximately 13 other water intakes on the Broad River or its tributaries within a 50-mile radius of the site. However, the only other downstream intakes on the Broad River in this area are for industrial usage and have a combined capacity of approximately 3.64 Mgd.2.2.3.2 Groundwater Within a 20-mile radius of the site, there are approximately 51 wells or groups of wells* that serve industrial and public uses. The nearest location to the site is a group of five wells (0.03 Hgd capacity) used by Burlington Industries about 3 miles northwest of the site. The applicant's Environmental Report covers this subject in greater detail (ER, Sect. 2.2.2.5).
2-4 2.3 HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND NATURAL LANDMHARKS 2.3.1 Historical sites There are two places within 20 miles of the site listed in the National Register of Historic Places. They are Kings Mountain National Military Park (l0miles northeast) and Cowpens National Battlefield near Chesnee, South Carolina, about'18 miles west-of the site. There are, however, a number of historic sites and buildings, in Cherokee County. "'Among these are the Adams Goudelock House near Thicketty, Fort Thicketty, theCherokee Iron Works, Austels' Grist Mill, and Limestone College in Gaffney. None of these will be directly affected by plant-construction or operation and none are on the site property.2.3.2 Archaeological sites The applicant has not identified any specific archaeological sites in the area'. .-However,"the Institute of Archaeology and-Anthropology of.the University of.South Carolina has, at the request of the applicant, conducted an archaeological site survey of the proposed site area. The results of this survey indicate that no significant sites are endangered by the proposed project .2 2.4 GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY-2.4.1 Geology The geology of the site is discussed only to the extent necessary to provide background for:po-tential environmental impact. The staff analysis related to site safety will be presented in the Safety Evaluation Report.. More detail is given by the applicant (ER, Sect. 2.4; PSAR, Sect. 2.5).The site is located in the Piedmont physiographic province, which extends in a belt 80 to 120 miles wide from New. York to Georgia..
It is bordered on the'northwest by the Blue Ridge province and on the southeast by the coastal plain.Most of the site. is underlain by felsic gneiss, although mafic gneiss, felsic schist, and quartz-ite have been located throughout the site. No active faults have been located within the general site location, but several inactive faults appear in published maps and literature.
Weathering action on the rocks has created a soil overburden that is classified as.being a silt to silty sand composition.
-2.4.2 Seismology The Piedmont (and.the southeastern United States in general) is an area of infrequent earthquakes of only moderate intensity.
Two major earthquakes have occurred in the area. The Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake of 1886 had an epicentral intensity on the Modified Mercalli scale of IX (heavy destruction) andan estimated intensity of VI-VII at the site, 175 miles away. The New Madrid, Missouri, earthquake of 1811-1812 had an epicentral intensity of XII (total destruc-tion) and an estimated intensity at the site (450 miles away) of VI. Altogether, 11 earthquakes (with a maximum epicentral intensity of V or more) have probably been felt at the site during historic times. The nearest to the site was the Union County, South Carolina, earthquake of 1913, with an epicenter 20 miles from the site and an intensity of VI.The applicant has proposed 0.15 gas the earthquake acceleration for safe shutdown in the PSAR.The, staff has this proposal under.review, and the subject will.be addressed in its Safety Evaluation Report.2.5 SURFACE WATERAND GROUNDWATER
...2.5.1 Surface water The dominant source of surface water in the area of the site is the Broad River, which is about 185 miles long and has..a drainage area of.approximately.5240 sq.miles.
The, river is generally:,&#xfd; shallow with width/depth ratios varying f rom-about 50_to 150. it also carries a-large bedload, of material composed.mainly of sand.The river typically attains its periods of lowest flow during the months of July, August, and September.
The mean annual flow measured at a point 5 river miles above the site is 2472 cfs, while the lowest ten-year seven-day average flow (7 Q 1 0) at the same point is 470 cfs. The maximum flow on record is 119,000 cfs.
215 The average temperature of the river ranges from approximately 41 to 82 0 F. The lowest tempera-tures occur during January and February, and the highest occur during July. and August.The applicant discusses the river hydrology in the Environmental Report (Sect. 2.5).2.5.2 Groundwater.
Groundwater in',the`&#xfd;area ofthe site is derived almost entirely from local ,precipitation.
The.applicant has conducted agwell1_survey of the area within:about a'2}5_mle radius#of the site (ER, Sect. 2.5.4.3).
tihe"'dakdt p'sented indicate that most of the 39 wells and four spri'ngssurveyed are th'an 150 ft deep) and have a small flow (media n fowrate of 7 gpm).Of the wells survey'd,.
no known wells: are currently, in, use on .the site although the nearest spring in.us " .:i s about 0 .4 mile northwest.
The applicant has 'pres-ented..
a survey of the wells in the area a6id"&,s Presnted data from about 60 test borings i ntFthe _ninaed iate, area of ,the site (ER, Sect. 2.5.4). -.2.6 METEOROLOGY 2.6.1 Regional &#xfd;climatology The climate ofthe Cherokee site is typical of continental climates in southern areas and is characterized-by cool winters and relatively long, warm summers. :Cold air moving southward into the area from Canada is modified by crossing the Appalachian Mountains and descending the eastern slopes. --: 2.6.2 Local meteorology Clirnatological data from"Charlotte, :Greenvil-le-'Spartanburg Airport; (about. 40' mi es west of the site), Greenville Airport, Spartanburg Airport, and available onsite data have been used.:to assess local meteorological characteristics of the site.Mean monthly temperatures at the site may be expected to range from about 40'F in.January.to about 79&deg;F in July.3 ,' A record maximum temperature of 104&deg;F was reported at Charlotte in September 1954-,3 while the record minimum temperature.for the 'area was -69F, 'reported at Greenville-.
*Spartanburg in January 1966...Annual average precipitation in the site area is about 46 in.) The maximum mean monthly precipi-tation of about 4.9 in. occurs in July, while the minimum mean monthly precipitation-ofabout 2.6 in. occurs in November.
Annual average snowfall averages about 5 in.3 Wind data 5 from the 33-ft level at the Cherokee site for the period September 11, 1973, through September 11, 1974, indicate a prevailing wind direction from the southwest (11.9%) and from the northwest (11.0%). Winds from the south-southeast occurred least frequently at less than 2%.Calms'dccurred about 5.5%-of the time. The average wind speed at the' 33-ft level for the same period, was about 3.6 mpg. Due 'to the 'complex topography of the Isite:area, only onsite data' can be used to truly represent the:site. "The onsite wind rose for the 33-ft level for the period September l, 1973, through:September 11, 1974, is-presented in Fig. 2,3(a).Wind data from the' 135-ft leVel at ;the Cherokee site for the same one-year period ofz record also indicate a prevailing wind -di rection from the southwest (13.3%), although' the remainder of the 135-ft wind :rose is more uniform than the,33-ft wind rose.. Winds :from the east-southeast occurred least frequently' at less than 3%&#xfd;. :!Calnms-Occurred only, 0. 2% 'of. the tinme.- The: -average wind speed for this period at the 135-ft level was about 6.5 mph. The onsite wind rose for-the:135-ft level for the period September 11, 1973, through September 11, 1974, is presented in Fig. 2.3(b).2.6.3 Severe weather The Cherokee" 'site, may be .affected by th'understorms, tornadoes, tropipcal storms, and hurricanes.
Thunderstorms can be expected to occur about 42 days per year, being most frequent from 'June'.through August.3 DuringIg the period 1955-1967,'only fdur torn adoes were reported i~n the ,.lati~tude-longitude::square containing the site, giving mean annual f 'equeny O'f 0.3 6 The computed recurrence
:interval for a tornado at the plant site is 4400 years.7 2-6 ES -2276 NNW NNE NNW NNE WNW ENE WNW ENE 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16% 0.2% 4 6 8 10 12 14 16%SW SE SW SE SSW SSE SSW SE (0) s (b) s Fig. 2.3. Wind roses for the Cherokee site (a) 33-ft level and (b) 135-ft level from September 11, 1973, to September 11, 1974.In the period 1871-1971, 27 tropical storms, hurricanes, and depressions passed within 50 miles of the site.8 The "fastest mile" wind speed recorded at Greenville Airport was 79 mph (ER, Table 2.6.1-1, Amendment 3).In the period 1936-1970, there were about 84 atmospheric stagnation cases totaling about 325 days reported in the site area.9 The maximum monthly frequency occurs in October.2.7 ECOLOGY OF THE SITE AND ENVIRONS 2.7.1 Terrestrial ecology 2.7.1.1 Physical characteristics The site is located near the center of the Piedmont physiographic province on the west bank of the Broad River. The topography of the site is similar to that along much of the river in the area and consists mostly of gentle slopes, with steep slopes in some areas. The center of the'exclusion area is located on a rise surrounded, for the most part, by outward radiating ridges and ravines that lead toward the river and two of its smaller tributaries.
Soils on both uplands and valley slopes belong to the Hopludults (Red-Yellow Podzolic) great soil group and are iden-tified by the Soil Conservation Service as the Tatum series -a deep, well-drained Piedmont soil.Tatum soils have moderate permeability, moderately slow infiltration, medium available moisture capacity, low natural fertility, and low content of organic matter. Alluvial soils occur along the river bottoms.2.7.1.2 Vegetation The site is almost entirely forested, although no virgin forest is present. The exclusion area is largely uncleared, except for a few roads, a power line right-of-way, and the meteorological tower site. Outside of the exclusion area there is some cleared farm land in the southeastern and western portions of the Duke-owned property.The combined effects of topographic variations and resultant soil drainage characteristics, past land use practices, and dynamics of the Broad River have led to the establishment of several vegetation types. The types and their general locations on the site are given in Table 2.1.The applicant has provided data on plant species composition of forests found on the Cherokee site (ER, Tables 2.7.1-4 through 2.7.1-11).
The data indicate that the forests are similar to 2-7 widespread forests that would be expected to occur in the Piedmont area of South Carolina.1 0, 1 1 The American beech-mountain laurel community (ER, Table 2.7.1-7), however, is an interesting variant not mentioned by publications 1 0 , 1 1 that include this geographic area (see discussion of this community in Sect. 4.3.1.1).
The forest types and their acreages (staff estimates from ER, Fig. 2.7.1-2 supplement) exist within the 450-acre exclusion area on the site as follows: pine forest, 228 acres; oak-hickory, 141 acres; mixed mesic hardwood, 50 acres; and mountain laurel-hardwood, 7 acres. The single stand of laurel hardwood forest occupies only 0.2% of the total area mapped (3348 acres) and therefore may be considered a rare forest type on the site.Table 2.1. Vegetation types of the Cherokee Nuclear Station site Typea Dominant speciesb Location Cattail marsh Typha.latifolia Shore of Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir Alluvial forest Boxelder, river birch Adjacent to Broad River, (61, 63) on sandy silt Alluvial thicket Black willow, cottonwood, Low lying land between common elderberry reservoir and river Hardwood-Mountain laurel, American Steep north-facing bluffs Mountain beech, American holly laurel forest (44, 90)Mixed mesic American beech, sugar maple, Lower slopes and valley forest (76, 90) American holly, red cedar, sides on well-drained soils white oak Pine forest (75) Shortleaf pine, red cedar Soils of low fertility that have been timbered, cultivated, or burned Pine scrub (79) Virginia pine On eroded sites that were originally pine forests or old fields Oak-hickory Scarlet oak, red oak Upland slopes and ridge tops forest (41, 52) on well-drained soils'Numbers in parentheses are forest type numbers of the Society of American Foresters, which the given forest types most closely resemble (Society of American Foresters, Forest Cover Types of North America, 1954, p. 67).bDetermined with dominance ratings; see ER,* Table 6.1.4-1.Succession in aquatic areas, leading to the establishment of terrestrial communities, occurs in the following sequence:
floating aquatics, cattails, black willow, cottonwood, and finally Box elder-river birch-water oak. Successional stages on sand bars are forbs, willows, and the cotton-woods. The successional sequence on uplands, as on right-of-ways, is Aster pilosus and Andropogaon virginicus, scrub pine (skipped in plant succession on many areas of the site), short-leaf pine, and hardwoods.
Almost all the site has been, at one time or another, disturbed by man's activities.
Because of clearing during early days of settlement and subsequent activities, virgin forests are completely absent from the site as well as from the entire Piedmont region.1 2 The clear-abandon process has been repeated on many lands, resulting in forests of different ages and different stages of succession.
According to the applicant (ER, Sect. 2.7.1.1.5), nonextensive logging, mostly selective harvest-ing of pine species, is being conducted by local land owners on the proposed site. Pines are logged from pine plantations, mixed hardwood stands, and mesic pine woodlands, which tend to favor and accelerate the establishment of hardwood species on the site (ER, Sect. 2.7.1.1.5).
Later information supplied by the applicant, however, states that there was no selective har-vesting of pine but that all logging was general (ER, Question 2.7.22g).
The applicant does not know the extent of cutting nor future plans..Because role in aquatic most of the land is gradually to steeply sloping, existing vegetation plays an important preventing rapid runoff with resultant erosion, loss of soil, siltation of nearby habitats, flooding, and lowered replacement rates of groundwaters.
2-8 2; 7: 1 .3: Fauna The variety of plant species and types:of;vegetation present provide:suitable habitat for:numerous vertebrate and invertebrate-species.
-.I-nvertebrate species have not been surveyed butowould be;!.'expected.;to~include-common-species-.existing in.eastern forests: .- .As determined from a.report-of probable mammalian species compiled for the Cherokee site' Table 2.7.1-13) and .scant data from a small iamount of sampling :(ER, Table 2.7.1-16), 19 mammalian species are known to occur on the site and have been observed, and 42 species are known to occur in the vicinity of the site. Population studies were too limited to allow comparisons of the abundance of mammals in different-plant communities in the site,. although large numbers of rice rats were captured in the aid'alluvvial species captured (during December 10-16, 1973) include the white-footed mouse (1), shorttail shrew (1), eastern cottontail (1), and opossum (2)..-. Feral housecats
.(3) and _dogs'.(1)'were also-captured.
Population data for the region surrounding the site is available in published literature.
--The only endangered mammal'ian spec'ie's that could occur on the site is the eastern cougar, but it would occur there so rarely that the rsite can be judged irisigr-ificant't6&#xfd;th6 ftatus of the cougar.Of 241 species of birds-,that could potentially.
occur- on -the-.Cherokee site,. 99 have been observed there by the applicant's consultants..
Few data for.breedingbirds and summer populations are provided, but such data for the region are available in the.literature.
Three:endangered avian species that could potentially oddur'on the site are tle baldeagle, the peregrine falcon, and the red-cockaded woodpecker.
The latter species is the only-one that migh't reside on the site, but to date, no individuals have been observed.
The staff has observed the&-."forest on the site and did not find any habitat of mature park-like pine forest that would be suitable for red-cockaded woodpeckers. -The other,-two;:species might--occur-alonig the Broad Ri've6, during nonbreeding seasons, but the site-is of no-particular importance to-them. Use of the river by waterfowl is light, and the site is of no particular importance to any waterfowl population.
Reptiles and amphibians include.-64 species that could potentially occur on the site and 27 species that have been observed, on. the site. One rare species, the bog turtle, could occur on the site but has not been observed.2.7.2 Aquatic ecology The Broad River will be the-primary source of cooling tower makeup water as'_ell as the receiving stream for most liquid effluents released from CNS-. The river, including Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir, will therefore -be the -principal aqu'atic :ehnVironment ,impacted' by the construction and operation of CNS. &#xfd;- Other-aquatic environments that will. be&#xfd; affected'-by CNS i.nclude the two onsite creeks that will be impounded to form the nuclear service, Wat-er' po'nd and"the."'intake sedimentation basin (see Fig. 2.4). The applicant has -fn-itiated'an etolo-didal.1mon'tori-ngprogram of the CNS site and environs.
Data collected during the interval from October 1973 through March 1974 are presented in the applicant's Environmental Report (ER, Sect. 2.7.2). Specific communities of the aquatic environment are discussed briefly in the following sections.2.7.2;11: T-he.Broad River ." ..".The Broad: River originates in the western North Carolina mountains and flows' .southeasterly to a point near Gaffney, South Carolina.'
it then'flows southtO Clumbia, South Carol ina, where i --is. joined-by the Saluda-Riverto:
form:the Congaree River.The drainage area of the river above the proposed site is 1550 sq miles. The river has had a maximum- flow of--record near-the site'of 119,000'cfs and a&#xfd; lowest seven-day*
ten_-year average.flow: (7;Qi o) of- 470 cfs. ': Mean annual flow: is 2472' cfs.,' Maximum flows generally occur. inMarch, while'lowest -flows occur from July through September (ER, Fig. 2.5-1-5).
' The average monthly .river veloci-ty for.October:.1973'through Mar~h 1974- aged from.2.0 to 4.8 fps (ER, Sct. 2.m 5.1), Excluding Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir, the river can be characterized as being wide (80.m).)*and.shallow:(O;,5 to 1 im). The bottom substrate is generally sandy, interspersed approximately every 1/4-mile by rocky 'shoals.:'The river carries a -large bed iO'ad of sand.-and'is generally.
quite.turbid, with an average total sus-pended solids1 c'o'ntent of ..10 35 mg/l (ER,-Taible:3.6.2-,1
.The site of CNS is on the shore ofNinety-Nine Islands Reservoi r, 'a.
reservoir bui.lt about::1910.
-This -reservdir retains few&#xfd; lake characteristics because it has been, largely filled in with silt. The bottom sediments of the '!reservoir are silty loam (ER, Sect.6.1.1.1).
Moderately rapid river current is maintained in the main channel.of the,-river t the,-reservoi r.. The, on.ly'-1entic
-('stahding entvi from the or hroeuehout aresevral-bckwate areas (Fig. 2.4). The' reservoi ha.ital n o, ,theng orginag reservoir are several. backwater
'areasl (,Fi~g=.4.
'The 'reservoir has -virta 1y no re'min~ storg aa y x ES-615 A:"i --~~~~~ -:- --------- SI LTED'------- BACKWATER HOLDINGAREAS.---- .1- , FT-JffWAST EWATERPN I IITREATMENT.
DD AREA REACTO NWCOOLING TWR IN--TA K TOER REACTOR 9d61 YARD ELEV.BDS ----23I SWITCHING TOWESE--60qY V 610'YARD ELEV."-----'-"TOWER
:::: ~610' YARD ELEV. MAKEUP":V4o, OVSW "' -.. -INTAKE ------------
Ii
* NINETY-NINE ISLANDS DAM FUTURE---------
5588 V SWITCHINGNG
--- A STATION -.S"SC ALE C S.800 FT. OA BASIN INTA NLW DOWN A A DSCHARG E Fig. 2.4. Layout of principal features of Cherokee Nuclear Station.
2-10 Information on the limnology of the Broad River and Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir is presented by the applicant (ER, Sects. 2.5.1 and 2.5.2).2.7.2.2 Aquatic biota of the Broad River Primary producers The Broad River, due to its normally high turbidity, has a trophic structure that is probably based on allochtonous primary production.
1 3 Autochtonous primary production is, therefore, of lesser importance.
Studies by'the applicant have indicated that about 78% of the suspended organic material in the river is of terrestrial origin (ER, Sect. 2.7.2.1.1).
Aquatic macrophytes Several marshy areas that exist in the backwaters of the reservoir support substantial populations of emergent hydrophytes, principally Typha latifolia and Sagittaria ZatifoZia (ER, Table 2.7.1-4).The existence of other populations of aquatic macrophytes in the river and the reservoir is doubtful because of the high turbidity and changing water levels of the river.Phytoplankton True phytoplankton (euplankton) communities are not characteristic of turbid, fast-flowing rivers such as the Broad.1 3 The planktonic flora recognized in collections made by the applicant have probably been derived from lentic and benthic populations that have been carried into the river current. Nearly all the periphyton species collected by the applicant were also found among the phytoplankton (ER, Table 2.7.2-16).
Phytoplankton densities in the river, exclusive of the backwaters of the reservoir, were generally low. Highest'densities
(-500 cells/ml) were encountered in the spring and summer, while lowest densities
(%I00 cells/ml) were found in the fall and winter. Numerically, diatoms dominated the phytoplankton throughout the year, while the bluegreens, though present in low numbers, generally dominated the total biovolume of the phytoplankton.
These relationships generally held throughout the year except for the winter, when diatoms dominated both in numbers and biovolume.
Green algae were occasionally abundant, generally in the late summer. The phytoplankton commu-nity of the reservoir was similar in composition and followed similar seasonal trends, as did the community of the river. Densities, however, were generally considerably higher. The highest densities encountered (b5500 cells/ml) were found in October 1973. Bloom conditions have been occasionally reported (ER, Sect. 2.7.2.1.3).
A list of the phytoplankton species collected from the CNS site area is presented in the ER, Table 2.7.2.1. Section 2.7.2.1 of the ER provides quantitative data on the phytoplankton of the river and the reservoir.
Periphyton Sampling by the applicant indicated that the periphyton of the river is comprised largely of diatoms, with some blue-green algal taxa occasionally present. The instability of the site environs (changing water levels, scouring, and turbidity) made interpretation of data on pro-ductivity or densities of algae difficult, and no discernable patterns were elucidated.
Addi-tional data on the applicant's periphyton collections-are presented by the applicant (ER, Sect. 2.7.2.3).Consumers Zooplankton.
In lentic environments, zooplankton are a primary link between primary production and higher trophic levels. In lotic (flowing-water) environments, their role is less important and is replaced by benthic invertebrates.
1 3 Those zooplankters present are generally immigrants from lentic or benthic populations that have been washed into the river current.The zooplankton community of rivers is often dominated by rotifers.1 3  In the river, exclusive of the reservoir's backwaters, rotifers dominated the zooplankton throughout the sampling year except during the coldest months, when zooplankton populations were lowest. During this period, the copepods and cladocerans predominated.
Zooplankton densities in the river usually ranged between 200 and 600 per cubic meter.The zooplankton community of the reservoir differed substantially from the river community.
Rotifers were not as abundant but still made up a major numerical component of the samples, especially in the fall and winter. Compared to river samples, zooplankton densities were 2-11 generally higher in the reservoir.
Since the reservoir community was comprised of a higher percentage of copepods and cladocerans, the biomass density of zooplankton was considerably higher than in the river. Densities ranged from as low as 170 per cubic meter in March to as high as 75,000 per cubic meter in June.A list of the zooplankton taxa collected in the CNS area is presented in the ER, Table 2.7.2-4.Quantitative data on the zooplankton of the river and the reservoir are presented by the appli-cant (ER, Sect. 2.7.2.2 and Question 2.7.3).Benthos In a turbid river such as the Broad, the benthic invertebrate community is the principal link between primary production, detritus, and the higher trophic levels, primarily fish. The bottom substrate of a river, along with water quality, largely determines the benthic community that will develop.The benthic fauna of those areas of the river having a sandy substrate was dominated by chiron-omids, principally nr. Demicryptochironomus sp. n. Other abundant taxa included the phantom midge, Chaoborus punctipennis, oligochaetes, and Gomphidae.
The density of benthic organisms in samples from sandy areas ranged from 49 to 1000 per square meter.No seasonal changes in the benthos species composition were discernable.
Chironomids continued to dominate samples throughout the sampling year. In areas of rock substrate, such as exist occasionally above and below the reservoir, the trichoptera and ephemeroptera were more abundant, and they often dominated the samples. The most abundant taxa recognized were Chewnatopsyche sp., Stenonema sp., AmeZetus sp., and Demicryptochironomus sp. Densities of benthos collected from rocky substrate areas were higher than from sandy substrate areas and ranged from 58 to 3741 per square meter. No seasonal trends were apparent.The benthic community of the reservoir was similar in many respects to the sandy substrate community of the river except that the phantom midge Chaoborus punctipennis was the dominant taxon (56% of collections) while chironomids were next with 37% of the collections.
Benthos densities were generally much higher in the reservoir than.in the river, ranging from about 200 to 4500 square meter. No obvious seasonal trends in species composition were apparent.
A species list of the benthos collected from the CNS site is presented in the ER, Table 2.7.2-11.Specific data on species composition and abundances are given by the applicant (ER, Tables 2.7.2.4 and 2.7.2-15).
Nekton Broad River. A total of 24 fish species was collected by the applicant from the river proper.Cyprinids (minnows) were the dominant family in the collections, comprising nine species and 75% of all individuals collected.
Centrarchids (sunfishes) were second in abundance (five species and 8% of individuals) followed by the clupeids (shad) (Table 2.2). Fishing in the river is primarily for white and channel catfish (Ictalurus spp.), 1 4 although only two specimens of one of these species (white catifsh) were collected by the applicant.
A list of fish species and numbers collected from the river is presented in Table 2.2.Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir.
Collections in the backwater areas of the reservoir revealed a more typical lake-type fish community than the river proper. A total of 15 species was collected.
Centrarchids, including largemouth bass, bluegills, and crappie, were the numerically dominant species (67% of the total number) and, along with catfish, are the target of the fishing effort on the reservoir.
1 4 Abundant forage species collected from the reservoir included threadfin and gizzard shad (Dorosoma spp.) and the golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoZeucas).
The common carp and the quillback carpsucker (Carpiodes cyprinus), both categorized as "rough fish," comprised a large percentage of the total weight of fish collected, that is, 24% and 40%, respectively.
Ichthyoplankton Data presented by the applicant indicate that the river has relatively few fish larvae compared to the lentic areas of the reservoir.
The most common fish larvae taxa encountered in the river were catostomids (suckers) and shad. Maximum densities of catostomid larvae (68 per 1000 M 3)were collected in early May. Shad larvae (Dorosoma spp.) were collected primarily in June (up to 570 per 1000 m 3). Other taxa recognized were carp larvae and unidentified cyprinids.
The lentic areas of the reservoir had much higher numbers of fish larvae. Specimens were first caught in late April and continued to be found throughout May and June. Maximum densities en-countered were 1330 per 1000 m 3 The most common taxa recognized were shad (Dorosoma spp.), crappie (Pomoxis spp.), and sunfish (Lepomis spp.).
2-12:Table 2.2. Occurrence and relative abundane of thefish species collected.from the Broad River., Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir.
and tributaries nearthe CNS site,: October 1973 through September 1974 :, Species....ns ..River stations Lake stations ._ Onsite creeks -1,2,4,7,8, 15 9,10,12, 13 stations 21,23 n %N n %N n %N ,Clupeidae Dorosoma cepedianum Dorosoma petenense Cyprinidae Clinostomus funduloides Cyprinus carpio .' I...Hybognathus nuchahis :. .Hybopsis hypsinota Hybopsis n. sp.Nocomis leptocephalus S, Notemigonus,crysoleucas6":
Notropis chloristius
:, Notropis.hudsonius:;.yNotropisniveusl.
'Notropis scepticus Semotilus atromaculatusi:
Catostomidae Carpiodes cyprinus Moxostoma anisurum.Moxostoh&#xfd;a robustumr
.lctauridae Ictalurus cat us Ic'talurus nebulosus Ictalurus p/atycephalus' Poecilidae Gambusia affinis Centrarchidae Lepomis auritus Lepomis gibbosus .Lepomnis gulosus.* Lepornis mnacrochirus, Micropterus salmnoides Pomoxis annularis
...onlxisnigromaculatus
-Percidae Etheostoma flabellare Etheostoma thalasinum
.~~~Total......
130 -10.6, 19" 16.. 179.9 .1 ,1.5!',,70 -!451.2.4.&#xfd;51 302,.,,.; 460, 65 0.3.'4.1:: 24.5; 0.2'5.3',1,7j 1.,:: ..1!:-s.'1114*5" 9.3" 0:1::;F+?:100.0 145': .14 ' .2 7..- 0:6 8 0.6-0.2 0.1 0.2 23*j&#xfd;.0.6 42 3.4 44 2.8 6 3.&#xfd;79 3.-1231 0.5 0.2... 20 6.' 4 _861 0.8 88&#xfd;0.1' 43, 0.1 0;2'1555::55.4 5'7 1.9 2.8,.. 1141endangere fish' secies Three rare or endangered fish species may exist in the river. An undekcribed Species of ilybopsis n. is occasionally found in the river, but its current status is undetermined.
Two species of endangered darters are present in the area, Etheostoma colZis and E. thalasinum; E. thalasinwum has been collected regularly by the applicant in a tri.butary of the river, but E. coZlis has not been collected to .date (ER, Sect. 2.7.2.6.8).
2.7.2.3 The biota of tIle site creeks .The two creeks present on the CNS site a~re very similr hydrolically and ecologically and there-fore will be discussed together.
Bothhave clear, col~d water .that, flows, downa:moderate.gradient.
through al ternating pools. and ,gravel riffles., Mean, annual-' fldWs ,are approbximately cf for 1'h ,the smalIer' cre.e k an d 3 c6fs f or the' lr er ~ek 2-13 The trophic structure of most small foreststreams is detritus-based.
1 3  A diverse periphyton flora was found in the streams and probably also contributes substantially to the energy inputs into the stream ecosystem.
The periphyton were dominated by diatoms, principally Achnanthes, Navicula, *and Gomphonemna
.(ER,-Table 2.7.2-16)...
The benthic communities of the creeks were diverse and abundant.
Numerically dominant were the Chironomidae, followed by .the Trichoptera and %the Ephemeroptera.
Benthos densities-ranged from 11 to 865 per square meter for the sampling period (ER,-Question.2.7..3).
Only:one fish species,.
the creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), has been collectedfrom the creeks. ,
2-14 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2 1. "Population by County, Historic (1940-1970) and Projected (1980-2020)
Region IV," Environ-mental Protection Agency, Atlanta, Ga., July 1972.2. Charles E. Lee, State Historic Preservation Officer, letter to Daniel R. Muller, AEC Staff, July 15, 1974, Docket Nos. 50-492, and 50-493.3. U.S. Department of Commerce, Environmental Data Service, "Local Climatological Data, Annual Summary with Comparative Data -Charlotte, North Carolina," published annually through 1972.4. U.S. Department of Commerce, Environmental Data Service, "Local Climatological Data, Annual Summary with Comparative Data -Greenville-Spartanburg, South Carolina," published annually through 1972.5. Duke Power Company, Environmental Report Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units, 1, 2, and 3, Docket Nos. 507491, 50-492, and 50-493.6. SELS Unit Staff, National Severe Storms Forecast Center, "Severe Local Storm Occurrences, 1955-1967," ESSA Technical Memorandum WBTM FCST, 12, Office of Meteorological Operations, Silver Spring, Md., 1969.7. H. C. S. Thom, "Tornado Probabilities," Monthly Weather Review, October-December 1963, pp. 730-737.8. G. W. Cry, "Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean," Technical Paper No. 55, U.S.Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Washington, D.C., 1965.9. J. Korshover, "Climatology of Stagnating Anticyclones East of the Rocky Mountains, 1936-1970," NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL ARL-34, Silver Spring, Md., 1971.10. E. L. Braun, Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America, Hofner Publishing Co., New York, 1964.11. Society of American Foresters, Forest Cover Types of North America, 1954, p. 67.12. H. J. Oosting, "An Ecological Analysis of the Plant Communities of Piedmont, North Carolina," Amer. Mid. Natur. 28: 1-128 (1942).13. H. B. N. Hynes, The Ecology of Running Waters, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1970.14. B. Parkhurst, AEC Staff, memorandum to H. E. Zittel, AEC Staff, re: Trip Report -Cherokee Nuclear Station Site Visit, August 20, 1974, Docket Nos. STN 50-491, 50-492, and50-493.
: 3. THE STATION 3.1 EXTERNAL APPEARANCE The CNS will be located in hilly terrain about I mile west of the Ninety-Nine Islands Dam. The main structures for the power station will be located on elevated portions of the site, and they will be visible from several vantage points in the surrounding countryside (see Fig. 2.4).One of the noticeable features of the station will be the three domed reactor buildings, each about 220 ft in diameter and standing about 160 ft above the finished grade level. The centerline distance between the reactor buildings is about 400 ft. Each of the three units will also have a separate turbine-generator building, about 300 ft x 400 ft x I10 ft high above finished grade level. Six cooling towers will be located on an 800- x 1400-ft graded site just west of the re-actor buildings, and three cooling towers will be located east of the buildings on an equilateral-triangle-shaped plot, about 600 ft in major dimension.
The 74-ft-high cooling towers will not, in themselves, be a particularly dominant feature, but the white plumes of water vapor that may at times rise above the towers and drift for long distances downwind will be visible for many miles, particularly on clear, cold days.In addition to the reactor and turbine-generator building, each unit will be provided with an auxiliary building.
An equipment building and an administration building will be shared by the three units.The applicant states that the architectural style of the station will be contemporary (ER, Sect.3.1). The reactor buildings will have a concrete exterior surface, and the turbine-generator building will have a masonry wainscot topped with colored siding. The station will be landscaped after construction is completed by using materials that are generally native to the area. The staff considers that the station will have a neat, functional appearance.
3.2 REACTOR AND STEAM-ELECTRIC SYSTEMS The three units at CNS are identical and contain pressurized water reactors manufactured by Combustion Engineering, Inc., and turbine generators manufactured by General Electric Company.The reactor fuel is Zircaloy-clad uranium dioxide with a maximum enrichment of 2.9%. Each unit of the nuclear steam supply system has a guaranteed main steam flow of 17,185,000 lb/hr and a warranted output of 3817 MWt. The turbine generators have a gross rated electrical output of 1345 MWe and a "valve-wide-open" rated capacity of 1387 MWe. The cycle net heat rate is given as 9683 Btu/kWhr, which is a thermal efficiency of about 35.3%. The total net electrical output for the three-unit station is 3840 MWe.3.3 STATION WATER USE The station will use water from the Broad River for all purposes during normal operation.
Water from the river will be pumped into the intake sedimentation basin from which water will be drawn for all station usage. The largest single usage will be makeup for the cooling towers, where the largest consumptive usage will occur. A diagram outlining the various water uses in the station is shown in Fig. 3.1 (ER, Fig. 3.3.0-1, Amendment
: 3) and attendant Table 3.1 (ER, Table 3.3.0-1).
Detailed descriptions of the various systems and the quality of their effluents appear in Sects. 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7.3.4 HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM 3.4.1 Cooling towers Combined operation of the three units at CNS at rated capacity will result in the discharge of about 2.6 x l10" Btu/hr to the environment.
This heat will be dissipated primarily to the atmo-sphere through evaporation of water in wet mechanical-draft-type towers. As indicated in the diagram of the heat dissipation system in Fig. 3.2, makeup water for the cooling towers will be pumped from a sedimentation basin, which is supplied with water from the Broad River, and the 3-1 X540 GP G41NOG-EVAPORATION
-DRIFT FM 8i PM ~ 11&#xfd;4 GPM ICIRCLATING COOL IN WATER -SSEM.000 6PM&#xfd;5300 GPM ES-1954 741.1-6P RAINFAL i-SAMOGPM AND" .UNOFF F AUG.INTAKE AINTA V TRO ASH SEDIMENTATION SSTEM -eASIN 1005 OPM AV.. EVAPORATION AND-SEEPAGE 3400 GPM 42006GPM I EXTE ROR FiR E PROTECTION-WATER (.NOTE e0 2 INTEROR FIRE PRO TECTION WATER 3 WATER TREATMENT ROOM SUMP. FILTERS, OEMINERALIZERS 4 WET LATUP ALTERNATE DISPGSAL S VALVE AND.PUMP LEAOOFFS S LEAKAGE FROM RCFP , 7 ALTERNATE ROUTE IF RANDOACTIVITY IS PRESENT 8 NORMAL ROUTE IN ARSENCEOCF RADIOACTIVtTY N. AVERAGE DAILY VOL-UME IS 4200 GALLONS. THE FLOW RATE IS 050 51PM 10 FLOWS GREATER THAN 54000 GRM WILL DRAW STORAGE IN INTAKE SEDIMENTATION BASIN.ALL FLOWS ARE IN GALLONS :PER MINUTE (OPMW AVERAGE MAIMU ... " &deg; : *: : i*~NOTE I FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM 0 GPM 2500 GPM NOTI FILTEREO WATER SYSTEM&#xfd;SJTTLING ASIN PM 'DI O)CORMAM GPM&#xfd;NOTE 2 FINA WASTE TUUR.1&#xfd;14E H IDF .P. *A ER HOLD.A'DRAINS NOTE 'DRAINS NOTE 71 -4'SETTING EINAII&#xfd;N-NOTE 4 0 r'898 spp%,ST CONDENIAT&#xfd; EA MTOR AN D 7 GENERA E' I f FEEDWATER "SLOWDOWN SYSTEM "SYSTEM GRm I NTAINMENT' C.COOLEONDEN E-NOTE 7&#xfd;DEMINERALIZED L -------W TER M KEUR -7 SY E LAS DRAINS 535 GPM 110OGFM I : -t --!&#xfd; -.;,. -_ CELLAINEOUS
: 1. .., MIS[__O &#xfd; 7GPM] LIQUID WASTE L42 &#xfd;RM 0 P. MANAGEMEN T, SYSTEM 3,GPM%FC H E MI C A L 25O.-GPM P. RAINFAL I AND 1. NOTE4 VOLUME.. R RUNOFF CONTROL N YST M_ DRAI SYSTEM- .NOTE 5 2, 22 91GPM; , NO q 0 03 GPM 3 GPMmm I : : -: L.------------:
S -NW -- REACTOR C- OOLANT SYSTEM 127P CONTA INMENT GA PG RATION NOE AND......LAUNDRY: ANDOHOT SHOWERS 6SGPM .25 GPM .SANITARY, AND POTAMLE WATER S SWAGE TiREATMENT Fig. 3.1. Station water use. Source: ER, Fig. 3.3.0-1, Amendment
: 3.
3-3 Table 3.1. Cherokee Nuclear Station water use Flow Average Maximum gpm 1 River water makeup 41 723,:_ 59,670 2 Rainfall and runoff to NSW pond 629 3 Evaporation and seepage from NSW pond 1 085 4 Cooling tower, makeup ..40627 55,814 5 Cooling tower "vpra n "' * .3;40-. .50,400 6 Cooling tower drift'loss...-..
.87 114 7 Cooling tower blowdown.' , 4,00 5,300 8 "Intake~~
screen backwash 3,400 4,200 9; Exeior fire prtcin.0 " -1,000 10W- 'Ineriior&#xfd;fire protection 0 1.500 11 Filterediwater makeup -640 3,400 12 F iltered water waste 130, ,* 2,000, 13 -Demineralized water makeup .535 ..... 1,100.14 ....... Secondary coolant makeup 500 1,100 15.: Secondary system pump seals and leakage 500 1,000 16 Turbine building drains 630 4,500 17 Steam generator blowdown (after flashing)Y,<:
il'l115 150 18 Containment cooler condensate 1 2 19 Laboratory drains and waste water 1 3 20 CVCS makeup 0.5 400 21 Primary coolant leakage (see note 7) 0.4 30 22 Primary coolant leakage (see note36)23. Laundry and shower .1 3.5"124 "-'"Salnitary aid potable water 6 25 25 IMLWM system discharge 3 :. ' 'I, 250 26 Waste water treatment system discharge 636 blowdown will be dischargedmnext :pillway apron immediately Islands Dam. 7'downstream of the Ninety-Nine Each of the three units atlthe CNS will-be' 'provided with three cooling towers laid out as an equilateral..
triangle.
with.a 453-ft side.-dimension.for.
Units l.and,2.and-.wi.th a 381-ft side dimension for Unit .3 (ER,-Fig..-3..4.l-l, Amendment 3). Six of the towers (for Units 1 and 2) will be located on an elevated portion of the site on an 800- x 1400-ft area to be leveled immediately west of.the reactor buildings.;,Therthreetowers for Unit 3 will be located east of the buildings on a triangular-area about 600 ft in major dimension.
The towers will be of a new circular mechanical-draft (CMD) type developed by The Marley Company. The desi~gn-offers of the lower costs and lower visibility (low'height) usually associated with'"mehanincal-draft towers, while at the same timeWroviding'plume-buioyancy forces that approach those attained by the large-diameter plumes discharged from natural-draft cooling towers.. A'.sketch of the CMD towers is shown in Fig. 3.3. Each tower for the station will beabout 270 ft in diameter at the base, about 74 ft high overall, and will have thirteen 28-ft-diam fans arranged within a circle about 170 ft inl diameter.:
of the heatd~issipated by the towers.-is by'evaporation:.
of; about- 50,,4,00,gpm
:(1l2 c~fs) of. water&#xfd;; the.remainder .is ; absorbed by. heating-the, air that flows through the towers to an exit. temperatureo 0about. .2bF.. These an. other.coo*ing-tower data, including that supplied by the applicant (ER, Response to Question 6 34.4-1), aregiven in Table 3.2.An improved design for the drift eliminators is said by the applicant to limit the drift to less than 0.005% of the condensing water circulating rate. The drop-size distr'ibu't;ion-ofthe drift particles as furnished by. the app~licant (ER,,. Response.
to, Question 3.4.4-1 ).,.is given in Table 3.2.,Although prototype'CMID towers.hav'bVeen, lopera'ted, 'l'arge-scale performance data from 'first conmmerciai operation' i n the' spring of, 1975 i's awaiting, evaluation of initial operating-data... l 'Chl~orination aof the circUlantin wa tedr isexpec t6 ]!gae 'and' mi cro -o:rganisms in thIe .coolling' tow~er.s'yst'em.., A friee. residual coriedI .te.-n, t jf105 pm' will' be periodically.
mainta ne ind i l.each. circuit for about- 1 hrduring weather. During the'-'summer, the &#xfd;chlor1ine
:.lresidual-wiwh-ll'.be periodically maintained at' ppm for>about one lhr."'-The
`three units ,at mCNSay us a i ob' of per. th mof'sodium hypochlor-tanitl of'.l600_320d , d In the fotm the system.ite fed into the system.
3-4 ES -627R EXIT AIR: DRIFT: EVAPORATION:
1.94x10 8 cfm 87 gpm 36,540 gpm 102*F 114 gpm 50,400 gpm 36 fps 674-ft ENTERING AIR: ELEVATION COOLING TOWERS S76 wbt/92SF db 440-ft AILWATE ELEVATION 0=26 1O 9 MAKEUP: 2,175,000 gpm 87311Btu/hr 40,627 gpm t11.3*F 8.3* 55,814 gpm 580-ft CONDENSERS J640 gpm ELEVATION 3400 gpm TO FILTERED WATER SYSTEM BLOWDOWN MAKEUP 87"3&deg;F f 629 gpm RAINFALL AND RUNOFF SEDI MENTAT ION 4000 gpm BAE SI N 5300 gpm 550- ft POOL 1085gpm LEVATION EVAPORATION AND SEEPAGE 41,723 gpm 59,670 mpm INTAKE SCREENS " cn-800-rfl---l 510-ofl POOL 440-ft TAI LWATER bapbA Thw ELEVATION ISLANDS DAM BROAD0 RIVER-FLOW Fig. 3.2. Heat dissipation system for Cherokee Nuclear Station. All quantities are total for three units at station. Average and maximum flow rates are shown, where applicable; tempera-tures at cooling towers are at summer design conditions.
3.4.2 Intake structure A maximum of about 59,670 gpm (133 cfs) of water will be pumped from the reservoir to the sedi-mentation basin. The water will first pass through an intake screen structure and then be held in a sedimentation basin to allow removal of a large part of the burden of silt and sand before the water is pumped into the cooling tower circulating systems. The design of the makeup water intake structure is shown in Fig. 3.4. The settling basin, or pond, will be impounded by the construction of a 1500-ft-long earth-fill dam between the two points of land shown on the site plan (ER, Fig. 2.1.2). The basin will have a storage capacity of about 3000 acre-ft. The water surface elevation in the reservoir is about 510 ft, and the pool elevation in the sedimentation basin will be about 550 ft. The makeup water intake structure on the sedimentation basin and the relative elevation of the various portions of the water intake system are shown in Fig. 3.5.
3-5 ES- 232..............
.,., , ho,*Fig. 3.3. Conceptual sketch of circular mechanical-draft cooling tower proposed for Cherokee Nuclear Station. (The tower is about 270 ft in diameter and.74 ft high.The water intake structure on the reservoir will be located about 800 ft upstream of the Ninety-Nine Islands Dam and near the base of the new earth-fill dam for the sedimentation basin, as indicated in the ER, Fig. 2.1.2. The 55-ft x 75-ft structure will be located at the shoreline and will house four makeup water pumps, each with a 12-ft-wide vertical traveling screen. A cross-sectional sketch of the intake structure is shown in Fig. 3.6. Trash racks, probably con-sisting of vertical bars set on 3- or 4-in, centers, will be located near the face of the.structure and will extend vertically above the normal water surface level of 510-ft elevation.
A concrete skimrmer wall extends the remainder of the distance to the top of the structure to prevent floating trash from impinging on the traveling screens when the pool elevation is higher than normal.Based on a 133-cfs makeup water flow rate and assuming that the traveling screens are the commonly used 3/8-in, mesh type with 60% free area for flow based on outside dimensions, the staff esti.-mates that the maximum average face velocity at the screens would be about 0.7 fps.3.4.3 Discharge structure Approximately 5300 gpm (12 cfs) of cooling tower blowdown water at temperatures in excess of the river temperature of 10 to 15 0 F in the summer and 20 to 30*F in the winter will be discharged into the Broad River. The nine cooling towers will drain into a common 21-in.-diam pipe that will extend underground about 2 miles in a generally downhill and easterly direction to be dis-charged onto a rock outcropping on the west bank of the river immnediately adjacent to the west abutment of the Ninety-Nine Islands Dam at a point about 50 ft above the tailwater elevation and about 135 ft southwest of the river shoreline.
The blowdown will flow down the rock face, which has a drop of about 1 ft in 3 ft, onto the dam spillway apron below. The applicant states that the rocky character of the discharge arrangement is such that no provisions are needed to prevent scouring.
The end of the blowdown discharge pipe will be anchored to the rock by a simple con-crete headwall construction (ER, Fig. 10.3.2-1, Amendment 3).
3-6 Table 3.2. Cooling tower date Type of tower Total number of towers Number of towers per clustera Distance between towers in cluster Tower height Base diameter Equivalent radius of top Approach temperature Range Design wet-bulb temperature Design dry-bulb temperature Design exit air temperature Heat dissipated by towers~b Air flow rateb Air exit speed Circulating water flow rateb Water/air ratio Evaporation rate, designb Blowdown rateb Drift rateb Makeup rate, maximumb Concentration factor for solids Dissolved solids in makeup Drop size mass distribution in drift: 0-60p. 50%60-125,u.
22%125--180p, 5%180-225 p, 4%11.3'F summer 24&deg;F summer 76eF summer 92&deg;F summer 102&deg;F summer 1828.5 mg-cal/sec 191.5 X 106 cfm 10.82 m/sec 2,175,000 gpm 1.44 lb/lb 50,400 gpm summer 5,300 gpm summer 0.005% of circulating water flow 55,814 gpm 10 53 ppm (av)Circular mechanical-draft Nine Three 138 m (453 ft)22.6 m (74 ft)77 m (254 ft)17.2 m (56.3 ft)29.5'F winter 24'F winter 40WF winter 48*F winter 85*F winter (26.12 X 109 Btu/hr)(815.81 X 106 lb/hr)(35.5 fps)(4846.3 cfs)5.300 gpm winter (114gpm)98 ppm (max)225-325 ,u 8%325-425 p.6%425-525,p.
5%8 For calculating multiple-plume effect.b Total for all towers (nine) atstation.
3.5 RADIOACTIVE WASTE SYSTEMS During the operation of the Cherokee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3, radioactive material will be produced by fission and by neutron activation of corrosion products in the reactor coolant system. From the radioactive material produced, small amounts of gaseous and liquid radioactive wastes will enter the waste streams. These streams will be processed and monitored within the station to minimize the quantity of radioactive nuclides ultimately released to the atmosphere and to the river. The liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste systems will be separate for each unit, with no subsystems or components shared with other units.The waste handling and treatment systems to be installed at the station are discussed in the applicant's Preliminary Safety Analysis Report and Environmental Report, both dated May 24, 1974.In these documents, the applicant has prepared an analysis of the treatment systems and has esti-mated the annual radioactive effluents.
In the following paragraphs, the waste treatment systems are described, and an analysis is given based on the staff's model of the applicant's radioactive waste systems. The model has been de-veloped from a review of available data from operating nuclear power plants, adjusted to apply over a 40-year operating life. The coolant activities and flows used in the evaluation are based on experience and data from operating reactors.
As a result, the parameters used in the staff model and the calculated releases vary from those given in the applicant's evaluation.
The re-sulting differences do not lead to adverse effects in the evaluation.
The staff's evaluation was based on the parameters in USAEC Report WASH-1258 and the "Concluding Statement of Position of the Regulatory Staff, ALAP LWR Effluents" (with Attachment, "Draft Regulatory Guides for Implementation"), Docket No. RM-50-2, February 20, 1974. The staff's liquid and gaseous source terms were calculated by the PWR-GALE Code as described in "Draft Regulatory Guide L.BB," which is a revised version of the ORIGEN and STEFFEG codes given in WASH-1258.
The principal parameters used in the staff's source term calculations are given in'Table 3.3.
3-7 ES- 1956 RIVER INTAKE STRUCTIRlE-.
WEST BA ]L LOW GI C.Fig. 3.4. Design of makeup water intake structure.
Source: ER, Fig. 10.2.1-1, Amendment 3.ES -1955 UP INTAKE STRUCTURE FIXED SCREENS RIVER INTAKE STRUCTURE, EL537.5 MIN. WS EL508 INTAKE SEDIMENTATION SCALE:NONE Fig. 3.5. Relative elevations of the water intake system.
3-8 56'+/- ES-1957 PUMPS C_ TRAVELING SCREENS___15'+/- .17'+ _ ,2 ':________EL.
537.5PF EL. 533-o I I.'NORMAL W.S.EL.510+/-
LOW W.S. EL. 508--/ -EL.502 NOTE: L.P EL. 500 TOP OF TRASH RACKS AT EL.515 EACH END AND AT EL. 511.FRONT SIDE.Fig. 3.6. Sketch of cross section through intake water structure on Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir.
Source: ER, Fig. 3.4.4-3, Amendment 3.On April 30, 1975, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced its decision in the rule-making proceeding (RM-50-t2) concerning numerical guides for design objectives and limiting conditions for operation to meet the criterion "as low as practicable" for radioactive material in light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor effluents.
This decision is implemented in the form of a new Appendix I to 10 CFR 50. To effectively implement the requirements of Appendix I, the NRC staff is presently reassessing the parameters and mathematical models used in calculating releases of radioactive materials in effluents in order to comply with the Commission's guidance.
In the interim, until such reassessment is completed and can be applied to the Cherokee Station, the staff has prepared upper bound estimates of the potential effect on the estimated radiological environmental impact set forth in the FES. The dose estimates discussed in Sect. 5.4 used revised estimates of expected annual releases of radioactive materials in effluents from the Cherokee Station. The applicant has stated (Appendix B) that he does not intend to remove any presently proposed equipment or systems and Will provide such additional equipment determined to be necessary to meet the requirements of Appendix I as a result of a detailed evaluation.
On the basis of information presently available on the technology to reduce radioactive effluent releases, the Cherokee Station can be designed to meet the requirements of Appendix I.3.5.1 Liquid wastes Liquid radioactive wastes will be processed on a batch basis to permit optimum control of re-leases. Prior to being released, samples will be analyzed to determine the types and amounts of radioactive materials present. Based on the results of the analysis, the wastes will either be 3-9 Table 3.3. Principal parameters and conditions used in calculating releases of radioactive material in liquid and gaseous effluent from Cherokee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3 Reactor power level (MWt) 3990 Plant capacity factor 0.80 Operating power fission product source term 0.25%Primary system Mass of coolant (Ib) 5.71 X 105 Letdown rate of CVCS (gpm) 84 Shim bleed rate (gpm) 3.1 Leakage rate to secondary system (lb/day) 110 Leakage rate to auxiliary building (lb/day) 160 Leakage rate to containment building (lb/day) 240 Frequency of degassing for cold shutdowns 2 (per year)Secondary system Steam flow rate (lb/hr) 1.72 X 107 Mass of steam/steam generator (Ib) 1.81 X 104 Mass of liquid/steam generator (Ib) 1.63 X 105 Secondary coolant mass (Ib) 2.81 X 106 Rate of steam leakage to turbine building 1.7 X 10 3 (lb/hr)Dilution flow (gpm) 4.0 X 103 Containment building volume (ft 3) 3.3 X 106 Frequency of containment purges (per year) 4 Iodine partition factors (gas/liquid)
Leakage to containment building 0.1 Leakage to auxiliary building 0.005 Steam leakage to turbine building 1 Steam generator (carryover) 0.01 Main condenser air ejector 0.0005 Decontamination factors (liquids)Boron recycle MLWMS SGB/VCC (condensate treatment)
I iX 1 0 5 1X 10 4  1 X 102 Cs, Rb 2X 10 4  1X 10 5  1X10 1 Mo, Tc 1 X 10 5  1X 10 6  1 X 10 4 Y 1 X 10 4  1X 105 1 X 103 Others 1 X 10 6  1 X 10 5  1 X 10 2 All nuclides except iodine Waste evaporator DF 104 103 BRS evaporator DF 103 102 Cationa Aniona Cs, Rb Mixed-bed demineralizer (Li3BO3)DF 10 10 2 Mixed-bed demineralizer (H*OH-)DF 102(10) 102(10) 2(10)Cation demineralizer DF 102(10) 1(1) 10(10)Anion demineralizer DF 1 (1) 102(10) 1 (1)Powdex DF 10(10) 10(10) 1(10)(Note: for two demineralizers in series, the DF for the second demineralizer is given in parentheses.)
Removal by plateout Removal factor Mo, Tc 102 Y 10 Containment building Recirculation system Flow rate 1.8 X 104 cfm Operating period/purge 16 hr Mixing efficiency 70%aDoes not include Cs, Mo, Y, Rb, Tc.
3-10 retained, recycled, and reprocessed or released under controlled conditions to the Broad River.A signal from a radiation monitor will automatically terminate liquid waste discharges if radia-tion measurements exceed a predetermined level in the discharge line. A simplified diagram of the liquid radioactive waste treatment systems is shown in Fig. 3.7.The liquid waste management systems will be divided into two principal systems: the boron re-covery system (BRS) and the miscellaneous liquid waste management system (MLWMS). The BRS will process high-grade water from the reactor coolant system, which will normally be recycled for reuse in the plant after treatment.
The BRS consists of holdup tanks, mixed-bed demineralizers, a gas stripper, an evaporator, and a distillate demineralizer for processing.
The MLWMS will process water from equipment drains, building sumps, and laundry wastes. Some of these wastes will be discharged after treatment, and some will be reused. The MLWMS will consist of holdup tanks, an evaporator, and a distillate mixed-bed demineralizer for processing.
ES-1642R2-NITEO REO B EMINERALIZED V -RADIATION MONITOR & ISOLATION VALVE l ..CONITROL POWER RESIEN -WASTE LIOUID. SPENT RESIN OR FILTER ODETNTERALIZERS5 SLUDGE TRANFERRED TO SOLID WASTE TREATMENT FOR PACKAGING.
STORAGE.TAND TRANSFER TO A LAND BASED BURIAL LIQAID FILTER ANIT Fig. 3.7. Liquid radioactive waste system, Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3.
3-11 In addition to the preceding systems, the chemical and volume control system (CVCS) is considerea in the evaluation.
The CVCS will process reactor grade water through mixed-bed and anion demin-eralizers to maintain boron control and reactor coolant purity and will be the principal input to the BRS. Liquid leakage to the turbine building will be collected in the turbine building floor drain system and will be released without treatment.
The boron recycle system (BRS)Primary coolant will be withdrawn from the reactor coolant system at approximately 84 gpm and processed through the CVCS. The letdown stream will be cooled and reduced in pressure, then filtered and processed through one of two mixed-bed demineralizers, and sent to the volume con-trol tank. The second mixed-bed demineralizer will be used intermittently for lithium and cesium control. Boron concentration will be controlled during core life by feed and bleed operation to the BRS, and at the end of core life it will be controlled by anion deborating demineralizer in the CVCS. Radionuclide removal by the CVCS was evaluated by assuming 84-gpm letdown flow at primary coolant activity (PCA) through one mixed-bed demineralizer.
Deaerated hydrogenated equipment, drain wastes in the reactor containment will be collected in the 2850-gal reactor drain tank. High purity liquid wastes outside the reactor containment will be collected in the 10,500-gal equipment drain tank. The drain wastes from these tanks will be combined with the shim bleed from the CVCS letdown stream and routed to a mixed-bed demineralizer and a gas stripper, where fission product gases and hydrogen will be removed. The stripped liquid will then be collected in the 450,000-gal holdup tank for decay and will be processed through a 20-gpm evaporator and a mixed-bed demineralizer.
The staff calculated the shim bleed input activity by applying the decontamination factor (DF) for the mixed-bed demineralizers to the shim bleed stream, assuming a 30-gpm shim bleed flow and CVCS output activity.'
The combined reactor drain tank and equipment drain tank input flow to the BRS was assumed to be 240 gpd at PCA. Radio-active decay during collection in the holdup tanks was calculated in the PWR-GALE code. The collection time was calculated to be 38 days assuming the 450,000-gal holdup tank will be filled to 80% capacity using the combined shim bleed and reactor equipment drain flow rate of 4720 gpd.Radionuclide removal by the BRS was based on the parameters in Table 3.3 for an evaporator and the mixed-bed demineralizers in series. Additional credit for radioactive decay during process-ing was based on transferring the holdup tank liquid at the evaporator flow capacity (20 gpm), In its evaluation, the staff assumed that equipment downtime, anticipated operational occurrences, and tritium control will result in approximately 10% (138,000 gpy) of the evaporator condensate stream being discharged to the river. The applicant also assumed that a portion of the BRS stream will be discharged for primary coolant tritium control.Miscellaneous liquid waste management system (MLWMS)Aerated radioactive wastes will be collected in one of two equipment andfloor drain waste tanks, one of two laundry drain tanks, and one of two containment cooler condensate tanks. Liquid wastes from these tanks will be processed through an evaporator and a mixed-bed demineralizer.
Based on staff parameters and information supplied by the applicant, the staff calculated the liquid waste flow to be approximately 1375 gpd at 0.08 PCA.By assuming that one of the two 15,000-gal waste tanks will be filled to 80% capacity, the staff calculates the collection time to be nine days. Radionuclide removal by the liquid waste system was based on the parameters in Table 3.3 for an evaporator and a mixed-bed demineralizer.
Addi-tional credit for radioactive decay during processing was based on transferring the tank liquid at the evaporator flow capacity (20 gpm) and holdup in one of the two 15,000-gal waste condensate tanks. The staff's evaluation, like the applicant's, assumes that all of the processed waste liquid will be discharged to the environment.
Wastes from laundry and contaminated showers will be collected in one of two 4000-gal laundry drain tanks for analysis.
Normally, these wastes will be of low activity and will be filtered and discharged to the environment.
They may be processed by the evaporator-demineralizer in the liquid waste system if the activity is above a predetermined value. Based on its parameters, the staff assumed that the laundry and shower tank activity will be approximately l0-4 iCi/cm 3 and that the release rate will be 450 gpd.Two 4000-gal containment cooler condensate tanks will be provided to collect condensation from humidity in the containment ventilation system. Because this liquid will normally be of low activity, it will be filtered and discharged to the environment.
If the activity is above a predetermined level, liquid will be processed by the liquid waste system. Based on staff param-eters and information supplied by the applicant, the containment cooler condensate tank input stream flow was calculated to be approximately 315 gpd at 0.005 PCA.
3-12 Blowdown from the steam generators will be treated and recycled through the secondary loop con-densate polishing demineralizers.
Four of these five nonregenerated, powdered resin deminerali-zers will provide volatile chemistry control for the U-tube steam generators and filtration for the blowdown stream. The staff's evaluation, like the applicant's, assumed that the blowdown rate will be approximately 10% of the main steam rate with no blowdown waste release and that the condensate polishing demineralizers will process 65% of the secondary loop flow rate. Spent resins from these demineralizers will be transferred to the solid waste system.Turbine buildinq floor drains Waste collected by the turbine building floor drain system will contain radioactive materials from secondary system leakage as well as leakage from nonradioactive cooling systems. The appli-cant has indicated that these wastes will not be treated prior to discharge.
The staff assumes that the activity discharged through the turbine building floor drain system will be due to secondary system condensate leakage at a rate of 5 gpm. The quantity of activity released through this path will be approximately 0.04 Ci/year. The staff concludes that the release of the tur-bine building floor drain wastes without treatment is acceptable.
Liquid waste management system summary Based on the staff's evaluation of the waste treatment systems using the parameters in Table 3.3, the release of radioactive materials in the liquid wastes discharged to the Broad River was cal-culated to be 0.4 Ci/year per reactor, excluding dissolved gases and tritium (see Table 3.4).Table 3.4. Liquid radioactive source term (Ci/year/unit) for Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Radionuclide Ci/year Radionuclide Ci/year Br-82 0.00009 Ba-139 0.00005 Br-83 0.0001 Ba- 140 0.0002 Rb-86 0.00005 La-140 0.0001 Sr-89 0.0002 Ce-141 0.00003 Sr-91 0.00008 Ce-143 0.00001 Y-91m 0.00003 Pr-143 0.00003 Y-91 0.0001 Ce- 144 0.00007 Zr-95 0.00003 Pr-144 0.00002 Nb-95 0.00003 Nd-147 0.00001 Mo-99 0.0004 Na-24 0.0001 Tc-99m 0.0004 P-32 0.00003 Ru-103 0.00002 P-33 0.0001 Rh-103m 0.00002 Cr-51 0.0004 Te-125m 0.00001 Mn-54 0.00008 Te-127m 0.0001 Mn-56 0.001 Te-127 0.0002 Fe-55 0.0004 Te- 129m 0.0006 Fe-59 0.0002 Te-129 0.0004 Co-58 0.004 1-130 0.0005 Co-60 0.0005 Te-131m 0.0007 Ni-65 0.00003 Te-131 0.0001 Nb-92 0.00008 1-131 0.18 Sn-117m 0.00003 Te-132 0.01 W-185 0.00002 1-132 0.01 W-187 0.0006 1-133 0.1 Np-239 0.0002 1-134 0.00009 Cs- 134m 0.00004 Cs-134 0.01 All others 0.0001 1-135 0.02 Total (except 0.4 Cs-136 0.007 tritium)Cs-137 0.01 Ba-137m 0.01 H-3 350 Cs- 138 0.00003 Note: Isotopes with discharges less than 10-5 Ci/year/unit are not identified but are included in the "All others" term.
3-13 Based on previous experience at operating reactors, the staff estimates the tritium releases to be 350 Ci/year. The applicant has estimated the normal releases to be approximately 0.1 Ci/year per reactor, excluding dissolved gases and tritium, and 77 Ci/year per reactor of tritium, based on an operating fission product source term of 0.1%, as compared to the staff's value of 0.25%.The radioactivity in liquid effluents from Units 1, 2, and 3, exclusive of tritium and dissolved noble gases, will be less than 5 Ci/year per reactor. The whole-body and critical-organ doses will be less than a total of 5 millirems/year from the three units at the site.3.5.2 Gaseous waste The gaseous waste treatment and ventilation systems will consist of equipment and instrumentation necessary to reduce releases of radioactive gases and airborne particulates from equipment and building vents. The principal source of radioactive gaseous waste will be gases stripped from the primary coolant in the CVCS and BRS. Additional sources of gaseous wastes will be main con-denser air ejector exhausts, ventilation exhausts from the auxiliary and turbine buildings, and gases collected in the reactor containment building.
The principal system for treating gaseous wastes will be the gaseous waste management system (GWMS). The GWMS will collect and store gases stripped from the primary coolant in a cover gas nitrogen loop containing a recombiner, compres-sors, and three pressurized storage tanks. Each reactor will have its own GWMS.The auxiliary building ventilation exhausts, fuel handling area, and containment purge exhausts will be processed through HEPA filters and charcoal adsorbers prior to release. In addition, the containment atmosphere will be recirculated through HEPA filters and charcoal adsorbers prior to purging. The main condenser air ejector exhausts will be processed through charcoal adsorbers.
Noncondensible substances from the steam generator blowdown will be vented to the main condenser.
Ventilation exhausts from the turbine building will be released without treatment.
The gaseous waste treatment system is shown in Fig. 3.8..Gaseous waste management system (GWMS)The GWMS will collect and process gases stripped from the primary coolant. It will contain an initial inventory of nitrogen that will be continuously replaced by nitrogen as a cover gas transporting radioactive gases removed from the primary coolant. Hydrogen cover gas from the volume control tank and reactor coolant drain tank, gases stripped in the BRS stripper and evap-orator, and gases purged from the sample system will enter the GWMS 20-ft 3 gas surge tank. The cover gas will carry with it small amounts of hydrogen gas removed from the primary coolant.The hydrogen will be combined with oxygen in the recombiner and will be removed as water vapor.The remaining radioactive gases will have a negligible effect on the overall gaseous inventory.
The nitrogen and radioactive gases will be alternately collected and stored in one of three 700-ft 3 (design pressure of 380 psig) pressurized storage tanks. The storage tanks will collect, store, and release gases in rotation to allow short-lived radionuclide decay. After holdup, the nitrogen, containing long-lived radionuclides, may be reused as cover gas in the primary loop.In this manner, short-lived radionuclides will decay during storage, and long-lived radionuclides will accumulate in the system. The system is designed to hold up gases for long-term storage.However, the applicant has estimated periodic releases to avoid buildup of long-lived isotopes and has estimated releases based on a one-year holdup. The staff based its calculations on re-lease after 90-days' holdup, which will leave Kr-85 (10.7 y half-life) as the predominant radio-nuclide. The staff assumed gas stripping of the BRS to be 3 gpm, based on information provided by the applicant.
The staff calculated the GWMS releases to be 456 Ci/year per reactor for noble gases and negligible for iodine. Waste gases displaced from aerated tanks, demineralizers, and BRS and waste evaporators will exhaust to the gas collection header and will be directed to the plant vent for monitoring and release without treatment.
The staff considered these waste gases as infrequent exhausts and included the releases in the auxiliary building releases.
The applicant calculated gas releases from the plant based on a higher gas stripping rate (up to 140 gpm) and estimated the combined GWMS and waste gas release to be 3300 Ci/year per reactor of noble gases and negligible amounts of iodine.Containment purges Radioactive gases will be released inside the reactor containment when primary system components are opened or when leaks occur in the primary system. The gaseous activity will be sealed within the containment during normal operation but will be released during containment purges. Prior to purging, the containment atmosphere will be recirculated through HEPA filters and charcoal adsorbers (18,000 scfm) for particulate and iodine removal. Following recirculation, the con-tainment will be purged through HEPA filters and charcoal adsorbers to the atmosphere.
The air-borne activity was calculated based on the parameters for primary coolant leakage to the contain-ment in Table 3.3. Radionuclide removal was based on 16 hr of recirculation system operation, 3-14 ES- 1643R5 GASES2 SCFM. EACHUNIT VENT VOLUME CONTROL TANK C AUXILIARY.....RM BUILDING REACTOR COOLANT DRAIN TAN K ) GAS DECAY TANKS (3) RECOMBINER RO5O SCF 700~50 SCED35 SI BRS GAS STRIPPER CT-Y-LE NITROGEN COVER GAS 13 TO 50 PSIG)BRS HOLDUP TANKS-MLWMS TANKS GAS COLLECTION HEADER 1350 SCFD DEMINERALIZER VENTS w EVAPORATOR VENTS Ei PREFILTER SH EJECIORCIENCY SECONDARY LOOPS MAIN CONDENSERS A FPARTICULATE W FILTER CONTAINMENT BUILDING CHARCOAL ADSORBSER RECIRCULATION 180.0-PURGE 69S000 SCFMCOMPRESSOR FUEL HANDLING BUILDING P A C EBLOWER FAN AUXILIARY BUILDING GENERAL AREAS 100.000 SCFM SRADIATION MONITOR POTENTIALLY RADIOACTIVE AREAS TURBINE BUILDING 220,000 SCFM ROOF EXHAUSTS STEAM GLAND SEAL EXHAUST RM it, TUR BINE BUILDING ROOF VENT I -1041 Fig. 3.8. Gaseous radioactive waste system, Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3.70% mixing efficiency, and a DF of 10 for the recirculation charcoal adsorber.
The staff assumed four containment purges annually and calculated the containment purge releases to be approximately 9200 Ci/year of noble gases per reactor and 0.017 Ci/year of 1-131 per reactor. The applicant did not provide a separate estimate of these releases.Auxiliary, turbine, and fuel handling area releases Radioactive gases will be released to the auxiliary building due to leakage from primary system components.
The ventilation systems will be designed to ensure that air flow will be from areas of low potential to areas having a greater potential for the release of airborne radioactive material.
Ventilation air from the fuel handling area and from potentially radioactive areas will be passed through HEPA filters and charcoal adsorbers.
Ventilation air from other auxiliary building areas will be monitored and discharged to the environment through the plant vent without treatment.
The staff's calculated releases were based on the auxiliary building leakage rate and iodine partition factor listed in Table 3.3. Based on these parameters, the staff calculates
\the auxiliary building and fuel handling area releases to be 335 Ci/year of noble gases per reactor and 0.042 Ci/year of 1-131 per reactor. The applicant estimated the auxiliary building releases alone per reactor to be 320 Ci/year of noble gases and 0.001 Ci/year of 1-131.Radioactive gases will be released to the turbine building due to secondary system steam leakage.The turbine building releases are not filtered and will go directly to the atmosphere.
The staff's calculated release values are based on 1700 lb/hr per reactor of steam leakage to the turbine area, assuming that all of the noble gases and iodine remain airborne, as specified in 3-15 the parameters.
On this basis, the turbine area releases were calculated to be less than 1 Ci/year per reactor for noble gases and 0.006 Ci/year per reactor for 1-131. The applicant estimated the turbine building releases to be 7.7 Ci/year per reactor for noble gases and 0.002 Ci/year per reactor for 1-131.Steam releases to the atmosphere The turbine bypass capacity to the condenser will be 55%. The staff analysis indicates that steam releases to the environs due to turbine trips and low-power physics testing will have a negligible effect on the calculated source term.Main condenser air ejector exhausts The main condenser air ejector exhausts will contain radioactive gases resulting from primary to secondary system leakage. Iodine will be partitioned between the steam and liquid phases in the steam generators and between the condensing and noncondensibles phases in the main condensers and air ejectors.
Air ejector exhausts will be passed through charcoal adsorbers to the plant vent. Based on the parameters listed in Table 3.3, the staff considered 110 lb/day per reactor of primary to secondary leakage and partition factors of 0.01 and 0.005 for iodine in the steam generators and main condenser air ejectors respectively.
The staff considered a OF of 10 for the charcoal adsorbers in its evaluation., The staff calculates the main condenser air ejector releases to be approximately 218 Ci/year per reactor for noble gases and 0.003 Ci/year per reactor for 1-131. Based on the higher gas stripping rate of the primary coolant, the applicant estimated this release to be 300 Ci/year per reactor for noble gases and 0.002 Ci/year per reactor for 1-131.Gaseous waste summary Based on the parameters given in Table 3.3, the staff calculates the total radioactive gaseous releases to the environment through the plant vent on top of the containment building to be approximately 10,200 Ci/year of noble gases per reactor and 0.068 Ci/year of 1-131 per reactor.The principal sources and isotopic distribution are given in Table 3.5. The applicant has calculated an overall release of approximatley 3950 Ci/year of noble gases per reactor and 0.004 Ci/year of 1-131 per reactor. The applicant has assumed a OF of 100 vs the staff's DF of 10 for charcoal adsorbers in the auxiliary building, containment purge, and containment recirculation system releases, resulting in a lower 1-131 release estimate.Table 3.5. Gaseous radioactive source term (Ci/year/unit) for Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Radionuclide Reactor Auxiliary Turbine Air ejector Decay tanks Total building building building Kr-83rn a a a a a a Kr-85m 9 3 a 2 a 14 Kr-85 40 1 a 453 494 Kr-87 2 1 a a a 3 Kr-88 11 5 a 3 a 19 Kr-89 a a a a a a Xe-131m 51 2 a 1 3 57 Xe-133m 95 4 a 3 a 102 Xe-133 8910 310 a 200 a 9420 Xe-135m a a a a a a Xe-135 56 8 a 5 a 69 Xe-137 a a a a a a Xe-138 a 1 a a a 1 1-131 0.017 0.042 0.006 0.003 a 0.068 1-133 0.011 0.061 0.004 0.004 a 0.080 H-3 760 C-14 8 Particu late 0.06*Less than 1 Ci/year/unit noble gases, less than 10-4 Ci/year/unit iodine.
3-16 3.5.3 Solid waste systems Solid waste containing radioactive materials will be generated during station operation.
Wet solid wastes will consist mainly of demineralizer resins collected in the 5000-gal spent resin storage tank, evaporator concentrates collected in the 5000-gal evaporator bottoms holdup tank, and miscellaneous chemical reagent wastes. These wastes will be mixed with a solidifying agent, transferred to a shipping container for onsite storage, and then shipped to an NRC burial ground.The staff considers these wastes to be stored for 180 days for radioactive decay prior to ship-ment offsite.Dry solid wastes will consist of ventilation air filters, contaminated clothing and paper, and miscellaneous items, such as tools and laboratory glassware.
Dry solid wastes will be compressed into 55-gal drums by using a baling machine. Noncompressible solid wastes will be packaged for offsite shipment.
Because dry solid wastes will contain much less activity than wet solid wastes, the staff did not consider the need for onsite storage of dry solid wastes in the evaluation.
The staff's estimates that approximately 600 drums of wet solid waste containing approximately 10 Ci/drum and 450 drums of dry solid waste containing a total of less than 5 Ci will be shipped offsite annually per reactor. Greater than 90% of the radioactivity associated with the solid waste will be long-lived fission and corrosion products, principally Cs-134, Cs-137, Co-58, Co-60, and Fe-55. The applicant estimates that approximately 4440 ft 3 of solidified evaporator bottoms totaling approximately 380 Ci, 324 ft 3 of demineralized resins with a total of 8800 Ci, 1500 ft 3 of compressible dry solid wastes, 120 ft 3 of chemical reagent wastes, and 70 filter cartridges will be shipped offsite annually per reactor.Solid waste summary All containers will be shipped to licensed burial sites in accordance with NRC and DOT regula-tions. The solid waste system will be similar to systems that have been evaluated and found to be acceptable in previous license applications.
Therefore, the staff finds this solid waste system to be acceptable.
/3.6 CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDAL EFFLUENTS Operation of CNS will result in the discharge of chemical wastes into the Broad River. The chemi-cal wastes result from (1) the concentrating effect on the dissolved solids in the intake water due to cooling tower evaporation and subsequent blowdown and (2) the addition of chemicals to the various systems during reactor operation, which eventually are dumped into the effluent stream.A summary of chemicals discharged to the environment is given in Table 3.6. A partial water analysis of the Broad River (intake water) and the results of the concentration effected by the cooling towers are given in Table 3.7. The relative magnitude of the chemicals discharged from the station may be judged by using these tables.All nonradioactive waste water from the station, except-the cooling tower blowdown, will be dis-charged to the waste water treatment system (WWTS). This system, a series of four basins (total surface area about 6.2 acres), will consist of an initial holdup basin, two settling basins, and a final holdup basin. The discharges to the river from this system will average 636 gpm. The pH of the effluent will be maintained between 6.0 and 9.0, and the discharge structure will be equipped with an oil trap.The operation of this waste facility must be conducted in compliance with all State of South Carolina regulations on the discharge of chemicals, oil, and other wastes. The staff concludes that the system, as proposed, can comply with these regulations.
3-17 Table 3.6. Chemicals added to liquid effluent during station operation Maximum Maximum concentrationa in Incremental Parameter total added effluent (mg/I) increase in (lb/day) (blowdown or Broad River WWTS discharge) (mg/l)b Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) 3,742 283 (Na) 0.9 Sulfuric acid (H2SO4) 4,584 582 (SO43-) 1.8 Cyclohexylamine (C6H, 1 NH 2) 9 9 C Morpholine (C 4 HeNO) (alternative) 4 9 3 c Hydrazine (N 2 H 4) 49c 3.9 d 0.04 Lithium hydroxide (LiOH) 0.1 Boric acid (H 3 B0 3) 165 Sodium triphosphate (Na 3 PO 4) 12,946e 15 (P0 4 3-) 0.05 Polyacrylate polymer 192 3 0.07 Aminomethylene phosphonate, AMP (as P0 4 3-) 165 2.6 0.06 Chlorine (Cl 2) 3,390 Free residual 0.3 0.01 Chlorine reaction products 50 1.2 Dodecylguanidine Hydrochloride (alternative) 617 10 0.25 Polyelectrolyte 100 13 0.04 Ammonia 10 0.3 0.004 Liquid detergent 1,145e 2.3 0.007'Based on 636-gpm flow from WWTS and 5300-gpm blowdown from cooling towers.bBased on river flow of 470 cfs.CYearly total divided by 365.dBased on layup maximum discharge only.eTotal used per unit prior to startup only.Table 3.7. Increase in chemical effluent concentration due to cooling tower blowdown Maximum Cooling tower Incremental Parameter intake blowdown increase concentration concentration in Broad (mg/I)a (mg/m)b River (mag/)c pH 7.8 BODe 8 82 1.8 Hardness (CaCO 3) 14 144 3.2 Calcium (Ca) 3.8 39 0.9 Magnesium (Mg) 1.5 15 0.3 Sodium (Na) 6.6 68 2.d Potassium (K) 1.7 18 0.4 Iron (Fe) 0.18 1.9 0.04 Manganese (Mn) 0.1 1.0 0.02 Ammonia (NH 3) 0.3 3 0.7 Nitrate (NO 3) 0.2 2 0.04 Phosphate (P0 4) 0.45 4.6 0.ld Chloride (CO) 8.3 86 1.8 Fluoride (F) 0.2 2 0.04 Silica (Si0 2) 16 164 3.6 Sulfate (SO 4) 5.6 58 3.1 d Aninomethylene phosphonate (as P0 4) 2.6 0.06 Polyacrylate polymer 3 0.07 Dodecylguanidine Hydrochloride (alternative) 10 0.25 Chlorine Free residual 0.3 0.01 Chlorine reaction products 50 1.2 Total dissolved solids (TDS) 98 980 22'Source: ER, Table 3.6.2-1.bAssuming 55,814 gpm makeup, 114 gpm drift, and 5,300 gpm blowdown.cAt a Broad River flow of 470 cfs.dlnclude added chemicals from WWTS.
3-18 3.6.1 Condenser cooling system Makeup water for the cooling towers will be supplied from the sedimentation basin (see Fig. 3.1)at a maximum rate of about 55,814 gpm. Evaporation and drift will consume about 50,514 gpm of this amount, and the blowdown will be about 5300 gpm. Because of the concentrating effect of the evaporation, the cooling tower water and, consequently, the blowdown will have a dissolved solids concentration about ten times that of the intake water. Because of the high sediment burden of the Broad River, the makeup water will be processed through a sedimentation basin (see Fig. 2.4)where 60-70% of the suspended solids are removed. The remaining solids and precipitates will be stabilized as sols by use of organic corrosion and deposit inhibitor mixtures of a short chain polyacrylate polymer and aminomethylenephosphonate.
This inhibitor will be used at a 30-ppm con-centration to permit system operation at a pH of 7.8 to 8.25.Organic growth and chemical scaling in the condenser tubing will be partially controlled by use of a mechanical system of cleaning.
Sponge rubber balls, slightly larger in diameter than the condenser tubing, will be recirculated through the condenser tubing to control fouling of con-denser heat-transfer surface. The condenser cooling tubes will be stainless steel, which is highly resistant to water corrosion.
Therefore, no significant amounts of corrosion products are expected to be released to the river.Various other chemicals will be added to the cooling tower circulating water system. For control of biological growth, a biocide will be added once a day to the cooling tower basin outlets. The applicant proposes the application of 533-1066 lb of chlorine (as sodium hypochlorite) daily per unit (1600-3200 lb/day total) over a period of 1 hr to obtain a free chlorine residual of 1 ppm during warm months and 0.5 ppm in cold weather. The units are to be chlorinated sequentially.
The free residual chlorine in the cooling tower water will decay to essentially zero in a matter of hours, but because of the large ratio between the volume of water being chlorinated and the blowdown volume, the concentration of the added chlorine and its reaction products (chloride ion, chloramines, organic chloramines, and chlorophenols) will build up in the circulating water to an essentially steady state of -.50 ppm. The exact composition of this steady state cannot be accurately estimated, althoughthe staff agrees that a large fraction of it will be chloride ion.Blowdown will not materially decrease this concentration between chlorinations; therefore, the blowdown from each unit will contain this average concentration at all times. For each chlorina-tion, the resultant concentration in the circulating water effluent (blowdown to river) will initially consist of up to a maximum of 0.3 ppm free residual chlorine and 50 ppm of the reaction products of chlorine.
After several hours, the free residual chlorine will decay, leaving only the chlorine reaction products.
Since some of the reaction products may be toxic (chlorophenols and chloramines), the applicant is required to restrict the discharge of total residual chlorine from this source to not more than 0.1 mg/l.If chlorine-resistant organisms require control, the applicant proposes the use of an organic biocide, such as dodecylguanidine hydrochloride.
This biocide will be applied in the 10-30 ppm concentration range resulting in a 3-10 ppm concentration in the effluent.3.6.2 Filtered water treatment Water for station use, other than the condenser cooling system, will be obtained from the sedimentation basin. Because this water will contain clay-type colloidal materials, a 2100-gpm water treatment unit, combining usage of a polyelectrolyte coagulant approved for use in potable water, prechlorination, and three filters of the deep-bed-upflow type, will be used to treat the water taken from the sedimentation basin. The applicant estimates that 38-190 lb of chlorine and 20-75 lb of polyelectrolyte will be required daily in this process. The wastes from this system will be routed to the WWTS.3.6.3 Demineralizer regeneration To provide the necessary reactor makeup water, a system composed of granulated-activated carbon filters just ahead of two mixed-bed demineralizers, with a capacity of 700 gpm each, will beused.These beds will be periodically regenerated with sodium hydroxide and sulfuric acid. The elutant will be routed to the WWTS and neutralized to a pH not exceeding
: 9. The staff estimates that the demineralizer process will result in the daily maximum use of 3742 lb of sodium hydroxide and 4584 lb of sulfuric acid.3.6.4 Reactor coolant chemicals The chemicals added to the reactor primary coolant system will be present in any effluent only as the result of leakage or letdown for processing.
Because the primary coolant will contain radio-active material, any leakage will be processed through the liquid radioactive waste system (Sect.3.5). Daily use is estimated to be 0.1 lb of lithium hydroxide and 165 lb of boric acid.
3-19 3.6.5 Secondary coolant feedwater The applicant will use hydrazine as an oxygen scavenger and amines for control of pH in the secondary system. The annual use of these substances will amount to 18,000 lb of hydrazine and 36,000 lb of cyclohexylamine (or 180,000 lb of morpholine).
Little release is expected from this source since hydrazine reacts chemically to form nitrogen and water. The other amines follow the same waste routes as the hydrazine.
During shutdown, the secondary side of the units will be blanketed with nitrogen and/or filled with condensate quality water containing 200 ppm hydrazine and 10-15 ppm ammonia.3.6.6 Miscellaneous Prior to station startup, about 850 gal of liquid detergent will be used during the construction period for degreasing and spray-cleaning of pipe assemblies.
This waste will be processed through the temporary sewage system (Sect. 3.7.1). Also, prior to startup, hot trisodiun phosphate solu-tion will be used for degreasing and cleaning of condensers.
The applicant estimates that about 36,000 lb of trisodium phosphate (Na 3 PO 4 -12H 2 0) and 138 gal of liquid detergent per unit will be used for this purpose. About 720,000 'gal of water containing this waste will flow to the WWTS and will be discharged to the river after dilution and neutralization.
3.7 SANITARY WASTES AND OTHER EFFLUENTS 3.7.1 Temporary sewage During the period of plant construction, the applicant will treat sewage waste in prefabricated extended aeration-type sewage treatment plants that have a combined capacity of 36,000 gpd and use up to 6 lb of chlorine (as hypochlorite) per day in chlorine contact chambers.
Sewage solids will be digested by extended-aeration treatment, leaving a chlorinated liquid with a minimum of 0.5 to 1.0 ppm free residual chlorine.
This liquid will be pumped to a holding pond -where waste stabilization will be completed during the normal retention period -and ultimately to the river.3.7.2 Permanent sewage Domestic sewage from the plant,.estimated at 8000 gpd, will be collected in a sand filter with tertiary treatment.
The effluent from the underdrains of the filter will be treated in a chlorine contact chamber using up to 1.5 lb of chlorine (as hypochlorite) per day. The effluent from the chamber, which has a minimum residua1lfrde chlorine concentration of 0.5 to 1.0 ppm, will be pumped to the WWTS and, after stabilization, it will ultimately be pumped to the river.Both the temporary and permanent sewage treatment systems will meet all applicable standards of the State of South Carolina.3.7.3 Auxiliary heating systems The plant heating boiler, used prior to unit startup, will be electric-fired and, consequently, there will be no gaseous emissions.
The diesel generators, used for emergency power only, will be started and tested for an hour at least once every two weeks. The exhaust gases will pass through a silencer before being dis-charged. The fuel to be used is fuel oil that has a cetane rating of 37-47, 0.6% sulfur, 0.01%ash, and 0.15% carbon residue. The staff concludes that the emissions from this source would be within the limits set in State regulations.
3.8 TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS 3.8.1 Switching station The 230-kV switching station is located about 800 ft south of the powerhouse and encompasses an area of approximately 17 acres. Approximately 19 acres are reserved for a proposed 525-kV switching station adjacent to the 230-kV station on the south side. Power from each unit is transmitted via two separate overhead transmission lines connecting to the 230-kV switching sta-tion. Initially, the 230-kV switching station will interconnect with the Duke Power Transmission Network by three lines (fold-ins), each having two three-phase double-circuit overhead lines (Fig. 3.9). Provisions for two additional double-circuit 230-kV transmission lines are included in the design for CNS, plus space requirements for a future 525-kV switching station.
3-20 ES-602R ,./~/J/ " \----.._GAFFNEY "I I,__J3O -0Z'CHEROKEE ' !NUCLEAR I &#xfd;<@STATION 0 0 "HICKORY GROVE It I IIo BROAD L t ' --" 4F".-'tic RIVER \11 -0 2 3 MILES Fig. 3.9. Proposed transmission line and rail spur rights-of-way routes.3.8.2 Transmission routes Transmission lines proposed for connection of CNS with the existing distribution system are illustrated in Fig. 3.9. To connect CNS with Duke Power Company's existing transmission system, three double-circuit 230-kV lines are folded into the Cherokee switchyard.
Cherokee Station to Shelby Tap-Peach Valley 230-kV line One double-circuit 230-kV line is constructed over a 270-ft-wide, 5.2-mile corridor (169.4 acres)that leads from CNS to a juncture with the Shelby Tap to Peach Valley 230-kV line. Towers are spaced approximately 11.00 ft apart and are 110-175 ft high. Minimum wire clearance to the ground at any point is 35 ft. Of the total 169.4 acres of right-of-way, approximately 81% is forest land, 6% is pasture, and 12% is active and inactive agricultural land.Cherokee Station to Catawba-Pacolet 230-kV line One double-circuit 230-kV line is to be constructed over a 270-ft-wide, 6.9-mile corridor (226.4 acres) that leads from CNS to a juncture with the Catawba to Pacolet 230-kV line. Tower specifica-tions and wire clearance are the same as above. Of the total 226.4 acres of right-of-way, approximately 86% is forest land, 4% is pasture, and 10% is active and inactive agricultural land.Cherokee Station to Catawba-Shelby Tap 230-kV line One double-circuit 230-kV line is to be constructed over a 270-ft-wide, 1.2-mile corridor and then over a 251-ft-wide, 7.2-mile corridor leading from CNS to a juncture with the Catawba to Shelby Tap 230-kV line. Tower height and wire clearance are the same as above. Of the total 258.4 acres of right-of-way, approximately 84% is forest land, 9% is pasture land, and 7% is active agricultural land.
3-21 For all three fold-ins identified above, all forested land will be cleared. None of the proposed lines cross any existing railroads, and none require removal of any man-made structures, although some geodetic control survey monuments may be located in the proposed corridor.
The proposed Catawba to Shelby Tap fold-in is the one line that will cross a body of water, and in this case, about 0.3 acre of water and wetlands is involved.
The alternate routes proposed for the three lines would involve the following distances:
Shelby Tap to Peach Valley fold-in, 4.4 miles;Catawba to Pacolet fold-in, 7.1 miles; and the Catawba to Shelby Tap fold-in, 10.5 miles. The existing land use along the alternate routes has not been supplied by the applicant; however, with the exception of two additional crossings of the Broad River, land use patterns are expected to approximate those stated for the preferred routing. Right-of-way width for alternate routes is likely to be identical to the preferred routing.'Existing lines will be modified to accommodate voltage output from the Cherokee Station. From the Shelby Tap Station to the Peach Valley Tie Station (about 34 miles of lines), 177 towers will be replaced.
Between the Catawba Nuclear Station and the Pacolet Tie Station (about 42 miles of lines), a single conductor will be replaced by a two-conductor bundle at each phase, and 223 towers will be modified with heavier steel where necessary.
3.9 TRANSPORTATION CONNECTIONS 3.9.1 Railroad spur The applicant has proposed construction of a railroad spur for use in transporting fuel, radio-active waste materials, and construction materials.
A minimum 100-ft-wide right-of-way, including a total of about 83 acres, is required over the 7-mile spur that connects with an existing rail-road at Gaffney, South Carolina (Fig. 3.9)..3.9.2 Access roads One construction access road and one permanent access road to the station are proposed by the applicant for carrying cruck and automobile traffic (ER, Fig. 4.1.1-2).
Both roads will connect with County Road 13 south of the site. Three temporary access roads to the transmission lines of total length about 20.5 miles will be constructed on the rights-of-way of the three proposed lines.3.10 CONSTRUCTION PLAN The applicant expects construction activities (site preparation) to begin in November 1976, with pouring of the first permanent concrete foundations scheduled for September 1978. Commercial operation of Units 1, 2, and 3 is scheduled for January of 1984, 1986, and 1988, respectively.
Construction manpower requirements are expected to peak at about 2600 during 1982; during the period 1979-1985, the average construction work force is not expected to drop below about 1100.Estimated average construction employment from 1977 through 1988 is given in Table 3.8. Further details of the preliminary construction schedule are given in Sect. 4 of the ER.Table 3.8. Estimated average construction employment at Cherokee Nuclear Station Year Average construction employment 1976 20 1977 160 1978 540 1979 1190 1980 1840 1981 2510 1982 2590 1983 2590 1984 2290 1985 1940 1986 1530 1987 750 1988 180 Source: From the ERTable 4.1.1-3.
: 4. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF SITE PREPARATION AND OF STATION AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION 4.1 IMPACTS ON LAND USE The total land area involved in the actual construction (both temporary and permanent facilities) of the CNS and related facilities will include 1488 acres as follows (all acreages given below are approximations):
Acres Station and facilities (including three 751 (staff estimate from ER, access roads and three ponds) Fig. 4.1.1-2)Rights-of-way Transmission lines (including access roads and additional construction) 654 Railroad spur 83 The area included within the site boundary fence is 1272 acres (staff estimate from ER, Fig.4.1.1-2), while the total site area is estimated by the staff to be 2263 acres (ER, Fig. 2.1-4).4.1.1 Station site A diagrammatic land use plan for the CNS is shown in Fig. 4.1 , and the acreage to be affected by station facilities is given in Table 4.1. A total of about 751 acres (staff estimate from ER, Fig. 4.1.1-2) of possible wildlife habitat of forested and semiforested land will, be completely cleared during construction.
Almost all of the forest within the 450-acre exclusion area will be cleared. Of the three dominant land cover types within the exclusion area, 50% is pine forest (pine scrub and mesic pine forest), 31% is oak-hickory forest, and 11% is mixed mesic hardwood forest, with 8% miscellaneous (alluvial forest and water). The nuclear service water pond and the intake sedimentation basin (total of 280 acres) will flood 49% forest communities, 22% aquatic areas, 15% abandoned fields and transmission rights-of-way, and 14% thickets (ER, Question 1.13). All forested land to be covered by these ponds will be cleared by the applicant.
Most of the other 1513 acres of the applicant's property could potentially be cut over, because the applicant has given timber rights to the previous landowners on 90% of the property.
The applicant does not plan to monitor the amount of forests cleared by previous landowners.
An additional acreage outside the applicant's 2263 acres may be cleared as more land is acquired by the applicant from private landowners and from U.S. Plywood and Champion Papers, Inc. The dis-position of merchantable timber that the applicant himself will clear has not been stated, but it should be placed on the market since it may be important to the local economy.Excavations for building foundations and installation of intake and discharge structures will provide substantial amounts of fill material.
Excavation will be confined almost entirely to cleared areas (i.e., most of the area within the exclusion boundary and the acreage covered-by the intake sedimentation basin and the nuclear water service pond). Grading and site excavation will involve the following estimated quantities of earthwork and dredging: Waste water collection basin dam 34,000 yd 3 fill Nuclear service water pond dam 625,000 yd 3 fill Intake sedimentation basin dam 520,000 yd 3 fill Station yard (including plant yard, 9,340,000 yd 3 excavation cooling tower yard, and switchyards) 6,700,000 yd 3 fill The total fill required amounts to 7,879,000 yd 3 compared to the 9,340,000 yd 3 for excavation.
The excess excavation will be used as compacted fill in adjacent low areas to serve as construc-tion yard space and as storage area for equipment.
Excavation to depths below the existing water table will require dewatering for placement of foundations and substructures.
The applicant has estimated the maximum production rate of dewatering effluents to be 450 gpm (ER, Question 1.10)4-1 ES-60IR CONSTRUCTION PARKING CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROAD COOLING TOWERS CONSTRUCTION YARD FUTURE 525-kV SWITCHING STATION GENERATING STATION INTAKE SEDIMENTATION BASIN PARKING PERMANENT ROAD POWERHOUSE YARD 230-kV SWITCHING STATION ,-WASTE-WATER TREATMENT P P 0 800 1600 FEET Fig. 4.1. Land use plan.
4-3 and has stated that the groundwater table is lowered only within the site (ER, p. 4.1-6). The effluent will be detained in detention ponds, thereby protecting the adjacent streams and river from construction-related sediment (ER, Question 4.1.10).Table 4.1. Land area requirements for Cherokee Nuclear Station Description of facility Land area (acres)Generating station 468 Cooling towers , 37a 230-kV switching station 1 7 b 525-kV switching station 19b Waste water treatment 7 Intake sedimentation basin 9W Nuclear service water pond 1 8 4 a aStaff estimate based on the site plan blueprint.
bFrom the ER.A total of 17 homes (16 family and 1 recreational) will be displaced as a result of land acquisi-tion and plant operation.
Of the 2263 acres of the applicant's property, the area within the site boundary fence will be removed from access by the general public (ER, Question 2.2.12). This action involves 1272 acres (staff estimate from ER, Fig. 4.1.1-2) instead of 736 acres, as stated by the applicant (ER, Question 2.2.12). The applicant did not state how much recreation would be allowed on its 991 acres outside the boundary fence. Recreation within the exclusion area will be limited to occasional boating and fishing on Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir.
Therefore, noise during con-struction should have no significant impacts on normal land use in the'surrounding area, which is mostly forested and sparsely populated.
The applicant expects that noise levels at the boundary of the exclusion area will fall within the range 45-73 dB (A) during operation of large earth-moving equipment (ER, Sect. 4.1.2). The nearest offsite residence will be at least 4000 ft away from the loudest noise source.1 4.1.2 Intake sedimentation basin The intake sedimentation basin will occupy 96 acres including 10% abandoned fields and trans-mission line rights-of-way, 58% forest communities, and 32% aquatic areas.4.1.3 Transmission lines The applicant has outlined a proposed routing and an alternate routing for each of the three fold-ins that connect with other lines of the applicant's existing and proposed system (Fig. 3.8).Comparisons of alternate and proposed routings are given in Sect. 9.2.4. None of the trans-mission line corridors cross any lakes; marshland; wildlife refuges; scenic, historic, or recrea-tional areas; national forests; designated wilderness areas; or national register properties.
Land that will be permanently removed from productive agricultural use is only that land immedi-ately under the transmission towers; land use on other areas is not expected to change. If any geodetic control survey monuments are located in the transmission line routes, the National Ocean Survey requires not less than 90 days' notification in advance of construction activity in order to plan for their relocation.
Visual impact of the three fold-ins is expected to be light, since they cross strictly rural areas. None of the lines cross any major highways, and only one comes within visual distance of a small town.In terms of actual construction of lines proposed for CNS, the principal impact on present land use will be the conversion of 550 acres of forested land to low-growing grass, herbs, and brush.Impact on remaining lands (104 acres), active and inactive croplands and pasture, will be limited to that from grading and other actions associated with tower siting and stringing of high tension 4-4 lines. Except for areas occupied by tower bases and access roads, these lands will be allowed to revert to their former uses following construction.
The temporary construction roads on each right-of-way will be seeded to impede erosion and to return the land to suitable wildlife habitat.4.1.4 Railroad spur line The principal impact associated with construction of the railroad spur described in Sect. 3.9 (Fig. 3.8) will be the permanent removal of about 83 acres of land from other uses. It is ex-pected that approximately 10 acres of agricultural land will be lost, while the remainder (73 acres) to be affected consists of forest and an existing unused 33-kV right-of-way.
The acreage of forest and of right-of-way to be used will depend on the suitability of the right-of-way for the spur; where the right-of-way is not suitable, forests adjoining the right-of-way will have to be cleared for the spur. The staff requires the applicant to construct the spur on the ex-isting right-of-way as far as practicable (Sects. 4.5 and 9.2.5).4.1.5 Access roads A total of 2.3 miles of two access roads, one temporary construction and one permanent, will remove roughly 23 acres from present land use outside the exclusion area (based on staff esti-mates from the ER, Fig. 4.1.1-2, Amendment 3). Judging from the site aerial photograph (ER, Fig.2.1-5), both roads may utilize portions of existing roads. The staff recommends that the appli-cant use existing road as much as possible for access to the site.4.1L6 Makeup and blowdown pipelines Impacts of the construction of the makeup pipeline were included in Sect. 4.1.1. The blowdown pipeline will require additional clearing outside the exclusion area, amounting to probably less than 5 acres (acreage estimates were not provided by the applicant).
Where the line passes down the slope to the Broad River, the staff recommends that the applicant exercise all reasonable precautions to minimize erosion and siltation of the river.4.1.7 Conclusion and summary of land use impact A total of 1373 acres of forest will be cleared for the station site (750 acres), transmission line rights-of-way (550 acres), and railroad right-of-way (73 acres). This total acreage cleared will reduce the total forested acreage (36,725) within a 5-mile radius by 3.7% (staff estimate from aerial photographs).
Small portions of the cleared acreage on the station site proper may be allowed to undergo natural succession to forest, but for comparative purposes, the staff assumes that at least 1373 acres will be removed from productive forest status. Additional forested acreage will be cleared for the construction of mobile home parks and other living accommodations for personnel involved in Cherokee site preparation and construction (ER, Question 4.1.6b); however, this acreage has not been estimated.
The relative impact of the above changes in landuse may be compared with previous land use changes in Cherokee County for the period 1958-1967 (Table 4.2). The conversion of 1373 acres of forest to other uses will reduce the 1967 inventoried forest acreage (land at least 10% stocked with trees, land with forest reduced to less than 10% but not developed for other uses, and land planted with trees, except U.S. Forest Service land) by 1.0% (0.01% statewide).
The conversion of 550 acres (transmission line rights-of-way) of forest to other uses and 823 acres (station site and railroad spur) of forest to noninventory status involves increases of 8.6% and 4.2%, respec-tively, of 1967 acreages in these two categories.
These two figures are only slightly less than the total increases in these two categories from 1958-1967.
Of note are the large changes in acreage for cropland (-12,711 acres), forest (+5359 acres), and pasture (+5211 acres) during these years. The increase in urban and built-up areas has been much less than that experienced in other counties.4.2 IMPACTS ON WATER USE 4.2.1 Surface water The major potential impact on water use will be the increased turbidity in the Broad River (Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir), which will result from activities associated with construction of the river intake and discharge structures.
During site preparation, there will also be some increase in turbidity due to runoff during rainstorms from the site. River uses that could be affected by an increase in turbidity are fishing and other water-related forms of recreation.
There are no agricultural, domestic, or metropolitan water withdrawals from the river near 4-5 Cherokee (Sect. 2.2). The staff agrees with the applicant (ER, pp. 4.1-5 and 4.1-6) that, if proper erosion controls are implemented in the site area, there will be no appreciable impact on the water quality of the river.Table 4.2. Land use inventory for Cherokee County, South Carolina, as compared with land use for all counties 1958-1967a Acres Change 1958-1967 1958 1967 Acres Percent Total inventoryb 234,200 232,459 -1,741 -0.7 (17,471,086)
(17,154,441)
(-316,645)
(-1.8)Cropland 78,500 65,789 -12,711 -16.2 (4,540,500)
(3,865,413)
(-675,087)
(-14.9)Pasture 24,000 29,211 +5.211 +21.7 (940,200)
(1,037,685)
(+97,485)
(+10.4)Forest (less USFS) 125,700 131,059 +5,359 +4.3 (11,090,400)
(11,427,073)
(+336,673)
(+3.0)Other land 6,000 6,400 +400 +6.7 (900,000)
(824,270)
(-75,730)
(-8.4)Noninventoryb 17,800 19,541 +1,741 +9.8 (1.902,874)
(2,183,828)
(+280,954)
(+14.8)Federal noncropland 1,000 1,000 (1,036,542)
(1,042,667)
+(6,125) (+0.6)Urban and built-up 15,500 16,899 +1,399 +9.0 (777,335)
(1;031,000)
(+253,665)
(+32.6)Small water areac 1,300 1,642 +342 +26.3 (88,997) (110,161)
(+21,164)
(+23.8)aTotals for all counties are shown in parentheses.
bNoninventory land is the land excluded from farming purposes.CSmall water area includes ponds and lakes less than 40 acres and streams less than 1/8 mile wide;acreages attributable to larger bodies of water have been subtracted from total land areas.Source: "South Carolina Soil and Water Conservation Needs Inventory," Soil Conservation Service, USDA. Columbia, S.C., 1970.4.2.2 Groundwater The groundwater environment at the site will be substantially changed by the proposed construc-tion. During construction, dewatering of the various excavations will cause the groundwater table to be lowered (ER, p. 4.1-6). The applicant also states (PSAR, Sect. 2.4.13.2) that the groundwater in the area moves toward the river, which acts as a groundwater sink for the site and the surrounding area. Because the nearest well is outside the effective zone of influence of such dewatering, the staff considers that construction will have no effect on adjacent wells.However, the staff recommends that the applicant monitor the nearest well (Sect. 2.5.2) and, if any effect is noted, take remedial steps.4.3 EFFECTS ON ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS 4.3.1 Terrestrial In general, all mitigative activities of the applicant should focus on maintaining the produc-tivity of natural systems, which is especially critical as the demands for foodstuffs, renewable natural resources (e.g., lumber), and recreational opportunities increase.
A major key to main-taining maximal productivity of terrestrial systems is to maintain soil fertility.
Therefore, operational procedures that maintain a productive topsoil should be utilized.
Such procedures will, in general, involve restriction of grading, leveling, and bulldozing operations; saving and replacing topsoil where such operations must occur; and preventing erosion through rapid and efficient revegetation programs.
4-6 4.3.1.1 The site Vegetation Clearing for construction and site development constitutes an unavoidable disturbance to the immediate environs.
The bulk of clearing and site preparation will occur in upland pine, oak-hickory, and mixed mesic hardwood forests, which comprise 93% of the exclusion area. It is expected that 228 acres of pine forest (five stands), 141 acres of oak-hickory forest (four stands), 50 acres of mixed mesic hardwood forest (three stands), and seven acres of mountain laurel-hardwood forest (one stand) will be cleared within the 450-acre exclusion area. The remaining acreage within the exclusion area is mostly surface water and transmission line right-of-way.
Within the security fence, a total of about 750 acres of forest will be cleared.Some areas cleared during construction will be allowed to undergo natural succession, thus reverting, after many years, to their original condition.
For succession to proceed normally on slopes, however, topsoil on cleared and graded or eroded areas should be replaced and quickly stabilized with vegetation; otherwise, the reestablishment of vegetative cover will be slow, the soil would further erode, and wildlife populations would receive little benefit from the areas.The single stand of mountain laurel-hardwood lies in the southwestern portion of the site and is near or on areas to be cleared (ER, Fig. 4.1.1-2).
The community vegetation is dominated by American beech in the overstory and mountain laurel in the shrub layer. Several factors indicate that this community type is infrequent or rare. This combination of beech and laurel forms a vegetation type that is not discussed in publications describing the forest types of this area (Sect. 2.7.1.2), and this community occupies only 0.2% of the 3348 acres on which vegetation on the site and vicinity was mapped. The staff has conferred with professional botanists or plant ecologists in South Carolina, who state that communities dominated by a laurel-beech combination occur in other areas besides the Cherokee site but that they are infrequent or rare. Both American beech and mountain laurel are common widespread species. Thus, while the species are not rare, the stand is unique because beech and laurel occur as dominant species in the same community.
Therefore, if the stand were lost during construction, no serious impacts would occur on the species populations of beech and laurel. However, because this community type is infre-quent or rare, the staff recommends that the applicant preserve it if such preservation is not too costly and does not seriously compromise other environmental concerns on the site.The intake sedimentation basin and the nuclear service water pond will account for most of the land to be cleared outside the exclusion area. The intake sedimentation basin will cover 96 acres (Table 4.1), 10% of which is abandoned fields and transmission line right-of-way and 58% of which is forest land, consisting mainly of oak-hickory, pine, and mixed mesic hardwood.The nuclear service water pond will cover 184 acres, 20% of which is abandoned fields and transmission line right-of-way and 68% of which is thickets and forest. The percentages of each forest type to be covered by the ponds were not given by the applicant.
Roads and the future 525-kV switching station account for other acreage to be cleared outside the exclusion area, Erosion problems Erosion on the site could have serious effects on terrestrial systems on the site and in the immediate vicinity of the site and on nearby aquatic systems, especially during a construction project of this size and duration.
Because the loss of topsoil and siltation of streams through erosion would cause reductions in the productivity of both terrestrial and aquatic communities, possible erosion problems on the site should be assessed.Several construction buildings and the cleared area in the north and northeast portions of the exclusion area will be close to or over relatively steep slopes leading down into the Broad River bottoms (ER, Fig. 4.1.1-2).
The staff recommends that, where possible, the planned cleared area and construction buildings be relocated toward the center of the exclusion area closer to the proposed generating station to minimize erosion of slopes and the movement of sediments into slope forests and the river below. For example, a 100-ft-wide strip of forest could be left at the tops of the slopes, located on land with grades of less than 10%. The staff also suggests that more land be left uncleared along the northwest shore of the intake sedimentation basin and that the applicant restrict clearing by previous landowners along the shores of both the intake sedimentation pond and the nuclear service water pond. The applicant should take special precautions to ensure that forests on the steep slopes of McGowan Mountain southwest of the ex-clusion area are not subjected to any clearing, which could result in rapid erosion and siltation of the nuclear service water pond. The applicant in his comments on the DES (page A-20) has indicated several factors which will restrict the implementation of the staff's above recommendation.
4-7 The applicant plans to limit runoff according to EPA standards.'
To minimize erosion into the river, the applicant will provide detention ponds and berms during early construction in order to detain sediment-laden water and provide settlement of sediment prior to discharge into the re-ceiving streams. A permanent drainage system will be installed as soon as practical to prevent excessive erosion from overland travel of rainfall runoff. At the earliest practical time, all areas not paved will be seeded to obtain a stand of vegetation that will minimize runoff. All paved areas will be sloped and drained to minimize erosion of nonpaved areas (ER, Question 4.1.1.11).
Clearing of the three forest types dominant within the exclusion area should not have a serious effect on regional productivity and other environmental factors, as long as appropriate practices are followed during construction and land not covered by structures is quickly revegetated after construction.
The applicant has stated that landscaping and restoration of habitats are to occur as construction progresses (ER, Sect. 4.1.3 and Question 4.1.11). Final grading, replacement of topsoil, and seeding with grasses and herbaceous plants will be done to stablize construction areas. Filling and seeding of settling basins and spoil sites will restore these areas as well.The applicant will clear forested land totaling about 750 acres, and previous landowners will clear an undetermined amount. The staff assumes that no extra acreage of forested land will need to be cleared.Fauna Because the site is a minute portion of the total area occupied by each species, no species'overall population should be seriously affected.
Impacts upon local fauna include killing and displacement of numerous animals, which will result in a reduction of the populations of the species involved.
Numerous less mobile forms, including invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, small and medium-sized mammals, and juvenile birds (during spring and summer) will be killed during clearing, excavating, grading, and filling. Larger mammals and adult birds will disperse from the site as dictated by construction activities.
It must be assumed that the populations (or potential populations) of species that breed in forests will be permanently reduced in proportion to the number of forest acres cleared. Individuals of these species cannot simply leave the site being cleared and form breeding populations elsewhere because other suitable habitats in the area are already occupied and can support only a certain number of individuals.
In other words, all habitats have their respective carrying capacities and cannot sustain popu-lations greater than certain given densities.
The reduction of suitable habitat is, thus, equivalent to reduction of the animal populations involved.
For example, the clearing of 750 acres of pine and hardwood forests can be expected to reduce total bird populations on this acreage and in the region by 2280 individuals or 152 pairs per 100 acres (staff estimate using data of Johnston and Odum).2 Forest bird populations would be reduced by about 0.01% statewide, which is the percent reduction in forests statewide (Sect. 4.1.7).Other species that can exist in lawns and shrubbery and around buildings will move back into the area after construction subsides and revegetation of the area begins. Such animals include many invertebrates, a few species of lizards and small snakes, certain amphibians if ponds and streams are available, and several species of birds and mammals. Other species that require woodlands for existence may, with time, disperse back into areas that are allowed to undergo natural succession and revert to their original forested condition, although this process would take several decades. Successional stages of vegetation, however, are important to several species, including game species that inhabit ground level strata of vegetation (e.g., white-tailed deer, bobwhite quail, cottontail rabbit). An area of lawns; shrubbery, and scattered groves of trees, as might exist on the landscaped site, can support fairly dense populations of certain species, such as mockingbirds, robins, brown thrashers, cottontail rabbits, and squirrels, and can be an attractive area for migrating species of birds.The intake sedimentation basin and the nuclear service water pond are expected to receive only light use by waterfowl during any particular season, unless resident populations are artificially established and feeding areas are provided.Increased traffic can be expected to cause an increase in road kills of mammals, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and invertebrates, but the impact of such deaths on the populations involved should be small.4.3.1.2 Transmission facilities Cherokee transmission facilities are discussed in Sect. 3.8. The staff has examined proposed and alternate routings for the three fold-ins (Sect. 9.2.4) and feels that'the proposed routings are slightly more desirable than the alternatives.
4-8 Vegetation Clearing for the construction of transmission facilities constitutes an unavoidable disturbance to the immediate environs as a result of the establishment of an electrical power plant. The three fold-in transmission lines of the Cherokee project will cover 654 acres consisting of 84% forests, 6% pasture, and 10% active and inactive agricultural land. The vegetation in pasture and agricultural land is not expected to be seriously affected, and those land uses will be able to continue after the construction of the power lines. Approximately 550 acres of forest, however, will be cleared and permanently lost and replaced by earlier successional stages of vegetation, such as grasses, herbs, shrubs, and small trees. Most of the forest vegetation to be cleared will probably be pine forest and oak-hickory forests, although the applicant has not supplied data on the amount of each forest type in the transmission line corridors.
Rough estimates of the proportions of the different forest types involved in the clearing operations may be made by assuming forest composition to correspond to the general pattern for commercial forest lands within the Piedmont region of South Carolina (72% pine and oak-pine and 28% miscel-laneous hardwoods).
3 Thus, roughly 396 acres of pine forest (including oak-pine) and 154 acres of predominantly oak-hickory forests will be cleared.The removal of these acreages of forests is not expected to seriously affect overall plant productivity in the area and will not seriously affect the population of any plant species.Clearing of 550 acres of forest for the transmission lines will reduce the total acreage of forest (36,725 acres) within a 5-mile radius of the station site by approximately 1.5% (staff estimate based on aerial photographs).
Plant species that require open areas with abundant sunlight will benefit from clearing of the forests because they will be able to invade the right-of-way as allowed by maintenance activities after initial construction operations.
The clearing of corridors through extensive solid forests for rights-of-way may function in a way similar to that of extensive forest fires in the past (i.e., in causing a diversity or mosaic of successional stages to exist within large regions),4 and it may also increase the diversity of plant and animal life in the area while successional.
stages exist on the transmission line rights-of-way.
However, forests in the Cherokee site area are already considerably broken up by fields, roads, rights-of-way, etc.Erosion problems Erosion problems will occur on transmission line rights-of-way because the corridors will pass through country with gently rolling topography and with a total of five nonspanable slopes greater than 34% (i.e., slopes on which a 100-ft horizontal movement results in a vertical movement of 34 ft or more). Thus, some towers will necessarily be placed on slopes greater than 34%, and construction access roads, which will follow the rights-of-way, will cut across the slopes. The applicant did not state what would be done on steep slopes to minimize erosion.The transmission line rights-of-way will cross streams in several places, and the applicant has stated that low-growing vegetation will not be disturbed along the banks so that soil stability can be maintained and aquatic life will not be affected (ER, Sect. 3.9.3, p. 3.9-3).Provided that towers are set back from the edges of the river and disturbances to vegetation along the banks are minimal, no significant environmental damage is anticipated from the one proposed river crossing.The applicant's plans for clearing and reclamation operations are as follows: (1) initial clearing of rights-of-way will involve hand labor and such equipment as necessary, (2) no herbi-cides, growth retardants, or sprays will be used in the clearing operations, and (3) all slash and unmerchantable timber will be removed, buried, or otherwise disposed of in accordance with local regulations (ER, Sect. 4.2, p. 4.2-1). The staff recommends that the applicant study possi-bilities of using slash in impeding erosion and enhancing wildlife populations.
After clearing, the rights-of-way will be planted with 50 lb of Fescue #31 per acre, and Sericea lespedeza will be used in rough areas such as steep slopes. In other places, German millet will be planted along with the fescue to provide cover and protection until the grass becomes established.
Access roads are to be seeded and maintained in the same manner as the rest of the right-of-way.
The staff recommends that the applicant consult with local authorities to develop seeding mixtures and schedules for wildlife and erosion control.The staff suggests that the applicant consider breaking up the road surface before seeding in order to accelerate the growth of vegetation that would impede erosion. On slopes, much care would have to be taken to prevent erosion; the road should be broken up at a time of year when rains are not sudden and heavy, and structures should be provided to impede erosion.The staff emphasizes that to prevent erosion, all bare areas including access roads should be given immediate attention.
If erosion occurs initially, revegetation will be very slow without replacement of topsoil, and increased erosion could be a serious problem for the life of the 4-9 transmission lines. For a long period of time, increased erosion would cause reduced levels of plant production reduced levels of terrestrial wildlife via reduction in food and cover, and reduced levels of aquatic life via siltation of streams.The staff recommends that bulldozing be limited to the extent necessary for preparation of the access roads and placement of towers.Fauna The impact of the preparation of rights-of-way and the construction of transmission lines on the fauna will result almost entirely from the clearing of forest communities.
The impact on fauna will thus involve mainly a permanent reduction of certain woodland species and a concomitant increase in other species that utilize woodland edges and successional stages of vegetation.
Conversion of forest to forb-grass-shrub habitats is expected to reduce the bird population from a density of 152 pairs per 100 acres to a density of 66 pairs per 100 acres (staff estimate using data of Johnston and Odum 2). Over 550 acres of this conversion would therefore cause a net reduction of the bird population by 946 individuals.
This decrease may be partially offset by an increase in the numbers of birds that frequent woodland edges. The successional stages of vegetation on the rights-of-way should provide more food for deer, quail, and rabbits than would be provided in solid woodland.The clearing of 550 acres of forested land in narrow belts (270 ft wide) is not expected to seriously reduce or affect the regional populations of any animal species. In the areas surrounding the proposed transmission line corridors, there are several forests of the same types that will be cleared; so the effect of clearing 550 acres is not serious to any of the populations requiring these forest types.4.3.1.3 Conclusion to effects on terrestrial ecological systems In view of the potential for serious erosion on the Cherokee site, as described in preceding sections, the staff requires that the applicant formalize its procedures for control of drainage effluents and submit a detailed erosion control plan for staff review prior to undertaking con-struction activities with potential for serious soil erosion. The plan must consider both the station site proper and transmission line rights-of-way.
The plan must identify all areas where serious erosion could occur as a result of clearing and construction and must describe in detail for each of these areas separately, actions that will be taken to impede the erosion. All drainage effluents must conform to EPA regulations on turbidity (see FederaZ Register of October 8, 1974).The staff also recommends that the applicant consult with appropriate state agencies to develop and submit a plan for maximizing the productivity of vegetation and-wildlife on all areas subjected to clearing or other modifications.
4.3.2 Aquatic ecology The adverse effects of nuclear power plant construction on the aquatic environment result pri-marily from three categories of impacts: (1) increased turbidity, (2) chemical effluents, and (3) destruction of aquatic habitats.4.3.2.1 Increased turbidity Increases in turbidity or total suspended solids (TSS) in the Broad River and Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir will result from: (I) the construction of the two site ponds, (2) construction of intake and discharge structures, and (3) erosion and runoff from the disruption of ground cover.Construction of the site ponds The dredging, filling, and disruption of ground cover that will occur during the construction of the two site ponds will lead to substantially high turbidities in the ponds and in adjacent waters. A quantitative estimate of the turbidities that will be encountered is difficult to predict. It will depend primarily on meteorological and hydrological conditions prevailing during construction.
Increases may be substantial because of the amount of construction activity that will take place directly in the waters of the reservoir (Fig. 2.4). The areas that will be affected by increased turbidity include the reservoir on the CNS'side of the river and the Broad River itself. About 50% of the total area of the reservoir will be affected to some degree.
4-10 Construction of intake and discharge structures The water intake structure will be constructed approximately 1000 ft-above Ninety-Nine Islands Dam on the main channel of the river (Fig. 2.4). Construction activities will result in dis-ruption of the river bank. Since the river bank is steep at the site, the potential for severe river bank erosion exists. In addition, the construction of the intake structure will require a temporary cofferdam.
Dewatering of the cofferdam will be required, and the effluent will be dis-charged directly into the river. The discharge structure will be constructed immediately below the dam (Fig. 2.4). Although at this point the river bank is also steep, the potential for stream bank erosion is considerably less since the slope is largely composed of rock.Turbidity in the river will be increased by the construction of these two structures, although it is impossible to predict the extent. Much will depend on meteorological conditions and river flows' during the construction period. In any case, the areas affected will be relatively small, and the effects will only be temporary and localized.
Storm drainage runoff Due to the hilly terrain and the soil characteristics of the CNS site, storm drainage runoff from areas of disrupted ground cover could carry off large quantities of soil. The applicant has estimated that a maximum of 751 acres at the site could be devoid of ground cover as the result of construction activities if erosion is not carefully controlled.
The applicant has further estimated that this reduction in ground cover could result in the entrance of approximately 120 tons per acre of soil per year into the Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir and the Broad River com-pared to 4.5 tons per acre per year under existing conditions (ER, Sect. 4.1.3.1).As pointed out in Sect. 4.3.1, the applicant will be required to submit a plan to control erosion and runoff from the site, which, if properly implemented, should substantially reduce inputs of suspended solids derived from storm drainage runoff into the reservoir and river. It should do little, however, to prevent suspended solids washed from the impoundment dams and discharge and intake structure sites from entering the reservoir.
The net result will be that TSS levels will be substantially increased in the backwater areas of the reservoir on the west side of the river.Total suspended solids increases will be less in the river proper due to the small area on the river involved in construction and due to the dilution of runoff with river water.The effects of increased turbidities on aquatic organisms are well documented and include reduc-tion of light penetration and photosynthesis; 5-7 impairment of respiratory and feeding functions; filling in of interstitial spaces of bottom substrates; smothering of benthos, spawning sites, and demersal fish eggs;5 , 6 , 8 alterations in species composition; 5 and lower fish production.
9 The average annual, TSS in the river proper is 135 mg/l (ER, Table 3.6.2-I).
Total suspended solids levels are probably lower in the lentic backwaters of the reservoir where suspended solids would have tended to settle out. The applicant recorded TSS levels in the river above the dam ranging from 20-136 mg/l for the period September 1973 to February 1974 (ER, Table 2.7.0-10).
Maximum TSS levels of 75-100 mg/l are considered critical for successful spawning of largemouth bass and bluegills, two of the major fish species found in the reservoir (Table 2.2). Total sus-pended solids-levels above 100 mg/l can severely restrict their spawning success.9 If TSS levels are increased substantially above 100 mg/l during the critical spawring period for turbidity-intolerant species such as the bluegill and largemouth bass, the spawning success of these species could be diminished.
If this occurred for several consecutive years, a change in the species com-position of the reservoir could result. The most noticeable change would be a qualitative shift in the fish species composition from the present dominance of Centrarchidae (sunfishes) to a domi.-nance of more turbidity-tolerant and less desirable species such as the carp, quillback carpsucker, and catfish. A decrease in fish productivity would also be expected.9 Any changes in species composition that occurred as a result of increased turbidity would not be permanent.
Restoration of vegetation to disrupted ground cover and appropriate erosion control measures should eventually reduce TSS levels to near preconstruction levels. Thereafter, the biota of impacted areas should slowly revert back to approximately their former composition.
After soil stabilization takes place and erosion is reduced, the nuclear service water will have TSS levels considerably below those of the river because it will be completely isolated from the river and will receive water only from the site creek drainage (Fig. 2.4).The sedimentation pond will continue to have TSS levels near ambient even after construction is completed since it will function as the pond for sedimentation of cooling tower makeup water pumped from the river.
4-11 4.3.2.2 Construction effluents Two categories of construction effluents resulting from CNS that could have adverse impacts on the aquatic environment of the site are: (1) chemical effluents, mainly chlorine and various nutrients from treated domestic sewage, and (2) spillages of harmful liquids.Chemical effluents During construction, domestic sewage will amount to a maximum of 36,000 gpd. These wastes will be treated in a prefabricated, extended aeration-type sewage treatment plant. All wastes will be treated with hypochlorite.
The resultant effluent will be pumped to either the NSW or sedimen-tation ponds and then ultimately released to the reservoir after stabilization.
Total residual chlorine will be present in the effluent at levels well below those toxic to aquatic biota.The effluent will be released into a backwater of the reservoir where the rate of flow of water to the river is slow except during times of floods (ER, Sect. 2.5.2.2).
Nitrates and phosphates will build up in this area of the reservoir with the result that primary production will be stimulated.
During times of low TSS levels, blooms of undesirable bluegreen algae could result.The extent to which blooms will occur will depend on ambient TSS levels and the flushing rate of the water from the backwater area out into the river proper. Increased TSS levels resulting from CNS construction may tend to inhibit primary production.
The impact of these nutrients on the biota of the river proper will be minor due to the large dilution with river water that will occur. Average incremental increases will amount to 0.043 mg/l of nitrates and 0.013 mg/l of phosphates (ER, Table 3.6.2-1).Spillage of harmful liquids Spillages of environmentally injurious liquids (e.g., gasoline and oil) are a possibility.
However, the distance from most construction areas to open water, plus the presence of the applicant's storm drainage runoff system, will minimize the possibility of spillages that will directly reach open water. Treatment and cleanup of spills could be managed after the liquids have entered the site ponds.4.3.2.3 Destruction of aquatic habitats Construction of CNS will result in the destruction of aquatic habitats from (1) sedimentation of suspended solids derived from CNS construction activities and (2) the filling and dredging associated with the construction of the two site dams and the discharge structure.
Sedimentation Suspended solids eroded from the CNS construction site will tend to settle out upon entering the lentic waters of Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir on the CNS side of the river. The result will be an accelerated loss of the remaining backwater areas of the reservoir.
A large part of the original backwater area of the reservoir has already been completely filled in from sediments carried into the reservoir by the river (ER, Sect. 2.5.2.1).
Much of the remaining backwater areas are very shallow (ER, Fig. 2.5.2-1).
The quan'tity of sediment that CNS construction may contribute to the reservoir is difficult to predict but potentially could reach a maximum of about 90,120 tons/year (751 acres x 120 tons per acre per year). The areas most adversely impacted by sedimentation will be the shallow littoral areas and their associated biota, espe-cially benthos and fish. Littoral areas had among the highest densities of benthos in sampling done by the applicant (ER, Table 2.7.2-11).
The dominant game and forage fish species collected from the reservoir were littoral species, the Centrarchidae (sunfishes) and Cyprinidae (minnows).
The applicant is committed to limiting the TSS of all effluents and runoff to EPA standards (50 mg/l), which will help retard this loss of aquatic habitat.'Construction activities Construction of the dams for the two site ponds will permanently separate 36 acres or about 12%of the full-pond backwater area of Ninety-Nine Islands reservoir from the remainderof the reservoir (Fig. 2.4). The areas to be separated and impounded were found by the applicant to have relatively high abundances of fish larvae and, therefore, these areas are probably sites of concentrated spawning activity (Sect. 2.7.2.4).
Construction of the impoundments will not destroy these areas, and each pond will eventually develop its own distinct aquatic community.
Since the sedimentation pond will be receiving continuous inputs of river water, it will be quite turbid. The biota that becomes established in the pond will probably be very similar to 4-12 what are now present in the backwaters of the reservoir (Sect. 2.7.2). The NSW pond will not receive any inputs of river water; therefore, its waters should eventually become quite clear.The aquatic communities that develop will consist of species present in Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir that thrive in clearer water and will include such fish as largemouth bass, bluegills, various small cyprinids, and shad (Dorosoma spp). The productivity of the NSW pond should obviously be substantially greater than that of the sedimentation pond.The loss of about 12% of the backwaters of the reservoir should have a negligible effect on the fish and other aquatic organisms in the remaining backwaters of the reservoir because the areas to be impounded are in no respect substantially different.
The loss of 12% of the reservoir should not affect species composition, per unit area productivity, or trophic structure.
Only one fish'species, the creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), inhabits the two site creeks that will be partially impounded.
No rare or endangered species are known to be present (Sect.2.7.2.4).
The formation of the two ponds will eliminate this species from impounded areas of the creeks; however, viable populations should continue to exist in unimpounded sections above the ponds.4.3.2.4 Summary of the impacts of construction on the aquatic environment Construction of CNS will adversely affect the aquatic environment through increases in TSS, releases of construction effluents, and destruction of aquatic habitats.Increases in turbidity caused by construction activities will exert the greatest impact on the backwater areas of Ninety-Nine Island Reservoir on the west side of the river, affecting about 50% of the total backwaters area of the reservoir.
The most noticeable and significant effect would be a change in the fish species composition from a dominance of sunfishes to a dominance of turbidity-tolerant species such as carp, quillback carpsuckers, and catfish. These changes will largely be temporary.
The biota of the impacted areas will probably revert back to their former composition after TSS levels have returned to preconstruction levels.Releases of nutrients from the wastewater treatment system will tend to stimulate primary production and could produce blooms of bluegreen algae in the receiving waters of the reservoir.
The impact will probably be minor due to the inhibitory effects of the high TSS levels that will be present during CNS construction.
All construction activities at the CNS site will result in the permanent destruction of at least 15 acres of aquatic habitat in the reservoir and the separation of 36 acres of aquatic habitat from the rest of the reservoir.
In addition, increased sedimentation resulting from increased TSS levels in the reservoir will accelerate the filling in of the few remaining backwater areas of the reservoir.
If proper construction procedures are followed, the impacts of CNS construction on the river will be relatively insignificant.
The dilution of effluents and runoff with the river water will minimize potential adverse impacts.The applicant is committed to limiting the TSS of construction runoff to the EPA limit of an average of 50 mg/l. The staff considers that compliance with this limit would be adequate to protect the aquatic biota of the area.The impacts of CNS construction on the aquatic environment are summarized in Table 4.3.4.4 IMPACT ON PEOPLE 4.4.1 Physical impacts The noise and dust from construction activities will not be a major impact to the human environ-ment since the site is quite remote and is in a relatively sparsely settled area. The applicant will comply with all OSHA requirements for noise and dust levels.The applicant reports that a total of 17 families will be displaced from the Cherokee site; 11 families had already been displaced by August 1974 (ER, Response to Question 1.1.9). The nunmer of families that will be displaced as a consequence of railroad spur connection is not currently known (ER, Response to Question 4.1.5).The construction will result in an increase in vehicular traffic on local roads. The ER does not address the quality of existing roads, the expected required maintenance, the traffic density, or the expected impact on local residents of such increase in traffic. The staff, during the site visit, made a visual inspection of the road systems surrounding the site and concluded that the roads from Gaffney to the site (principally South Carolina Route 13) are, at present, inadequate Table 4.3. Summary of environmental impacts due to construction Potential impact Applicant's plans to mitigate Expected relative significance Corrective actions Expectedavailable and remarks Increased turbidity Pond construction None Significant increases in TSS could Applicant must submit a detailed Intake and discharge construction None produce changes in the species composition errosion control plan and must of the backwaters of the reservoir from limit TSS levels of all effluents Storm drainage runoff Storm drainage runoff plan. less turbidity tolerant species (sunfishes) and runoff to meet EPA to more turbidity tolerant species (carp, standards.
quillback carpsucker, catfish).
The biota probably will revert back to its former composition after TSS levels have decreased to ambient levels.Construction effluents Chemical effluents Sewage will be treated and chlorinated in a Impact of effluent nutrients and chlorine Effluent composition must meet prefabricated unit and put into the waste on the reservoir and river will be state standards.
collection basin, insignificant.
Spillages of harmful liquids Proper handling procedures will be followed.
Insignificant, except if there is a very large No pathways should be allowed to spill, exist which would permit spillages from reaching Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir or the Broad River.Loss of aquatic habitat Construction of the two site ponds None Locally significant.
36 acres of backwaters None. Species composition of of the reservoir will be separated from the remaining parts of reservoir rest of the reservoir.
Filling and dredging should not be affected.will destroy 15 acres of remaining back-waters of the reservoir.
Sedimentation Applicant's storm drainage runoff control plan. Possibly significant.
Increases in TSS will Applicant must limit the "TS of all accelerate filling in of remaining back- effluent and runoff to a daily waters of the reservoir, average of 50 mg/I.
4-14 for heavy traffic. The applicant has acknowledged this conclusion and has stated that remedial action between the State of South Carolina and the applicant is planned. The staff estimates that usage of these roads by several thousand additional cars and trucks per day will result from construction of the proposed installation.
However, the staff's opinion is that such an added traffic burden will not cause undue inconvenience to the local traffic.4.4.2 Population growth and construction worker income The applicant has indicated (ER, Response to Question 4.1.6) that, based on its prior construc-tion experience, only about 13% of the construction work force is expected to move into the vicinity as new residents.
This percentage would translate into the influx of several hundred new families into the area with a concomitant increase in the population.
The total construction payroll for this project is expected to be over $424 million (ER, Sect.8.1.2.3), of which a large fraction is expected to be spent in the area. The staff expects the decline in construction payroll at the completion of construction to result in a localized economic letdown.4.4.3 Impact on community services The applicant has not addressed the impact of station construction on community services in a specific manner. The staff has met with local authoritiesi&deg; and has discussed possible areas of concern with them. Since the Cherokee installation will provide its own potable water, sanitary sewage disposal facilities, and security personnel, its impact on existing community services will be negligible.
4.4.4 Impact on local institutions The applicant has not addressed this concern in a specific manner but, as stated previously, the staff has met with local authorities to identify and assess areas of possible impact. Both waste facilities and the school system are either being enlarged or undergoing plans for enlarge-ment. The local authorities feel that these enlargements will be sufficient to accommodate the influx of new residents due to construction of CNS. The staff considers that since most of the workers will commute, the area institutions will not be severely impacted.4.4.5 Impact on recreational capacity of the area While the increased turbidity of Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir due to construction of CNS will temporarily have an adverse affect on fishing and canoeing, the staff does not consider that construction of CNS will have a major negative impact on the recreational capacity of the area.4.4.6 Radiation exposure to construction personnel During the period between the startup of the Cherokee Nuclear Station Unit I and the completion of Cherokee Units 2 and 3, the construction personnel working on Units 2 and 3 will be exposed to sources of radiation from the operation of Cherokee Unit I.The applicant has estimated the integrated dose to construction personnel to be 60 man-rems.This estimate is based on 5 million man-hours of exposure while Unit 1 is in operation and an additional 3 million man-hours of exposure during operation of Units I and 2. Estimated values for other LWRs have ranged from 10 to 30 man-rems.4.5 MEASURES AND CONTROLS TO LIMIT ADVERSE EFFECTS DURING CONSTRUCTION 4.5.1 Applicant commitments Following is a summary of the commitments made by the applicant to limit adverse effects during construction of the proposed station.1. Only the minimum necessary amount of clearing will be carried out for construction prepara-tion. (See ER, Fig. 4.1.1-2, for areas that may be cleared of all vegetation.)
: 2. Excavation, filling, and spoiling will be done only within the cleared areas.3. Areas not needed for permanent plant facilities will be restored to blend with the natural terrain by seeding and restoration planting as soon after construction as possible.
4-15 4. Dust generated by vehicular traffic will be controlled by dry weather wetting and paving of the more heavily traveled construction roads.5. Erosion in the construction area and the resulting sedimentation will be controlled by providing piped drainage systems, intercept and berm ditches, and ground cover where necessary to control the flow of surface water. Construction runoff will be limited according to EPA standards.
: 6. Spoiled materials will be deposited in a controlled manner so that water transport of such material to the adjacent Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir is negligible.
: 7. Construction noises will be reduced to acceptable levels. Motor powered equipment will be equipped with noise reducing equipment.
: 8. Smoke and other undesirable emissions to the atmosphere will be controlled.
Local and state air pollution control regulations will be adhered to, and permits and operating certificates will be obtained as required.9. Wastes such as chemicals, fuels, and bitumens will not be deposited on the natural watershed.
Solid construction waste will either be burned, buried or transported offsite to an approved landfill.10. Temporary buildings and usage areas will be maintained in a neat manner.11. As much of the site as possible will be cleaned up and appropriately landscaped as expedi-tiously as possible after construction.
: 12. No herbicides, growth retardants, or sprays are to be used in clearing operations.
: 13. After clearing, the rights-of-way for transmission lines will belplanted with suitable cover where necessary for soil stabilization.
: 14. Selective clearing will be performed adjacent to highways and areas of high visual exposure along transmission corridor rights-of-way.
: 15. Temporary roads will be built on transmission rights-of-way for access to construction equipment.
After construction is completed, these temporary roads will be seeded and returned to suitable wildlife habitat.4.5.2 Staff evaluation Based on a review of the anticipated construction activities and the expected environmental effects, the staff concludes that the measures and controls committed to by the applicant when supplemented by those identified below are adequate to ensure that adverse environmental effects will be at the minimum practicable level.1. The railroad spur will be constructed on an existing transmission line right-of-way as far as practicable.
: 2. Plans for adequate clarification of drainage effluents beyond those included in the appli-cant's present plans must be implemented so that the turbidity of waters discharged from holding basins will not exceed EPA guidelines.
: 3. The applicant will monitor the nearest well while dewatering is in process *to ensure that no adverse effect on either the quality or the quantity of the well water is obtained as the result of such dewatering.
: 4. 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.5. The applicant should preserve the unique mountain-laurel hardwood stand described in Sect.4.3.1.1.
4-16 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4 1. W. H. Owen, Duke Power Company, letter to W. H. Regan, NRC Staff, July 1, 1975, regarding Duke Power Company responses to South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency comments on Cherokee DES, Docket Nos.STN 50-491, 50-492, and 50-493.2. D. W. Johnston and E. P. Odum, "Breeding Bird Populations in Relation to Plant Succession on the Piedmont of Georgia," Ecology 37: 50-62 (1956).3. W. H. B. Harris, Forest Statistics in the Piedmont of South Carolina-1967, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Resource Bulletin SE-9, 1967.4. H. E. Wright, Jr., and M. L. Heinselman, "Introduction:
the Ecological Role of Fire," Quaternay Research 3: 319-328 (1973).5. E. H. Hollis, J. G. Boone, C. R. DeRose, and G. J. Murphy, "A Literature Review of the Effects of Turbidity and Siltation on Aquatic Life," Staff Report, Department of Chesapeake Bay Affairs, Annapolis, Md., 1964.6. A. J. Cordone and D. W. Killey, "The Influence of Inorganic Sediment on the Aquatic Life of Streams," Calif. Fish and Game 47(2): 189-228 (1961).7. J. Cairns, "Suspended Solids Standards for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms," pp. 16-27 in Proc. 22nd Indust. Waste Conf., Part 1, Purdue University Engr. Ext. Sir. No. 129, May 1967.8. J. C. Ritchie, "Sediment, Fish and Fish Habitat," J. Soil Water Conserv. 27(3): 124-125 (1972).9. D. H. Buck, "Effects of Turbidity on Fish and Fishing," pp. 249-261 in Trans. 21st. N.A.Wildl. Conf., 1956.10. H. E. Zittel, AEC Staff, letter to F. St. Mary, Aug. 20, 1974, regarding Cherokee Site Visit, Docket Nos. STN 50-491, 50-492, and 50-493.
: 5. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF OPERATION OF THE STATION AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES 5.1 IMPACTS ON LAND USE The primary land use impact associated with the operation of the CNS will be the maintenance of about 1373 acres of potentially forested land in various other land cover types, including build-ings at the station site, parking lots, lawns and shrubbery, permanently maintained successional stages of vegetation on rights-of-way, and small lakes. These areas involve 3.7% of the total forested area (36,725 acres, Sect. 4.1.7) within a 5-mile radius of the Cherokee Station. Addi-tional potential forest acreage will be covered by mobile home parks and other living- accommoda-tions for personnel involved in Cherokee site preparation and construction.
5.1.1 Station operation 5.1.1.1 Cooling tower plumes The plumes of moist air resulting from cooling tower operation (described in Sect. 5.3.2) are not expected to have any serious effect on land use. Negative impact on the use of South Carolina Highway 13 located 3000 ft south of the cooling tower yard should be slight because, according to the applicant, all ground-level plumes should undergo a "bouyant rise" within 1000 ft of the towers. Thus the plume emanating from the tops of the cooling towers at 674-ft elevation (600 ground elevation plus 74-ft tower height) should rise above South Carolina Highway 13, which ranges in elevation from 620-740 ft (average = 670 ft) south of the site. However, the effect that low-level inversions, which occur 20-30% of the time, 1 might have on fogging and icing on the highway is not known. The staff estimate of station-induced additional hours of fog per year for South Carolina Highway 13 and 1-85 are less than 10 (Sect. 5.3.2).When temperatures are sufficiently low, cooling tower plume can cause icing; that is, liquid droplets in the plume may freeze and fall to the ground, or condensation with subsequent freez-ing may cause icing on surrounding obstacles and surfaces, such as trees and roads. Few quali-tative or quantitative observations of such icing have been reported for cooling tower operations.
Because the applicant has estimated that fogging will not occur along any highways, the potential for dangerous driving conditions resulting from either icing or fogging of highways would appear to be low.Airports within 20 miles of CNS are the Shelby Airport, the Cherokee Airport near Gaffney, and the York Airport. All three airports lie outside the 1% isopleths for cumulative frequencies of visible plume lengths (ER, Figs. 5.1.4-1 and 5.1.4-2), and the visible plumes are, therefore, not expected to interfere seriously with air traffic at these small airports.
The Cherokee Air-port is expected to experience less than ten additional hours of fog per year (staff estimate, Sect. 5.3.2).5.1.2 Transmission lines and railroad spur Operation of the transmission lines will cause fewer negative impacts than the construction phase, provided the rights-of-way are properly maintained.
The presence of transmission lines across agricultural land is not expected to permanently alter the use of that land, except for the land immediately under the towers. The three fold-ins for CNS will require that 550 acres of forest be maintained in early successional stages; this involves 1.5% of the total forested area within 5 miles of the site (Sect. 4.3.1.2), which is not expected to seriously alter overall land use in this region. Properly maintained rights-of-way with successional vegetative stages can produce much food and cover needed by certain wildlife species. The extension of trans-mission lines over land zoned "rural-residential" will restrict development in the rights-of-way proper.Aesthetic impacts associated with transmission lines are difficult to quantify but are present in the form of constant visual effects persistent over the lifetimes of the installations.
Visual impacts associated with Cherokee lines are primarily linked with crossings of rural roads and a crossing of the Broad River.5-1 5-2 With regard to present and future development along the proposed transmission lines, the appli-cant has contacted officials from Cherokee Countywho, according to the applicant, state that no historic sites listed or nominated to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places are located in or near the line routes and that no plans exist for any recreational or industrial sites along the planned corridors.
The railroad spur will permanently remove from productive use roughly 10 acres of harvested crop-land or open pasture and 73 acres of forest and existing unused 33-kV transmission line right-of-way. The effect on land adjacent to the right-of-way is expected to be minimal, barring any unforeseen accidents or maintenance problems.5.2 IMPACTS ON WATER USE 5.2.1 Surface water The operation of CNS will result in a maximum consumptive use of 112 cfs of river water through evaporation and drift from the cooling towers. This loss of water is equal to 4.5% of the mean monthly flow of the river (2472 cfs), increasing to a maximum of 23.8% of the 7 Q 1 0 flow (470 cfs).When river flows fall below 582 cfs, the applicant will release sufficient water from upstream reservoirs to completely compensate for consumptive cooling tower losses; therefore, operation of CNS will not contribute to reducing flows of the river at the site below 470 cfs (ER, Sect.5.1.2.4).The consumptive use of water by CNS will contribute to extending the duration of periods of low river flow and will also contribute to reducing the area of Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir during periods of low river flow. This impact will not be large, however, since a consumptive loss of 112 cfs during low river flows (470 cfs) would cause a drop in the water level of the reservoir of only about 0.2 ft (ER, Sect. 5.1.2.4).
The reservoir currently fluctuates between 175 and 325 acres, primarily due to releases of water by Ninety-Nine Islands Dam.Some changes in the quality of river water will result from the operation of CNS, including slight increases in dissolved solids, biological oxygen demand, and total residual chlorine (Sect. 3.6). These changes will not be of sufficient magnitude to adversely affect the quality of river water.5.2.2 Groundwater The applicant estimates that salt deposition from cooling tower drift will produce an average increase in runoff salt concentrations of 13 ppm within a radius of 25,000 ft of the towers.Assuming no dilution or dispersion in the soil, groundwater salt concentration could also increase by 13 ppm (ER, Question 5.1.6). Because soils in the site area are relatively impermeable (ER, Question 2.2.7), increases in the salt concentration of groundwater should be considerably less and should not degrade the quality of the groundwater.
Because bottom elevations of the proposed structures are below the presentwater table, a per-manent underdrain system will be installed in some locations to lower the water table below these elevations.
The underdrain system will maintain the water level at an elevation about 10 ft above the bottom of the various structures (PSAR, Sect. 2.4). This will result in a permanent depression of the water table, with groundwater flow toward the reactor building area from all directions.
The net effect will be to decrease the slope of the water table toward the river. Since such effects are estimated to be demonstrated only within about 300 ft of the plant island and since under normal conditions the flow from the underdrain system will be dis-charged via the surface water drainage system, the staff considers the overall effect of such drainage to be negligible.
5.2.3 Water quality standards Guidelines for South Carolina surface waters classify the Broad River as "B" waters, subject to the following thermal standards:
5-3 1. Those portions of Broad River and Kings Creek that are above the junction*
of these two streams shall be considered to be upper Piedmont streams and shall not exceed a temperature of 84 0 F at any time, after adequate mixing of heated and normal water, as the result of the discharge of heated liquids, nor shall the water temperature, after passing through an adequate zone of mixing, be more than 5VF greater than that of water unaffected by the heated discharge.
: 2. Mixing zones are permitted; however, "the zone for mixing shall be limited to not more than 25% of the cross sectional area and/or volume of flow of the stream and shall not include more than one third of the surface area measured from shore to shore." The applicant will be required to meet all applicable State and Federal standards.
5.3 PERFORMANCE OF THE HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM 5.3.1 Heated water discharge into the Broad River The influence of the discharge of blowdown water on the temperature of the river downstream of the dam is of interest both in regard to meeting the State of South Carolina water quality standards and to the impacts the heated water may have on the aquatic biota. The state criteria are primarily concerned with three aspects: (1) whether the river temperature will exceed 84&deg;F after mixing, (2) whether the excess temperature is greater than 5VF after mixing, and (3) whether the size of the mixing zone is 25% of the cross-sectional flow area (or 33% of the surface width).The size of the mixing zone is a function of the water release rate through the dam, the differ-ence in temperature between the blowdown water and the river ambient temperature, and the river flow patterns downstream of the dam. In general, the period of most concern with regard to meeting the water quality standards is from September through December, when excess temperatures may be relatively high and when, at the same time, the water available for dilution of the blowdown water may be restricted due to low river flow rates.The seven-day average lowest flow during the past ten years (the so-called "7 Q 1 0 flow rate")in the Broad River near the site is given by the applicant as 470 cfs, and the lowest flow on record is given as 224 cfs (ER, Response to Question 5.1.22). The applicant states (ER, p. 5.1-1, Amendment
: 3) that at low flow conditions, with low reservoir pool and assuming no hydro generation, there could be a period of about 33 hr in which the only flow in the river downstream of the dam would be about 40 cfs of leakage through the wicket gates of the hydrostation, plus about 10 cfs of cooling tower blowdown. (The specified leakage flow rate has apparently not been measured at the dam by the applicant but was estimated on the basis of observed leakage at similar installa-tions.) The situation of having only the leakage flow available for dilution of the blowdown excess temperature is undoubtedly the worst-case condition with regard to assessment of the thermal impact.The temperature of the blowdown water is primarily a function of the wet-bulb temperature of the air drawn into the cooling towers. Monthly average blowdown temperatures are estimated by the applicant to range from about 86&deg;F in July and 83&deg;F in September to about 70'F during the winter months. (ER, Response to Question 3.4.1). The maximum blowdown temperature under summer condi-tions is estimated by the applicant to be 90OF and, under winter conditions, to be 70&deg;F (ER, p. 5.1-2, Amendment 3). River temperatures can reach a maximum of about 81'F in the summer months, but during the periods of relatively low river flow, they can be about 70&deg;F in September and about 40 to 45&deg;F in the November-December period (ER, Fig. 2.5.1-6).
The excess temperature of the blowdown water could thus have maximum values in the 20 to 30&deg;F range during the period when only leakage flow is available for dilution.
Although the applicant takes no credit in the thermal analysis for the cooling of the blowdown water as it flows down the rocks into the river, mention is made that this cooling effect would reduce the estimated areas within the surface isotherms.
The staff considers that since the blowdown water has already been efficiently cooled in the cooling towers to approach the wet-bulb temperature, the additional cooling obtained from this arrangement will be insignificant.
The applicant proposes to discharge the blowdown water at the top of a rock outcropping at the west abutment of the Ninety Nine Islands Dam and to let it fall down the rocks to the spillway apron below. It will thus reach the river with little or no horizontal momentum.
The estimated 40 cfs of leakage water during the period of hydrostation shutdown will be through the wicket gates located about 800 ft away near the east bank. The riverbed near the foot of the dam has a midstream 3/4-acre island, numerous small "islands," ripples, and sand and gravel bars that the staff assumes are shifting in character.
During periods of normal river flow and release rates Kings Creek joins the Broad River about 1000 ft downstream of the Ninety-Nine Islands Dam.
5-4 through the dam, essentially the entire flow would be through the tailrace on the east side of the river; during the periods when only leakage flow occurs, undoubtedly this water will also tend to flow on the east side of the river, and cross-stream mixing with the blowdown water released on the west side will be restricted.
The staff considers it reasonable to assume that the blowdown and leakage water will exist essentially as separate streams for a significant distance downstream.
The point downstream at which the blowdown and leakage water become fully mixed is conjectural, but in the staff's opinion could be a minimum of 2000 to 3000 ft.The applicant analyzed the thermal effects on the river of the 12 cfs of blowdown discharge, assuming 40 cfs of leakage water through the hydrostation, and for the wintertime worst-case condition when the excess temperature was assumed to be 30 0 F, estimated that the surface areas within the 3 0 C (5.4&deg;F), 2&deg;C (3.6oF), and l&deg;C (1.8&deg;F) isotherms would be 0, 13.8, and 66.4 acres respectively (ER, p. 5.1-2, Amendment 3). The applicant also states that the plume of heated water is not expected to extend across the entire river in either summer or winter conditions.
The staff has some reservations about the reported value of zero acreage for the area within the 5.4&deg;F isotherm since the excess temperature has been taken as 30&deg;F and the dilution factor is a maximum of 5. When estimating the surface areas, the applicant apparently assumed that the blowdown and leakage streams mix very rapidly, but he did not assume them to be well-mixed when making the statement that the plume would not extend across the river.The staff analyzed the effects of the thermal discharge using a simplified method for accounting for the heat loss to the atmosphere similar to that employed by Pritchard.
2 The analysis was limited by lack of knowledge of the geometry of the blowdown and leakage water flowing down a relatively empty riverbed, but it was assumed that the two flows would mix at a linear rate, with complete mixing achieved 2000 ft downstream of the dam. A blowdown excess temperature of 30&deg;F was, assumed, and the stream was assumed to have an average depth of 1 ft and to be flowing at an average velocity of 0.5 fps. The surface heat loss to the atmosphere was calculated on the basis of a 10-mph wind velocity and varied from about 4.8 to 3.8 Btu/hr-ft 2-&deg;F. The surface areas within the 3%C (5.4&deg;F), 2%C (3.60F), and lC (l.8&deg;F) isotherms were estimated to be 4, 11, and 32 acres respectively.
The 5&deg;F isotherm would extend about 3000 ft downstream and would reach from water's edge to water's edge at that location; the 3 0 F isotherm would extend about 1-1/2 miles downstream, and the l&deg;F isotherm would extend to 5 miles downstream of the dam. Since the methods of calculation cannot be rigorous, the staff does not consider the differences between its estimates of surface areas within the isotherms and the applicant's estimates as significant, except in the case of the 5 0 F isotherm, which the applicant reported as zero area.In summary, with regard to meeting the State of South Carolina water quality standards when the only flow in the river downstream of the dam is due to the gate leakage and the cooling tower blowdown, under the worst-case conditions that the staff considers it reasonable to assume, the surface temperature of the water would probably not exceed 84 0 F, but the 5&deg;F isotherm would in all probability extend more than one-third of the way across the stream (combined blowdown plus leakage flows). If the excess temperature were between 25 and 30 0 F, as the applicant has assumed as a possible worst-case condition, the well-mixed temperature of the two flows could be more than 5&deg;F greater than that of the water unaffected by the heated discharge.
Although strict application of the standards to the abnormal situation of the combining of two distinct flows in an essentially empty riverbed requires some interpretation, in the staff's judgment, there is doubt as to compliance with the state standards.
The situation will be much the same as that described above for the 7 Q 1 0 river flow rate of 470 cfs. Rapid mixing of the blowdown water with the main flow through the hydrostation will be inhibited by the tailrace structure and the character of the riverbed, and the blowdown water will move downstream along the west bank for a significant distance before dilution is complete.In the'staff's view, it is also questionable in this case whether the state standards for thermal discharges will be met. At river flow rates greater than the 7 Q 1 0 , mixing of the blowdown with the river water will be enhanced, but the situation will not be entirely eliminated until the river flow rate exceeds about 4000 cfs-and water is spilling over .the dam in the vicinity of the blowdown discharge point.Because the staff's analysis indicates that there is doubt that the present discharge system can meet state thermal standards.under all\ conditions, the applicant is required to develop alternate discharge arrangements or procedures so that state standards are met.5.3.2 Cooling tower performance 5.3.2.1 Visible plumes Under most meteorological conditions, the plumes of air-water vapor mixture discharged from the cooling towers will be visible for only a short distance above the tops of the towers. Under other conditions, particularly those that occur in the cold winter months, white visible plumes 5-5 may rise to some height and travel relatively long distances downwind.
For example, the appli-cant estimates that about 5% of the time, a visible plume may travel about 15 miles downwind toward the southwest (ER, Fig. 5.1.4-2).
A visible plume of water vapor will cast a shadow on the ground that will reduce the sunlight intensity in the shaded area. While the moisture con-tent of the cooling tower plumes is substantial, the amount is small in comparison with the burden of water in natural clouds, and outside of a radius of a few hundred feet from towers, no significant increase in the rainfall of an area due to cooling tower operation has been observed.5.3.2.2 Ground-level fogging One environmental impact of concern with regard to operation of cooling towers is the extent of the ground-level fogging that could occur as a result of visible cooling tower plumes touching the ground under certain meteorological conditions.
When the atmospheric condition causes natural fog formation, the tower contribution will probably be only an indistinguishable part of the total fog present. The staff analyzed the towers for the number of hours per year of ground-level fog that might be produced in addition to the naturally occurring fog. The estimate is based on counting the average number of hours per year when the plume will touch the ground at a given point to cause 100% relative humidity when the atmospheric condition was normally at less than 100% relative humidity or free of ground-level fog. The staff's opinion is that this method is conservative and that it will cause estimates of more frequent fogging than will actually occur. The staff's analysis used ORFAD, 3 a predictive mathematical model based on the empirical plume rise equations of Briggs, 4 as modified by Hannas and by Briggs 6 to account for the increased buoyancy effect of multiple plumes. However, credit was taken for the combined buoyancy effect for only three towers per group. The estimates did not take into account dif-ferences between the ground-level elevation at the tower site and the elevations of the points of interest in the surrounding countryside.
The staff's analysis was based on U.S. Weather Bureau tapes of ten years of meteorological data (1955-1965) taken at Charlotte, North Carolina, which is located about 40 miles to the east-northeast.
Computer calculations were made at 1-hr intervals in the meteorological data to provide a ten-year average value. Data used in the analysis are listed in Table 3.2.The results of the staff's calculations are summarized in Fig. 5.1. The maximum amount of ground-level fogging was predicted as about seven additional hours per year of fog at points within about 1/4 mile northeast of the towers. About four hours of additional fog per year were estimated for the northeast sector extending out to 5 miles or more from the towers. The analysis was not carried beyond 5 miles because, in the staff's opinion, small values for the calculated hours of additional fog are neither meaningful nor important, nor are they justified in view of the limita-tions of the mathematical models and the input data.N ES-t952 NW NINE/B c A 2\ry W sL E Fig. 5.1. Staff's analysis of hours of additional ground-level fog caused by operation of the cooling towers at the CNS.
5-6 5.3.2.3 Drift deposition About 100 gpm of water droplets will be swept from the towers by the air stream and deposited in the vicinity of the station. These droplets will contain concentrations of dissolved solids up to a maximum of about 980 ppm, which is ten times that of the river water. The average chlo-rine concentration in the droplets from all nine of the cooling towers will be the same as the average chlorine concentration in the blowdown.
A total of about 250,000 lb/year of dissolved solids will leave the towers in the drift. If this amount were deposited evenly over an area having a 5-mile radius, the deposition rate would be about 5 lb/acre-year.
The deposition rate is not uniform, however, since the largest drops will fall to the ground almost immediately and the smaller drops can be carried by the plume for relatively long distances.
The drop-size dis-tribution data supplied by the applicant are given in Table 3.2., The applicant predicted that the dissolved solids deposition rate at the CNS would be a maximum of 480 lb/acre-year immediately adjacent to the station; at about 1/2 mile distance, the rate was estimated to be 24 to 36 lb/acre-year and at 1 mile, about 6 to 12 lb/acre-year (ER, Fig. 5.1.5-2).The staff also analyzed the drift deposition rate for the CNS using the analytical model described in Sect. 5.3.2.2 and the data shown in Table 3.2. The rate of drift loss and the distribution of drop-size diameters used by the staff are the same as those used by the applicant.
The solids content in the drift was assumed to be 530 ppm, which is based on average solids in the makeup water from the river; but the applicant used a more conservative value of 1150 ppm, which is based on maximum solids in the river. Both studies assume that the solids content of the drift is the same as that of the circulating water in the tower basin. The staff's results are summarized in Fig. 5.2. The staff estimated a maximum of about 23 lb/acre-year falling within the northeast sector about 3/4 mile from the towers. At a 1-mile distance the deposition rate was estimated at 13 lb/acre-year in the northeast and southwest sectors, and at 5 miles the rate was 0.4 lb/acre-year.
E S-19 53 N W E S A = 22.3 gb/acre-yr B = 11.2 lb/ocre-yr C = 5.6 lb/ocre-yr D = 2.8 lb/acre-yr E = 1.4 lb/acre-yr Fig. 5.2. Staff's estimate of drift deposition due to operation of the cooling towers at the CNS. (The maximum deposition rate was 22.3 lb/acre-year, which occurred in the northeast sector at about 3/4 mile from the station.)
5-7 5.3.2.4 Icing Icing may occur in the immediate vicinity of cooling towers when water droplets fall or condense on cold surfaces and subsequently freeze. This effect is usually confined to the immediate vicinity of mechanical-draft towers and seldom occurs further than a few hundred feet away from tall natural-draft towers. There are no widely accepted methods of calculating the extent of icing. One rough approximation is to assume that icing will occur when the plume touches the ground and the temperature is below 32&deg;F. On this basis, the hours per year in which icing would occur at a given point in addition to that which would take place naturally could be no greater than the predicted hours of additional fog for that location and would probably be con-siderably less. Since the hours of additional fog predicted for the vicinity of CNS cooling towers are very low, the amount of icing can be expected to be insignificant.
5.3.3 Water quality standards and effluent limitations 5.3.3.1 State water quality standards Water quality standards were adopted by the State of South Carolina on September 8, 1971, and were approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on December 23, 1971. The Broad River at the CNS site is classified as "B" waters. This class of water is suitable for domestic supply after complete treatment and is also suitable for propagation of fish, industrial, agricultural, and other uses requiring water of lesser quality.7 The staff considers that the construction and operation of CNS will comply with State of South Carolina standards if the procedures required by the staff are followed.5.3.3.2 Federal effluent guidelines and standards On October 8, 1974, the EPA published regulations concerning thermal discharges and effluent guidelines for steam-electric power generating plants.8  The staff has reviewed the information that must be considered in determining whether CNS can be constructed and operated in confonrity with the effluent limitations established by these regulations.
The Environmental Report describes the various effluents associated with the construction and operation of the facility.
Assessment of the effects of these effluents are reported in this Environmental Statement.
The staff's conclusion is that all effluents from operation of the facility that are regulated by the EPA effluent limitations are in conformity with those regula-tions and reflect the "best technology economically achievable" [40 CFR, 423-13(l)(1)].
A summary of the staff's findings follows: Limitation 423.13(a)The pH'discharges shall be within the range of 6.0 to 9.0.Assessment Discharges should fall within the pH control range. Effluents from the demineralizer systems will be neutralized before discharge.
Control will be used to assure that the pH of other discharges remains within required levels, if necessary by the development of specific operating procedures for incorporation in the Technical Specifications to the operating licenses.Limitation 423.13(b)There shall be no discharge of polychorinated biphenol compounds.
Assessment
'There will be no discharge of polychlorinated biphenol compounds.
Limitation 423.13(c)Low-volume waste source limitations on total suspended solids and oil and grease quantities.
5-8 Assessment This limitation is not expected to be exceeded during plant operation.
This may require the development of specific operating limitations to be incorporated as part of the Technical Specifications of the operating licenses to meet the applicable requirements of the NPDES permit when required.Limitation 423.13(f)Metal cleaning waste pollutant discharges.
Assessment Waste water and waste solutions from cleaning operations will be treated during the construction period to remove suspended solids and chemicals.
For limitation during operation, this may require the development of specific operating limitations to be incorporated as part of the Technical Specifications of the operating licenses.Limitation 423.13(g)'
Boiler blowdown pollutant discharges.
Assessment The system as detailed in the applicant's Environmental Report complies with the applicable EPA effluent limitations.
Limitation 423.13 (h) and (i)Cooling tower blowdown pollutant discharges.
Assessment The EPA standards for maximum and average concentrations of free residual chlorine allowed in cooling tower blowdown should be met during operation of the proposed facility.
Chlorine is further discussed in Sect. 5.5.2.2. All other cooling tower pollutant discharges will comply with applicable EPA effluent limitations.
Limitation 423.13(j)Daily time limitation for discharge of chlorine.Assessment The applicant will chlorinate each unit sequentially for about 1 hr daily; however, some discharge of total residual chlorine will always exist in the blowdown because a reserve of total residual chlorine will remain in the circulating water flow of the cooling towers (Sect. 3.6). EPA efflu-ent standards limit discharges of residual chlorine for a period not to exceed 2 hr daily. Since the blowdown discharge will not meet this limitation, the applicant will be required either to meet the EPA standard or to obtain a variance from the regional EPA administrator.
Limitation 423.13(l)(1)
Discharge of heat from the main condensers.
Assessment The facility will use closed-cycle cooling systems employing mechanical-draft cooling towers and cold side blowdown discharge of heat at a temperature that does not exceed, at any time, the lowest temperature of recirculating water prior to the addition of makeup water. This will con-form to the applicable EPA effluent limitations.
5-9 Limitation 423.40 Construction runoff.Assessment The applicant proposes construction practices to limit erosion and siltation resulting from construction practices.
The staff is requiring that the applicant submit to the staff a surface runoff control plan to ensure that surface runoff will be adequately controlled to meet EPA standards.
The staff concludes that the facility, as designed by the applicant and as modified by staff requirements, will comply with State and Federal water quality requirements except for chlorine.In addition, the applicant will be required to have a certification issued under Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act stating affirmative compliance with applicable require-ments prior to issuance of a construction permit.5.4 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT 5.4.1 Impact on biota other than man 5.4.1.1 Exposure pathways The pathways by which biota other than man may receive radiation doses in the vicinity of a nuclear power station are shown in Fig. 5.3. Two comprehensive reports 9'1 0 concerned with radioactivity in the environment and these pathways can be read for a more detailed explanation of the subjects that will be discussed below. Depending on the pathway being considered, terrestrial and aquatic organisms will receive either approximately the same radiation doses as man or somewhat greater doses. Although no guidelines have been established for desirable limits for radiation exposure to species other than man, it-is generally agreed that the limits established for humans are also conservative for these species.11 5.4.1.2 Radioactivity in the environment The quantities and species of radionuclides expected to be discharged annually by Cherokee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3 in liquid and gaseous effluents have been estimated by the staff and are given in Tables 3.4 and 3.5 respectively.
The basis for these values is discussed in Sect. 3.5. For the determination of doses to biota other than man, specific calculations are done primarily for the liquid effluents.
The liquid effluent quantities, when diluted in the discharge, would produce an average gross activity concentration, excluding tritium, of 0.0011 pCi/mi in the plant discharge area. Under the same conditions, the tritium concentration would be 0.78 pCi/mz.Doses to terrestrial animals such as rabbits or deer due to the gaseous effluents are quite similar to those calcualted for man (Sect. 5.4.2).5.4.1.3 Dose rate estimates The annual radiation doses to both aquatic and terrestrial biota were estimated on the assumption of constant concentrations of radionuclides.
at a given point in both the water and air. Referring to Fig. 5.3, radiation dose has both internal and external components.
External components orig-inate from immersion in radioactive air and water and from exposure to radioactive sources on surfaces, in distant volumes of air and water, in equipment, etc. Internal exposures are a result of ingesting and breathing radioactivity.
Doses will be delivered to aquatic organisms that live in the water containing radionuclides discharged from the power station. This is principally a consequence of physiological mechanisms that concentrate a numnber of elements that can be present in the aqueous environment.
The extent.to which elements are concentrated in fish, invertebrates, and aquatic plants upon uptake or ingestion has been estimated.
Values of relative bioaccumulation factors (ratio of concentration of radionuclide in organisms to that in the aqueous environment) of a number of waterborne elements for several organisms are provided in Table 5.1.
5-10 ES-83 GASEOUS EFFLUENT LIQUID EFFLUENT,/
Immersion/
Direct Sediments , 'V --- .Im m e rsl o n S e l i Shell fish Plan -Consumption P Plant " Consumption-- &#xfd;," -I nge s tion ._ Im- e s on_____ miners Ion.-_..Ingstion ( Immersion Sediments Fig. 5.3. Exposure pathways to biota other than man.Doses to aquatic plants and fish living in the immediate area of the discharge which are due to water uptake and ingestion (internal exposure) were calculated to be 190 and 0.73 millirads/year respectively.
The discharge region concentrations were those given above, and it was assumed that these organisms spent all of the year in water of maximum concentrations.
All calculated doses are based on standard models.1 2 The doses are quite conservative since it is highly unlikely that any of the mobile life forms will spend a significant portion of their life spans in the maximum activity concentration of the discharge region. Both radioactive decay and additional dilution would reduce the dose at other points.External doses to terrestrial animals other than man are determined on the basis of gaseous effluent concentrations and direct radiation contributions at the locations where such animals may actually be present. Terrestrial animals in the environs of the station will receive approxi-mately the same external radiation doses as man.An estimate can be made for the ingestion dose to a terrestrial animal such as a duck, which is assumed to consume only aquatic vegetation growing in the water in the discharge region. The duck ingestion dose was calculated to be about 240 millirads/year, which represents an upper-limit estimate, since equilibrium was assumed to exist between the aquaticorganisms and all radio-nuclides in water. A nonequilibrium condition for a radionuclide in an actual exposure situation would result in a smaller bioaccumulation and therefore in a smaller dose from internal exposure.
5-11 Table 5.1. Freshwater bioaccumulation factors (pCi/kg organism per pCi/liter water)Element Fish Invertebrates Plants C 4,550 9,100 4,550 Na 100 200 500 P 100,000 20,000 500,000 Sc 2 1,000 10,000 Cr 200 2,000 4,000 Mn 400 90,000 10,000 Fe 100 3,200 .1,000 Co 50 200 200 Ni 100 100 50 Zn 2,000 10,000 20,000 Rb 2,000 1,000 1,000 Sr 30 100 500 Y 25 1,000 5,000 Zr. 3 7 1,000 Nb 30,000 100 800 Mo 10 10 1,000 Tc 15 5 40 Ru 10 300 2,000 Rh 10 300 200 Ag 2 770 200 Sn 3,000 1,000 100 Sb 1 10 1.500 Te 400 150 100 1 15 5 40 Cs 2,000 100 500 Ba 4 200 500 La 25 1,000 5,000 Ce 1 1,000 4,000 Pr 25 1,000 5,000 Nd 25 1,000 5,000 Pm 25 1,000 5,000 Sm 25 1,000 5,000 Eu 25 1,000 5,000 Gd 25 1,000 5,000 W 1,200 10 1,200 Np 10 400 300 Pu 4 100 350 Am 25 1,000 5,000 Cm 25 1,000 5,000 Source: S. E. Thompson, C. A. Burton, D. J. Guinn, and Y. C. Ng, "Concentration Factors of Chemical Elements in Edible Aquatic Organisms," UCRL-50564, Rev. 1 (1972).The literature relating to radiation effects on organisms.is extensive, but few studies have been conducted on the effects of continuous low-level exposure to radiation from ingested radionuclides on natural aquatic or terrestrial populations.
In the "BEIR" report, 1 3 it is stated in summary that evidence to date indicates that no other living organisms are very much more radiosensitive than man. Therefore, no detectable radiological impact is expected in the biota or terrestrial mammals as a result of the quantity of radionuclides to be released into Broad River and into the air by CNS.5.4.2 Radiological impact on man The NRC staff is presently reassessing assumptions and evaluating models for projected radio-active effluent releases and calcualted doses in order to reflect the Commission's guidance in its Opinion issued April 30, 1975, in the rule-making proceeding RM-50-2, NCRI-75/4R, page 277 as amended 40 FR 40816, September 4, 1975.The revised specific models for a detailed assessment of individual and population doses have not been completed.
For the interim, it can be said that the individual doses associated with the radioactive releases of the Cherokee Nuclear Station will be in accord with the requirements stated in Appendix I. Thus, no final plant design will be approved which will result in individual doses in excess of Appendix I requirements.
5-12 The staff has developed a procedure to quantitatively evaluate the maximum integrated doses that could be delivered to the U.S. population by radioactive emissions from CNS. A description of this procedure for gaseous effluents is contained in Appendix C. The intent of this estimate is to evaluate the radiological environmental impact of the facility by establishing an upper-bound population dose associated with plant operation which is unlikely to be exceeded when the detailed review is performed for the hearing before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.5.4.2.1 Liquid effluents Expected radionuclide releases in the liquid effluent have been estimated for CNS and are listed in Table 3.4. Doses to the population from these releases were calcualted using dose procedures consistent with the recommendations of ICRP-2.12 According to the applicant, about 17,000 people currently derive their drinking water from the river within 50 miles downstream of the plant. The man-rem contribution from other intakes on the river is expected to be negligible.
The cumulative dose resulting from the consumption of fish harvested from the river was estimated.
It was conservatively assumed that 100% of the population within 50 miles of the plant consumed 5 g of fish per day caught in the region of the river where the coolant water discharges were diluted by an additional factor of 250 over those dilutions in the immediate discharge region.Because of the remoteness of the site and the lack of activity on the river, population doses from other possible pathways are expected to be small compared to the above pathways.The tritium released to the receiving water is assumed to enter the biosphere in the same manner as tritium released to the atmosphere.
Thus the tritium discussion in Appendix C applies to all tritium sources from the plant.The information presented in Table 5.2 includes the doses to the population due to the release of radionuclides in the liquid effluents.
Table 5.2- Annual integrated dose to U.S. population Annual dose (man-rems)
Total body Thyroid Noble gases 11 11 Radioiodine 0.14 55 Particulate 13 11 Tritium 2.5 2.5 C-14 50 50 Total 77 130 5.4.2.2 Gaseous effluents NRC staff estimates of the probable gaseous releases listed in Table 3.5 were used to evaluate potential doses to the U.S. population.
As discussed in Appendix C, these gaseous effluents were considered in five categories, namely, noble gases, radioiodines, particulates, C-14, and tritium.Krypton-85 was treated separately from the other noble gases because of its relatively long half-life (about 11 years).The population can be exposed via the pathways discussed in Appendix C. External total-body irradiation results from submersion in dispersed noble gases and from standing on surfaces con-taining deposited radioiodines and particulates.
Internal total-body and organ exposures result from inhalation of contaminated air or ingestion of contaminated foodstuffs.
Three food pathways were evaluated which involved consumption:
meat, milk, and food crops.Doses to the population were calculated by assuming uniform dispersal of the radionuclides.
Direct exposure pathways evaluation to the population (e.g.. noble gas submersion) assume a uniform population density. Indirect food pathways evaluations were based upon the assumption that meat, milk, and food crop productivity of the region is such that the land area east of the Mississippi River is capable of supporting the U.S. population.
Table 5.2 includes the population doses resulting from this analysis.
5-13 5.4.2.3 Evaluation of radiological impact Using conservative assumptions, the staff has estimated an upper-bound integrated exposure to the population of the United States due to operation of the Cherokee Nuclear Station. Appendix I to 10 CFR 50 requires that individual doses be kept to a small fraction of the doses implied by 10 CFR 20.The above statements can be placed in perspective by noting that the individuals in the U.S. popu-lation receive an average of about 100 millirems/year from natural background radiation.
Thus the annual population dose due to natural background to the U.S. population is about 21,000,000 man-rems.Both the maximum individual doses and the upper-bound population doses resulting from operation of the Cherokee Nuclear Station are fractions of the doses individuals and the population receive from naturally occuring radiation.
5.4.2.4 Direct radiation 5.4.2.4.1 Radiation from the facility The plant design includes specific shielding of the reactor, holdup tanks, filters, demineralizers, and other areas where radioactive materials may flow or be stored, primarily for the protection of plant personnel.
Direct radiation from these sources is therefore not expected to be signifi-cant at the site boundary.
Confirming measurements will be made as part of the applicant's environmental monitoring program after plant startup. Low-level radioactivity storage containers outside the plant are estimated to contribute less than 0.01 millirem/year at the site boundary.5.4.2.4.2 Transportation of radioactive material The transportation of cold fuel to a reactor, of irradiated fuel from the reactor to a fuel reprocessing plant, and of solid radioactive wastes from the reactor to burial grounds is within the scope of the NRC report entitled Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materia&#xfd;s to and from NucZear Power PZants (WASH-1238).
The environmental effects of such trans-portation are summarized in Table 5.3.Table 5.3. Environmental impact of transportation of fuel and waste to and from one light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor Normal conditions of transport Environmental impact Heat (per irradiated fuel cask in transit) 250,000 Btu/hr Weight (governed by Federal or State restrictions) 73,000 lb per truck; 100 tons per cask per rail car Traffic density Truck Less than one per day Rail Less than three per month Estimated Cumulative dose number of Range of doses to exposed to exposed Exposed population persons individuals per reactor yeara population per exposed (millirems) reactor yearb (man-frems)
Transportation workers 200 0.0 to 300 4 General public Onlookers 1,100 0.003 to 1.3 3 Along route 600,000 0.0001 to 0.06'The Federal Radiation Council has recommended that the radiation doses from all sources of radiation other than natural background and medical exposures should be limited to 5000 milliremslyear for individuals as a result of occupational exposure and should be limited to 500 millirems/year for individuals in the general population.
The dose to individuals due to average natural background radiation is about 130 millirems/year.
bMan-rem is an expression for the summation of whole-body doses to individuals in a group. Thus, if each member of a population group of 1000 people were to receive a dose of 0.001 rem (1 millirem), or if two people were to receive a dose of 0.5 rem (500 millirems) each, the total man-rem dose in each case would be 1 man-rem.Source: Data supporting this table are given in the Commission's Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants, WASH-1238, December 1972.
5-14 5.4.2.4.3 Occupational radiation exposure Based on a review of the applicant's Preliminary 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.
1 4 Using information compiled by the Commission 1 5 on past experience from operating nuclear reactor plants (with a range of exposures of 44 to 5134 man-rems/year), it is estimated that the average collective dose to all onsite personnel at large operating nuclear plants will be approximately 450 man-rems per year per unit. The total dose for this plant will be influenced by several factors for Which definitive numerical values are not available.
These factors are expected to lead to doses to onsite personnel lower than thos6 estimated above. Improvements to the radioactive waste effluent treatment system to maintain offsite population doses as low as practicable may cause an increase in onsite personnel doses if all other factors remain unchanged.
However, the applicant's implementation of Regulatory Guide 8.8 and other guidance provided through the staff radiation protection review process is expected to result in an overall reduction of total doses from those currently experienced.
Because of the uncertainty in the factors modifying the above estimates, a value of 1400 man-rems will be used for the occupational radiation exposure for the three-unit station.5.4.2.5 Summary of annual radiation doses The annual population doses (man-rem) resulting from the plant operation are presented in Table 5.4. As shown in this table, the operation of the Cherokee Nuclear Station will contribute a small fraction of the population dose that persons living in the United States normally receive from natural background.
Table 5.4. Summary of annual doses to the U.S. population Population dose (man-reins/year)
Natural environmental radioactivity 21,000,000 Nuclear plant operation Plant work force 1,400 General public Gaseous and liquid effluents (total body and thyroid) 210 Transportation of nuclear fuel and radioactive wastes 9 5.4.3 Environmental effects of the uranium fuel cycle The environmental effects of uranium mining and milling, production of uranium hexafluoride, enrichment of isotopes, fabrication of fuel, reprocessing of irradiated fuel, transportation of radioactive materials, and management of low-level and high-level radioactive wastes are within the scope of the AEC report (WASH-1248) entitled Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle.The contribution of such environmental effects is summarized in Table 5.5.5.5 NONRADIOLOGICAL EFFECTS ON ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS 5.5.1 Terrestrial 5.5.1.1 Cooling towers One of the possible principal impacts of wet mechanical-draft cooling towers is the long-range change of environmental conditions caused by the release of large amounts of water vapor direct-ly to the atmosphere.
Such changes could involve increases in total regional rainfall, fog frequency, relative humidity, hours of cloud cover, days with precipitation, and frequency of thunder storms. The occurrence of such changes over broad regions as a result of the operation of cooling towers could have unforeseen impacts on ecological systems and on the use of these systems. To date, studies of possible regional environmental modifications havebeen few because 5-15 Table 5.5. Summary of environmental considerations for uranium fuel cycle Normalized to model LWR annual fuel requirement Natural resource use Total Maximum effect per annual fuel requirement of model 1,000-MWe LWR Land (acres)Temporarily committed Undisturbed area Disturbed area Permanently committed Overburden moved (millions of metric tons)Water (millions of gallons)Discharged to air Discharged to water bodies Discharged to ground Total Fossil fuel Electrical energy (thousands of MW-hour)Equivalent coal (thousands of metric tons)Natural gas (millions of scf I Effluents
-chemical (metric tonsl Gases (including entrainment)a SOt NOb Hydrocarbons CO Particulates Other gases F -63 45 18 Equivalent to 90 MWe coal-fired power plant.4.6 2.7 Equivalent to 90 MWe coal-fired power plant.156 v2% model 1000 MWe LWR with cooling tower.11,040 123 11,319 <4% of model 1000 MWe LWR with once-through cooling.317 <5% of model 1000 MWe LWR output.115 Equivalent to the consumption of a 45-MWe coal-fired power plant.92 <0.2% of model 1000-MWe energy output.4,400 1,177 Equivalent to emissions from 45-MWe coal-fired plant for a year.13.5 28.7 1.156 0.72 Principally from UFs production enrichment and reprocessing.
Concen-tration within range of state standards
-below level that has effects on human health.Liquids SO4-N03-Fluoride Ca'&#xf7;Cl-Na!NH, Fe Tailings solutions (thousands of metric tons)Solids Effluents
-radiological (curies)Gases (including entrainment)
Rn-222 Ra-226 Th-230 Uranium Tritium (thousand)
Kr-85 (thousands) 1-129 1-131 Fission products and transuranics Liquids Uranium and daughters Ra-226 Th-230 Th-234 Ru-106 Tritium (thousands) 10.3 26.7 12.9 5.4 8.6 16.9 11.5 0.4 240 91.000 From enrichment, fuel fabrication, and reprocessing steps. Components that constitute a potential for adverse environmental effect are present in dilute concentrations and receive additional dilution by receiving bodies of water to levels below permissible standards.
The constitutents that require dilution and the flow of dilution water are: NH 3 -600 cfs.NO 3 -20 cfs.Fluoride -70 cfs.From mills only -no significant effluents to environment.
Principally from mills -no significant effluents to environment.
75 0.02 0.02 0.032 16.7 350 0.0024 0.024 1.01 2.1 0.0034 0.0015 0.01 0.1Sc 2.5 Principally from mills -maximum annual dose rate <4% of average natural background within 5 miles of mill. Results in 0.06 man-rem per annual fuel requirement.
Principally from fuel reprocessing plants -whole body dose is 6 man-rem per annual fuel requirements for population within SO-mile radius. This is <0.007% of average hatural background dose to this population.
Release from Federal Waste Repository of 0.005 Ci/year has been included in fission products and transuranics total.Principally from milling -included in tailings liquor and returned to ground -no effluents; therefore, no effect on environment.
From UF 6 production
-concentration 5% of 10 CFR 20 for total processing of 27.5 model LWR annual fuel requirements.
From fuel fabrication plants -concentration 10% of 10 CFR 20 for total processing 26 annual fuel requirements for model LWR.From reprocessing plants -maximum concentration 4% of 10 CFR 20 for total reprocessing of 26 annual fuel requirements for model LWR.Solids (buried)Other than high level Effluents
-thermal (billions of Btu's)601 All except 1 Ci comes from mills -included in tailings returned to ground -no significant effluent to the environment, 1 Ci from conversion and fuel fabrication is buried.3,360 <7% of model 1000-MWe LWR.Transportation (man-reml:
exposure of 0.334 workers and general public.aEstimated effluents based upon combustion of equivalent coal for power generation.
61.2% from natural gas use and process.cCs 137 (0.075 Ci/AFRI and SF-90 (0.004 Ci/AFR) are also emitted.Source: Paragraph 51.20(e), 10 CFR 51.
5-16 large cooling tower installations have been in use for a relatively short period of time. Also, large generating facilities are often some distance from first-order U.S. Weather Bureau stations that have long-term climatological records for the several meteorological factors required to assess the effects of cooling tower plumes.Using precipitation increase as a single indicator of environmental modification, a year-long study of two 325-ft-high, natural-draft cooling towers at Keystone generation station (near Shelocta, Pennsylvania) showed that, except for substantial increases at two downwind stations during July 1969, precipitation measurements at nine U.S. Weather Bureau stations selected for monitoring purposes were within the range of variation established from an eight-year period just prior to plant operation.
1 6 All downwind stations did not register increased precipitation during the July period, however, which suggests that the increases noted at the two stations may have been purely chance events. Although a firm statement cannot be made on the environmental changes resulting from cooling tower operations, the proposed site for CNS is in a region with moderate-to-high potential for adverse effects from cooling tower plumes, based on frequencies of annual fog (>20 days) and low-level atmospheric inversions
(>20-30% frequency).
1 Deposition of drift solids due to cooling tower operation is described in Sect. 5.3.2.3. The majority of the deposition will occur to the north-northeast and south-southwest (Fig. 5.2). The maximum staff-calculated deposition rate was 22.3 lb/acre-year, which occurred in the northeast sector about 3/4 mile from the cooling towers. The natural deposition rate, assuming 47 in. of precipitation per year (ER, Table 2.6.1-1) with a total dissolved solids concentration of 5 ppm (estimated from data of Gambell and Fisher1 7), is 53 lb/acre-year.
Assuming that the above maximum of 23 lb/acre-year of solids is added to natural precipitation, the concentration of total solids in natural precipitation would be approximately 7 ppm. This concentration should have no significant impacts on vegetation because water containing as much as 640 to 1280 ppm total solids may be used for supplemental irrigation of plants having low salt tolerance.
1 8 5.5.1.2 Transmission facilities The operational impact of the transmission lines will be largely determined by right-of-way man-agement practices.
According to the applicant (ER, Sect. 5.6), inspections of the rights-of-way will be done from the air periodically.
Bush-hogging and hand-clearing are scheduled on a three-to four-year cycle to control the resurgence of tall growth in the line corridors.
No herbicides are used, and all low-growing shrubs are left intact.Right-of-way vegetation can also be controlled by selective herbicide treatment as described by Niering and Goodwin, 1 9 Niering, 2 0 and Frank E. Egler in several papers. In this method, unwanted tree and shrub species that invade the cleared right-of-way would be killed by the basal spray technique.
This technique would allow desired herbaceous and shrub species to form dense communi-ties that'would impede further invasion of unwanted species but would not grow high enough to be hazardous to the transmission lines. Maintenance activities and costs might be reduced, and relatively stable plant and animal communities might develop. This method may have substantial advantages over the bush-hogging and hand-cutting methods, which would require frequent cutting of sprouting brush and would regularly disrupt the developing plant and animal communities.
Both bush-hogging and hand-cutting seldom serve to kill the roots of unwanted woody plants; rather, they often encourage a denser brushy growth, especially of root-suckering species. Costs of selective herbicide treatment for the first several years might approximate but should not be significantly greater than costs of bush-hogging and selective hand-cutting and might be signifi-cantly less during following years. The success of the selective herbicide treatment would depend on consultation with a competent plant scientist.
After clearing, the right-of-way environment will probably experience increased use by offroad vehicles, with their associated noise and damage to vegetation.
An additional operating impact associated with transmission lines is the possible production of ozone around high-voltage carriers, which could damage nearby vegetation.
Contributions of ozone in excess of ambient levels by transmission lines and substations are not well documented in the literature.
Recent studies 2 1,22 suggest no measurable (less than 2 ppb) increase in ozone con-centrations around lines carrying 765 kV. Chronic exposures on the order of 30-150 ppb 2 3 ,24 are required to elicit damage in ozone-sensitive vegetation.
Thus, considering that Cherokee lines will operate at 230 kV, vegetation damage due to ozone drift is considered unlikely.Some wildlife deaths will result because of collisions with transmission lines and towers. The number of deaths along the 21 miles of CNS lines should be few compared to those caused by other man-made obstacles, such as television towers, microwave towers, radio towers, and buildings.
Unfortunately, data on the significance of mortality caused by transmission lines are scant, probably because the kills are not as concentrated and extensive as the kills at some radio and television towers.
5-17 5.5.1.3 Railroad spur The effects of operation of the railroad spur on biological systems are expected to be small.The applicant did not state what methods would be used to prevent growth of vegetation along the rails. Wildlife kills are expected to be minimal because of the slow speeds at which trains will be moving on the tracks.5.5.2 Aquatic 5.5.2.1 Intake Impingement The makeup water intake structure will be built on the tip of a small peninsula that protrudes into Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir about 1000 ft above the reservoir dam at a point where the main current of the river sweeps by (Fig. 2.4). River current is normally moderately fast (2.0-4.8 fps), but it may fall as low as 0.3 fps during the predicted 7 Q 1 0 flow (ER, Question 2.7.12).The maximum intake velocity through the traveling screens will be about 0.5 fps (Sect. 3.4.2).Cooling tower makeup water will require a maximum withdrawal of 122 cfs.The staff considers that the design of the intake structure will not be conducive to producing fish impingement for the following reasons: 1. The intake velocity is slow ('\0.5 fps).2. The traveling screens are located flush with the front face of the structure, with the result that river current can sweep across the screens (Fig. 3.4). Any fish that becomes impinged will be swept off the screens by the current.3. Lateral fish passages are present which will allow fish that pass through the trash racks to escape from the structure (Fig. 3.4).4. No protected areas are present in front of the traveling screens (Fig. 3.4).Because of the above-mentioned factors, the staff does not consider that significant fish impingement losses will occur as a result of the operation of CNS.Entrainment Makeup water for plant usage will require a maximum of 133 cfs and an average of 93 cfs to be withdrawn from the Broad River (Sect. 3.3). Mean monthly river flows at Gaffney, 5 miles above the site, range from 3860 cfs in March to 1660 cfs in September (ER, Fig. 2.5.1-5).The lowest predicted average seven-day flow with a probability of occurring once in ten years (7 Q 1 0) is 470 cfs. The applicant is committed to releasing water from upstream reservoirs when river flows fall below the 7 Q 1 0 flow plus the consumptive loss of water from the cooling towers;that is, the applicant will supplement flow when it is less than 470 cfs plus 112 cfs (or 582 cfs).At mean monthly river flows, the applicant will be removing from 2 to 7% of the total river flow.This percentage would increase under low river flows to a maximum of 23.8% at the 7 Q1 0 flow.Assuming a random distribution of planktonic organisms due to the turbulence and mixing of the river, the withdrawal of makeup water would represent a removal of from 2 to 23% of the planktonic organisms of the river passing the intake. Organisms expected to be entrained include bacteria, algae, zooplankton, drifting benthic organisms, and the eggs, larvae, and young juveniles of fish.A 100% mortality is assumed by the applicant for organisms that pass into the heat dissipation system from the combined effects of mechanical injury and chemical, temperature', and pressure changes (ER, Sect. 5.1.2.3).Virtually all the water passing the intake site quickly passes Ninety-Nine Islands Dam (Fig. 2.4).All planktonic organisms in this water are quickly lost from the aquatic environment above the dam after they pass the intake site. The entrainment of planktonic organisms by CNS will, therefore, have little additional impact on the biota of the reservoir or the river above the dam.The aquatic environment that potentially would be adversely impacted by the loss of planktonic organisms by CNS entrainment would be that portion of the river below the dam. Since the trophic structure of the river probably has a detritus food base (Sect. 2.7.2.2), the loss of 2 to 24%of the plankton would not reduce the quantity of food available to benthos and fish. Of more concern is the unknown role that ichthyoplankton, which are derived from above the dam, play in 5-18 recruitment to the fish populations below the dam. The applicant has provided data on ichthyo-plankton in the river from September 1974 through mid-June 1975. Fish larvae were present in the river beginning in late April and continuing through May and June. Theaverage density of larvae collected throughout this period was about 22 per 1000 m 3 and ranged from 0 to 570 per 1000 m 3.Collections at the site of the intake structure consisted of 74% Dorsoma spp. larvae (shad), 15% catostomid larvae (suckers), 5% Lepomis spp. larvae (sunfishes), 3% carp larvae, and 3% other cyprinid larvae (minnows).
Both the density of larvae and the percentage of game fishes encountered were quite low. In comparison, the backwater areas of the reservoir were found, for the same sampling period, to have an average density of fish larvae about 36 times higher (800 per 1000 m 3), with game species comprising about 8% of the total.Mean monthly river flows throughout the period when fish larvae were collected ranged from about 2800 to about 2000 cfs (ER, Fig. 2.5.1.5).
Based on mean monthly flows, operation of CNS would, therefore, entrain a maximum of only 7% of an already very small population of fish larvae passing the site. Data are not presently available on fish larvae present in the river during late June, July, and August, when river flows would be lowest and the percentage of river flow withdrawn by CNS highest. Most fish species, however, spawn before this period of low river flow. The staff does not expect higher numbers of fish larvae, especially game species, to be present during the summer months.Because of the low densities of fish larvae present in the river and the small percentage of river flow that will be withdrawn by CNS, the staff does not consider that the entrainment of fish larvae by the operation of CNS will have any adverse impacts on the fish populations of the river or the reservoir.
5.5.2.2 Discharge Thermal The operation of all three units of CNS will produce a cooling tower discharge of 12 cfs. The blowdown will be discharged through an open pipe at the top of a rock outcropping at the west abutment of Ninety-Nine Islands Dam and will fall down the rocks to the spillway apron below (Sect. 3.4.3). The point at which the blowdown enters the river is immediately below the dam at a point where little or no river current is present since the entire river normally flows through the hydrostation located on the eastern part of the dam (Fig. 2.4). The blowdown will, therefore, travel along the western bank of the river for some distance -at least 2000 to 3000 ft, depending on river flows -before becoming fully mixed with ambient river water (Sect.5.3.1).Summer. Under summer conditions the staff estimates that the maximum expected blowdown tempera-ture will be about 90'F and will normally range from 83*F in September to 86&deg;F in July. Ambient river water temperatures normally reach a maximum of 81'F during the summer. Referring to the species listed in Table 5.6, it can be seen that their upper lethal threshold temperatures, given an acclimation temperature of 81'F, will not be exceeded.
In all probability, if the temperature of the blowdown plume exceeds tbe preferred temperature of a fish, the fish will seek out lower, more preferable temperatures.
Some organisms will be entrained into the plume as it mixes with river water downstream; however, planktonic populations are not very important in the trophic structure of the river, and, in addition, the thermal shock experienced by entrained organisms will be small. As a result, the staff considers that no appreciable adverse thermal impacts to aquatic organisms will result from CNS operation under summer conditions.
Winter. Under winter conditions the temperature differential between the warm blowdown (70 0 F)and the cold river water (42&deg;F) will be greater, and the zone of excess temperature will cover a larger area. This area will depend directly on the river flow; therefore, three flow regimes will be considered.
: 1. During periods of prolonged, low river flows, it is occasionally necessary to cease operation of the Ninety-Nine Islands Hydrostation for periods up to 33 hr (ER, Sect.5.1.2.1).
Under these conditions, only a leakage flow of about 40 cfs passes through the dam, mostly through the wicket gates on the opposite side of the dam from the blowdown discharge.
As a result, mixing of blowdown with river water would be very slow. An area of about 5 acres would exist with excess temperature of 5&deg;F or more, while the 2*F isotherm would encompass about 27 acres (Sect. 5.3.1). A small area would exist with excess temperature near 20'F. As a result, the water of a small area may be heated to 70&deg;F or more. Fish that become acclimated to this high a temperature would be susceptible to lethal cold shock should the water temperature suddenly drop to the ambient temperatu-e (Table 5.6). The staff does not consider 5-19 Table 5.6. Thermal tolerances of several fish species found in the Broad River Acclimation Upper lethal Lower lethal Species temperature Stage/age Locality threshold threshold (&deg;F) &deg;F) (&deg;F)Micropterus salmoidesa 68 Ohio 90.5 41.9 (largemouth bass) 77 94.1 86 97.5(u) 53.2 Notemnigonus crysoleucasa 50 Adult Composite of 85.1 34.7 (golden shiner) 59 Ohio, Florida, 86.9 39.2 68 and Ontario 89.6 44.6 77 92.3 55.2 86 94.1 Sernotilus atromaculatusb 41 Adult Ontario 76.4 (creek chub) 50 81.1 59 84.7 68 86.5 33.3 77 86.5 40.1 Catostomrus commersonsi*
41 Adult Ontario 79.3 (white sucker) 50 81.9 59 .84.7 68 84.7 36.5 77 84.7 42.8 Dorosoma cepedianuma 77 Under-yearling Ohio 93.2 51.4 (gizzard shad) 86 96.8 58.1 95 97.7(u) 68.0 Ganbusia affinis holbrookiB 59 Adult Texas 95.9 34.7 (mosquito fish) 68 98.6 41.9 77 98.6 86 98.6(u)Ictalurus nebulosusa 41 F lor ida to 82.2 (brown bullhead) 50 Ohio (seasonal) 84.2 59 87.8 68 90.5 32.9 77 92.8 39.2 86 94.6 44.2 93 94.6 Ictaluruapunctatus' 59 Adult Florida and 86.7 0.0 (channel catfish) 68 Ohio 91.0 0.0 77 92.3 0.0 Lepomis machrochirus purpuresc ens 59 Adult Florida 86.9 36.5 (bluegill sunfish) 68 89.6 41.0 77 91.4 45.5 86 94.2 51.8 (u) = ultimate lethal temperature.
aSource: J. S. Hart, "Geographic Variations in Some Physiological and Morphological Characters in Certain Freshwater Fish," Publ. Ontario Fish. Re& Lab. LXXII (1952).bSource: J. S. Hart, "Lethal Temperature Relations of Certain Fish of the Toronto Region," Trans. Roy. Soc. Canada 51(3):57-71 (1947).the possibility of a cold-shock mortality significant, however, because the probability of simultaneous shutdown of all three units of CNS is very small, and the probability that such shutdown would occur in conjunction with shutdown of the hydrostation is even more unlikely.2. When river flows are less than about 4000 cfs, all the flow passes through the hydro-station on the east side of the dam. Under these conditions, complete mixing of the blowdown with river water would not occur until at least 1000 ft below the dam because the flow from the hydrostation does not reach the west bank of the river until this point. As a result, at flows ranging from 470 to 4000 cfs, which are normally encountered at the CNS site (mean flow = 2472 cfs), the 50 isotherm of the blowdown would only be slightly smaller than at a flow of 40 cfs. However, adequate dilution should still occur so that excess temperatures sufficient to produce potential lethal cold shock should not be present; therefore, the staff does not expect any adverse thermal effects to occur.
5-20 3. When river flows exceed the capacity of the hydrostation
('A000 cfs), the excess water flows over the dam's spillway, extending from the hydrostation to the west bank. Under these conditions, dilution of the blowdown would be rapid, and no adverse thermal impacts would be expected.Chemical A description of CNS's chemical and biocidal systems is given in Sect. 3.6. Tables 3.6 and 3.7 list the chemical species, their concentrations in the cooling tower blowdown, and their incre-mental increases in concentration in the river. Several of the chemicals that will be released to the aquatic environment by CNS could potentially have adverse impacts.Total dissolved solids. The cooling water blowdown after ten cycles of operation will have a maximum TDS concentration of 980 ppm. Complete dilution in the river at the low 7 Q1 0 flow of 470 cfs will produce an incremental increase of 22 ppm. Since the maximum ambient TDS concentra-tion in the river is only 98 ppm, this increase will still produce a TDS concentration well within the normal range for fresh water and will have no adverse effects on the biota of the river. The median toxicity threshold of TDS for most freshwater invertebrates and fish ranges from 3000 to 15,000 ppm.2 5 Dissolved oxygen. Cooiiti cower blowdown will have dissolved oxygen concentrations at saturation due to aeration in the cooling towers. Even considering the elevated temperatures of the blow-down, the blowdown will produce only negligible changes in the dissolved oxygen concentrations in the river due to the small volume of blowdown involved (12 cfs), the high ambient river oxygen concentrations, and the low LT expected (5 F&deg;) during the summer when oxygen levels are normally most critical.Chlorine.
The applicant's chlorination procedures are discussed in Sect. 3.6.1 and will consist of the application of 533-1066 lb of chlorine (as sodium hypochlorite) daily per unit (1600-3200 lb/day total) over a period of 1 hr. A free residual chlorine concentration of 1 mg/l will be obtained during warm weather, and 0.5 mg/l will be obtained during cold weather. Each unit will be chlorinated sequentially.
Under this procedure, the blowdown would have a free residual chlorine concentration of 0.3 mg/l and a total chlorine reaction products concentration of 50 mg/l (see Table 3.6).The relationship between time of exposure and concentration for the toxicity of residual chlorine to aquatic life (mostly freshwater fish) is summarized in Fig. 5.4. The greatest potential for prolonged exposure of aquatic organisms to toxic chlorine concentrations would occur during the colder months of the year when fish may be attracted to the blowdown's thermal plume (Sect.5.1.2.2).Because of the site of the blowdown discharge immediately below Ninety-Nine Islands Dam, dilution of blowdown with river water will be slow and concentrations of toxic residual chlorine will persist within a large area for prolonged periods, especially during times of low river flows.Under low-flow winter conditions, the area within the 5' isotherm of the thermal plume from CNS blowdown would encompass an area of about at least 4 acres. The total chlorine reaction products concentration within this area would be large. The total residual chlorine present among the chlorine reaction products could be toxic to fish attracted to the thermal plume if they were subjected to prolonged exposures.
Even after complete dilution of the river, total residual chlorine could still be present at a concentration (total chlorine reaction products, 1.2 mg/l)sufficient to kill fish exposed for more than 50 to 100 min (Fig. 5.4).The potential clearly exists for severe losses of fish and other aquatic organisms of the river from releases of chlorine at EPA guideline limits (0.2 mg/l average and 0.5 mg/l maximum free available chlorine).from the operation of CNS. Because of the location of the blowdown discharge, at low river flows little or no dilution will occur until the blowdown flow mixes with the river flow at a point about 1000 ft below the dam and the fish and benthic invertebrates inhabiting an area of approximately 1 to 4 acres, depending on river flow, will be frequently subjected to toxic concentrations of total residual chlorine.
As a result, fish and benthic invertebrates will probably be eliminated from this area. The fish populations that inhabit this area are probably 5-21 ES- 160R-- 271 7 41 39 16 8 38 46 28"2 17 18 42,35 48423.:4 42,3 , 405 9 33 z 6 29 O 25 34 4,22-- 19I 4 -0 5---47 t0 ~ .-24-. 26 z 1p Z 0 MORE- RESISTANT ORGANISMS z --cr 3t-J 105 12- 20--J o \ I (n it 1 -13 aUJ -CHRONIC TOXICITY THRESHOLDS SALMONID FISHES AND -1 OTHER SENSITIVE ORGANISMS---
-4 1-3 I I 1I I I 1 i I 11 .1 1 1 1 1 1111 101 102 103 104 105 EXPOSURE TIME (min)Fig. 5.4. Summary of residual chlorine toxicity data. (Key and references follow.)similar to what was sampled by the applicant at station 15, located about 2000 ft below the dam (Fig. 6.1). The most common fish species encountered were gizzard shad (54%) and bluegills (17%), with other game species making up an additional 4% (ER, Table 2.7.2-37).
Although the staff does not consider that the loss of fish and other aquatic biota from this small area will adversely affect their populations in the river because the area to be lost is only a negligible part of their available habitat in the river, either alternate discharge method and location (Sect. 9.2.3)is environmentally superior and the staff will approve the proposed discharge only if the appli-cant will commit to meet a chlorine design objective of total residual chlorine of not more than 0.1 mg/l and not discharge blowdown containing total residual chlorine when leakage through the dam is the only flow in the river downstream of the dam.Alternate biocide Only very limited data are available on the toxicity of the alternate biocide, dodecylguanidine hydrochloride, to aquatic organisms.
The manufacturer of the biocide reported a 96-hr LC 5 0 con-centration of 7.5 mg/l for the bluegill, Lepomis macrochirus.
Bioassays using the alternate biocide were conducted by the applicant using the green algae, Selenastrwn capricornutwn.
At concentrations expected to be used at CNS, the alternate biocide killed all cultures grown at 50OF and at 68OF but did not kill the cultures grown at 86 0 F, although growth rates were reduced by 50% (ER, Sect. 5.4.3).When used, the alternate biocide would be present at 10 mg/l in the blowdown and, after complete dilution in the river in the 7 Q10 flow of 470 cfs, it would be present at 0.25 mg/l (Table 3.7).A concentration of 0.25 mg/l would probably not be acutely toxic to most aquatic organisms; however, it may be chronically toxic if exposure were of a long duration.Prior to approval of use of dodecyclguanidine hydrochloride as a biocide, the staff will require that adequate acute and chronic toxicity data be provided for representative, indigenous species of all trophic levels to assure that release will not produce adverse effects to aquatic biota.
5-22 Key to Fig. 5.4. Exposures of aquatic organisms to total residual chlorine All concentrations were measured Species Cladoceran Scud Trout fry Brook trout Fingerling rainbow trout Rainbow trout Chinook salmon Coho salmon Pink salmon Fathead minnow White sucker Black bullhead Largemouth bass Yellow perch Walleye Miscellaneous fish Rainbow trout Daphnia magna Point No.2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 17 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 46 47 48 Effect end point'Lethal (4 days)Safe concentration Safe concentration Lethal (2 days)Median mortality (90 min)Mean survival time 8.7 hr Mean survival time 14.1 hr Mean survival time 20.9 hr Mean survival time 24 hr 67% lethality (4 days)Depressed activity 7-day TL50 Lethal (4 to 5 he)Lethal (2 he)96-hr TL50 7-day TL50 Lethal (12 days)First death 2.2 hr 7-day TL50 100% kill (1-2 days)Maximum nonlethal 100% kill 01-2 days)Maximum nonlethal TL50 (I nh)TL5O (12 hr)96-hr TL50 7-day TL50 Safe concentration Lethal (30-60 min)7-day TL50 96-hr TLSO 7-day TL50 TL5O (I he)TL50 (12 hr)Median mortality ( 15 hr)TL5(IS he)TL5O (12 hr)7-day TL5O 7-day TL5O Initial kill 15 min 100% lethal in plant effluent 0 recovery Reference Biesinger, 1971 Arthur, 1971 Arthur and Eaton, 1972 Coventry et al., 1935 Pyle, 1960 Dandy. 1967 Dandy, 1967 Dandy, 1967 Dandy, 1967 Dandy, 1967 Dandy, 1967 Arthur, 1971 Taylor and James, 1928 Taylor and James 1928 Busch, 1971 Merkens, 1958 Sprague and Druey, 1969 Holland et al., 1960 Arthur, 1971 Holland et al., 1960 Holland el al., 1960 Holland et al., 1960 Holland et al., 1960 Arthur, 1972 Arthur, 1972 Zillich, 1969 Arthur, 1971 Arthur and Eaton, 1972 Fobes, 1971 Arthur, 1971 Arthur, 1971 Arthur, 1971 Arthur, 1972 Arthur, 1972 Pyle, 1960 Arthur, 1972 Arthur, 1972 Arthur. 1971 Arthur, 1971 Truchan, 1971 Michigan Water Resources Commission, 1971 National Water Quality Lab, 1971 aTL50: median tolerance limit.
5-23 References for Fig. 5.4 Arthur, John W., and John G. Eaton. 1972. Toxicity of chloramines to the amphipod, Gammarus pseudolimnaeus Bousfield, and the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas Rafinesque.
J. Fisheries Res. Board Can.Arthur, J. W. 197 1. Progress reports. National Water Quality Laboratory, Duluth, Minn.Arthur. J. W. 1972. Progress reports. National Water Quality Laboratory, Duluth. Minn.Basch, Robert E. 1971. In-situ investigations of the toxicity of chlorinated municipal wastewater treatment plant effluents to rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) and fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas).
Bureau of Water Management, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, Mich. 48926. 50 pp.Biesinger, K. E. 1971. Processed report. National Water Quality Laboratory, Duluth, Minn.Brungs, W. A. 1972. Literature review of the effects of residual chlorine on aquatic life.Environmental Protection Agency, National Water Quality Laboratory, Duluth, Minn.Coventry, F. L., V. E. Shelford, and L. F. Miller. 1935. The conditioning of a chloramine treated water supply for biological purposes.
Ecology 16: 60-66.Dandy, J. W. T. 1967. The eifects of chemical characteristics of the environment on the activity of an aquatic organism.
Thesis. University of Toronto, Ont. Dissertation abstracts 29, B. 3132 (0%9), Water Pollution Abs. (Brit.) 42 1708 (1969).Fobes, Ronald L. 1971. Chlorine toxicity and its effect on gill tissue respiration of the white sucker, Caslostomus commersoni (Lacepede).
MS thesis. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich.Hale, F. E. 1930. Control of microscopic organisms in public water supplies with particular reference to New York City. New Engl. Water Works Assoc. 44: 361-385.Holland. G. A., J. E. Lasater, E. D. Neumann, and W. E. Eldridge.
1960. Toxic effects of organi,t and inorganic pollutants on young salmon and trout. State of Washington, Department of Fisheries, Research Bulletin No. 5, September, 1960. Pp. 198-214.Merkens, J. C. 1958. Studies on the toxicity of chlorine and chloramines to the rainbow trout. Water and Waste Treat. J. 7: 150- 15 1.Michigan Water Resources Commission, 1971. A survey of chlorine concentrations in the Weadock Power Plant discharge canal. Processed report. 6 pp.National Water Quality Laboratory.
1971. Processed report. Duluth, Minn.Pyle, E. A. 1960. Neutralizing chlorine in city water for use in fish-distribution tanks.Prog. Fish-Cult.
22: 30-33.Sprague. J. B., and D. E. Drury. 1969. Avoidance reactions of salmonid fish to representative pollutants.
Advances in Water Pollution Research, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference.
Pp. 169-179.Taylor, R. S., and M. C. James. 1928. Treatment for removal of chlorine from city water for use in aquaria. U.S. Bur. Fish. Doc. 1045. Rept. U.S. Comm. Fish. App. 7: 322-327.Truchan. J. G. 1971. As reported by Brungs (1972).Zillich, J. A. 1969a. The toxicity of the Wyoming Wastewater Treatment Plant emuent to the fathead minnow and the white sucker, July 28-August I, 1969. Michigan Water Resources Commission.
Michigan Department of Na(ural Resources.
7 pp.Zillich, J. A. 1969b. The toxic effects of the Grandville Wastewater Treatment Plant effluent to the fathead minnow, promelas.
November 17-21, 1969. Michigan.Water Resources Commission, Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
9 pp.Zillich. J. A. 1969c. The toxicity of the Wyoming Wastewater Treatment Plant effluent to the fathead minnow, December 8-12, 1969. Michigan Water Resources Commission, Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
12 pp.
5-24 Scale inhibitor The applicant has studied the effects of the scale inhibitor, aminomethylene phosphonate, on the green algae, Selenastrum capricornutwn.
At concentrations that are expected to be used at CNS, the compound did not substantially affect algal growth. The effects of the scale inhibitor on higher trophic level organisms, however, is not known. Before the staff will approve the use of this compound, adequate data must be provided on the acute and chronic toxicity of the com-pound to representative, indigenous organisms of all trophic levels.5.5.3 Sanitary and other wastes During the operation of CNS, domestic sewage will total an est4mated 8000 gpd. The sewage will receive tertiary treatment and chlorination (12-25 ppm). The effluent will be pumped into a holding pond and ultimately to the river (ER, Sect. 3.7.2). The chemical composition of the dis-charge to the river will contain an average of 4.1 ppm phosphate (as P0 4), 0.45 ppm of nitrates, and 0.45 ppm of ammonia. When added to the nutrients released in the blowdown, these concentra-tions will amount to a maximum incremental increase in the river (for a flow of 470 cfs) of 0.1 ppm of phosphates (P0 4), 0.04 ppm of nitrates, and 0.07 ppm of ammonia (Table 3.6).Incremental increases of the above magnitude in phosphates, nitrates, and ammonia could stimulate increased primary production in the river. The amount that primary production will be increased will probably be minor. Because of high ambient turbidity (annual average TSS = 135 mg/l), pri-mary production in the river is probably limited more by light than by any nutrient.
Total-esidual chlorine will be present in the effluent at insignificant concentrations and will cause no adverse impacts to aquatic biota.Summary of the impacts of CNS operation on the aquatic environment The operation of CNS could have potential adverse effects on the aquatic environment of the river and the reservoir through impacts associated with the intake of cooling tower makeup water (impingement and entrainment) and through the discharge of effluents (chemical and thermal impacts).The staff does not consider that significant fish impingement losses will result at CNS since the intake structure contains features that will minimize fish impingement.
Entrainment losses of ichthyoplankton at CNS should not cause adverse effects on fish populations because fish larvae are present in very low numbers in the river and because CNS operation will withdraw only a small proportion of river flows during periods when most fish larvae will be susceptible to entrainment.
Entrainment losses of phytoplankton and zooplankton will be insignifi-cant because of their relative unimportance in the river trophic structure.
Total residual chlorine may be present in the blowdown in sufficient concentration to be toxic to aquatic organ-isms in the river. Because of the design and location of the blowdown discharge, concentrations of residual chlorine will persist for prolonged periods in the river, and the probability of mortalities to fish and other aquatic organisms is substantial.
To mitigate this adverse situa-tion, the applicant will be required to limit the concentration of total residual chlorine in the blowdown to 0.1 mg/l. No other chemical discharges are expected to create biological problems.Under summer conditions, the blowdown temperature will not exceed the upper lethal threshold temperatures of river fishes, and no significant impact to fish or other aquat'lt:
biota are expected.
Under winter conditions, the AT of the blowdown will be between; 25 F 0 and 30 F'.Fish may be attracted to the relatively large area of elevated temperatures that will be present below the dam. Fish attracted to the area of maximum AT (20 F&deg; to 30 F&deg;) will be exposed to potential lethal cold shock, should all three units of CNS cease operating.
The probability of this occurring, however, is very low.The blowdown discharge should not create any significant problems of thermal blockage or benthic scour. The impacts of CNS operation on the aquatic environment are summarized in Table 5.7.5.6 IMPACTS ON PEOPLE 5.6.1 Physical impacts The staff concludes that the operation of the station will not result in any detectable odor offsite. Pollutants from fossil fuels used in the emergency diesel generators will have negli-gible impact since emissions will occur on an infrequent basis, will be of short duration, and will meet applicable standards.
Table 5.7. Summary of environmental impacts due to operation Corrective actions available Potential impact Applicant's plans to mitigate Expected relative significance and remarks Impingement of organisms on Intake velocity <0.5 fps. Insignificant intake screens Impingement will be monitored.
Intake design follows best technology available for minimizing impingement.
Entrainment of organisms in cooling tower makeup water (Sect. 5.1.1.2)Phytoplankton and None Insignificant zooplankton Fish eggs, larvae, and None Insignificant Low densities of ichthyoplankton are juveniles present. Applicant will remove only a small percentage of water flow during critical periods.Chemical discharges (Sect. 5.1.2.1)Total-dissolved solids None Insignificant Dissolved oxygen None Insignificant Chlorine Intermittent use. Units will be Significant; residual chlorine Applicant will be required to limit chlorinated sequentially.
may be present at concentration discharges of total residual chlorine toxic to aquatic organisms during to 0.1 mg/1, and no discharge of periods of low river flow. chlorine will be permitted when Ninety-Sanitary wastes Waste water treatment system Nine Islands Dam is not discharging_
water.Thermal effects (Sect. 5.1.2.2)High water temperatures Closed-cycle cooling Insignificant Cold shock Closed-cycle cooling Insignificant Thermal blockage .Closed-cycle cooling Insignificant Scour at discharge Low volume, low velocity Insignificant discharge.
(3, U,1 5-w26 Some noises will result from station operation.
Major noise sources are the atmospheric steam dump, emergency diesel generators, air handling fans, switchyard, and cooling towers (ER, Sect.5.7). The staff anticipates that the noisiest sources during normal operation will be the switchyard (primarily 60-cycle hum) and the mechanical-draft cooling towers. The applicant has indicated that noise levels due to cooling tower operation will not exceed 84 dB(A) in the range 63 to 8000 Hz at 250 ft from the towers (ER,.Sect.
5.1.6). The shortest distance from cooling tower to site boundaries is about 3000 ft. Thus the staff does not consider that noise from cooling tower operation will cause any inconvenience at site boundaries.
The three reactor containment vessels, each about 160 ft above grade level, will be the tallest structures on the site. However, the plumes from the cooling towers will sometimes' extend to heights in excess of the towers and consequently will be the most visible feature of the site.The applicant has indicated that plume lengths will exceed 1 mile about-10%
of the time and will exceed 20 miles about 1% of the time during the period June-November (ER, Fig. 5.1.4-1).During the period December-May, visible plume lengths were calculated to exceed 1 mile about-10% of the time and to exceed 20 miles about 3% of the time (ER, Fig. 5.1.4-2), reflecting the expected increase in visible plume occurrence during the winter and spring months. Although these cooling tower plumes will contrast with the existing rural scene, they will not constitute a significant environmental cost.5.6.2 Population growth and operating personnel income The applicant estimates that about 250 permanent employees will be required for the operation of the station. The corresponding annual payroll will to be about $8,200,000.
5.6.3 Impact on community services The applicant has not indicated the fraction of the required permanent employees that will be new residents of the nearby communities nor their distribution within these communities.
However, the staff judges that the impact of the new residents on the communities in which they reside will be generally minor since their numbers are expected to be small in relation to the existing population.
The staff considers that the taxes the new residents will pay will compensate their communities for the additional required services.
The staff anticipates that the impacts on local highways will be greatly reduced after construction has been completed; therefore, traffic due to station operation will not place any undue burdens on traffic safety or highway mainten-ance personnel of the local communities.
5.6.4 Impact on local institutions The principal institution that might be affected by the permanent work force could be the school systems of the local communities.
However, since the total influx of operating personnel will be relatively small in relation to existing populations in these communities, the staff does not expect any significant effect on any school system as a result of plant operation.
Neither does the staff consider that any other local institution will be significantly affected.5.6.5 Impact on recreational capacity of the area Because of the small numbers of persons that will move into the area in connection with the operation of the station and because the recreational opportunities currently existing in the area are expected to continue to exist during station operation, the staff does not consider that their presence will have any effect on recreational capacity of the area. Station operation will affect a small portion of the recreational capacity in the area since no recreational usage will be allowed within the fenced plant area; recreation on the Broad River will be restricted only during an emergency (ER, Response to Question 8.1.11). The staff does not consider that these losses in recreational capacity or potential restrictions on recreational use of the river will be of significance.
5.6.6 Tax payments by the station The applicant has indicated that tax payments to the State of South Carolina inthe form of franchise tax, power tax, income tax, and several minor taxes would probably amount to about$44.6 million per year (ER, Response to Question 8.1.6). Federal income tax liability is esti-mated to be about $71.4 million per year. Based on 1972 procedures, regulations, and rates, the total annual property taxes on CNS would be about $16,400,000 per year (ER, Response to Question 8.1.8); and the entire amount will go to Cherokee County. With the addition of the large capital investment in Cherokee County as a consequence of station construction
[estimated assessed 5-27 valuation of the station is about $134,200,000 (ER, Response to Question 8.1.7)], since the total assessed valuation of property in this county will be significantly increased
[the 1972 assessed value was about $124,100,000 (ER, Table 8.1.2-1)], the county's tax rate may possibly be decreased with consequent reduced payments by the station. The revenue thus made available to the county government as a result of the presence of CNS will represent a considerable addi-tional source of funds for this county. The staff concludes that this increase in revenue will be a significant benefit to the county.5.6.7 Conclusions The staff does not consider that noise or odor from station operation will significantly affect local residents.
The visibility of the cooling tower plumes is not considered to be a signifi-cant environmental cost, although the staff recognizes that the appearance of these plumes in the rural countryside may offend some individuals.
Population added to the local communities as a result of the influx of operating personnel and their families will not contribute significantly to the population of these communities.
The taxes paid by these workers to the local governmental units are expected to offset the additional services that the workers will require.No local institutions will be significantly affected by the station's presence or by its operating personnel, nor will there be any significant adverse effect on existing recreational areas. The property taxes paid by the station to the local county government will be a significant benefit to this county.
5-28 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5 1. W. G. Crosby, An Air Appraisal Report of South Carolina, 1968, South Carolina Pollution Control Authority, Columbia, S.C., 1968.2. B. A. Benedict et al., Analytical Modeling of Thermal Discharges, Argonne National Labora-tory, ANL/ES-18, April 1974, pp. 118-128.3. J. V. Wilson, 0RFAD, A Computer Program to Estimate Fog and Drift from Wet Cooling Towers, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL-TM-4568, January 13, 1975.4. G. A. Briggs, "Plume Rise," U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, TID-25075, April 1970.5. S. R. Hanna, "Meteorological Effects of Cooling Tower Plumes," NOAA Research Laboratories, Oak Ridge, Tenn., ATDL Contribution No. 48, January 1971.6. G. A. Briggs, "Plume Rise from Multiple Sources," Environmental Research Laboratories, Oak Ridge, Tenn., ATDL Contribution No. 91, March 1974.7. South Carolina Pollution Control Authority, Water Classifications -Standards System for the State of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, 1971.8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category, Effluent Guidelines and Standards," Fed. Regist. 38(196) (1974).9. "Radioactivity in the Marine Environment," Panel on R.I.M.E. of the Committee on Oceanography, NAS-NRC, 1971.10. R. J. Garner, "Transfer of Radioactive Materials from the Terrestrial Environment to Animals and Man," CRC Critical Reviews in Environmental Control 2: 337-385 (1971).11. S. J. Auerbach, "Ecological Considerations in Siting Nuclear Power Plants. The Long Term Biota Effects Problem," Nucl. Safety 12: 25 (1971).12. Reconmendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP Publica-tion 2, Pergamon Press, 1959.13. "The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation," report of the Advisory Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations, NAS-NRC, 1972.14. Implications of Commission Recommendations That Doses Be Kept as Low as Readily Achievable, ICRP Publication 22, 1973.15. T. D. Murphy, Occupational Radiation Exposure at Light Water Cooled Reactors:
1969-1974, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-75/032, June 1975.16. J. Stockham, Cooling Tower Study, IIT Res. Inst. Tech. Center, Report No. 06187-3, Chicago, Ill., January 1971.17. A. W. Gambell and D. W. Fisher, "Chemical Composition of Rainfall:
Eastern North Carolina and Southeastern Virginia," Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1535-K, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1966.18. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Water Quality Criteria, Washington, D.C., 1968.19. W. A. Niering and R. H. Goodwin, 'Creation of Relatively Stable Shrublands with Herbicides:
Arresting
'Succession' on Rights-of-Way and Pastureland," Ecology 55: 784-795 (1974).20. W. A. Niering, "The Effects of Pesticides," Bioscience 18: 869-875 (1963).21. M. Frydman, A. Levy, and S. E. Miller, "Oxidant Measurements in the Vicinity of Energized 765 kV Lines," IEEE Transactions Paper T 72 551-0, July 1972.22. H. N. Scherer, Jr., B. J. Ware, and C. H. Shih, "Gaseous Effluents Due to EHV Transmission Line Corona," IEEE Transactions Paper T 72 550-2, July 1972.23. L. S. Dochinger, "The Impact of Air Pollution on Eastern White Pine: The Chlorotic Dwarf Disease," J. Air. Pollut. Contr. Assoc. 18: 814 (1968).
5-29 24. P. R. Miller and J. P. Parmeter, "Effects of Ozone Injury to Ponderosa Pine," Phytopathology 57: 822 (1967).25. H. P. Clemens and W. H. Jones, "Toxicity of Brine Water from Oil Wells," TrZ's. Amer. Fish.Soc. 84: 97-109 (1954).
: 6. ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND MONITORING PROGRAMS 6.1 PREOPERATIONAL PROGRAMS 6.1.1 Meteorological The preoperational onsite meteorological program,'
initiated in September 1973, consists of a 33-ft tower and a 135-ft tower (a converted electrical transmission tower) located where the proposed cooling towers will be. These towers will be replaced by a permanent meteorological facility.
Wind speed and direction are measured at the top of the 33-ft tower. On the 135-ft tower, wind speed and direction are measured at the 135-ft level, vertical temperature gradient is measured between 30 ft and 130 ft, air and dewpoint temperatures are measured at 30 ft, and precipitation is measured near the ground. The data are recorded on strip charts.The applicant has submitted one full year (September 11, 1973, through September 11, 1974) of onsite joint frequency distributions of wind speed and direction at the 33-ft level by atmo-spheric stability (as defined by vertical temperature gradient between 30 ft and 130 ft) in the format suggested in Regulatory Guide 1.23.2 Similar distributions were submitted with wind data from the 135-ft level of the onsite tower. Also submitted were joint frequency distribu-tions (with stability defined by the STAR program) for a five-year period (1968-1972) from Greenville-Spartanburg Airport. The staff has examined relative concentration (X/Q) values calculated using each joint frequency distribution (the wind speeds recorded at the 135-ft level were reduced to represent speeds at 33 ft by use of the power law for wind profiles).
A Gaussian diffusion model with adjustments for building wake effects, described in Regulatory Guide 1.42,3 was used to make estimates of relative concentration values. The relative concentration values calculated using each distribution were not significantly different in magnitude for pertinent distances and directions.
6.1.2 Ecological 6.1.2.1 Terrestrial Cooling tower drift impact assessment The applicant has presented an adequate statement of plans for determination of preoperational fog, visibility, and weather conditions for the Cherokee site for later postoperational correla-tion with conditions during operation of the cooli'ng towers (ER, Sect. 6.1.3.1).
No plans for preoperational monitoring of soil conditions in areas of future drift deposition were described, however. Therefore, the applicant should collect preoperational soil samples from several points where the drift is expected to be maximal for later studies of changes in salt content of the soil and other parameters resulting from cooling tower drift. Dissolved solids in groundwater should also be sampled so that any later changes in dissolved solids can be detected.
As an alternative, soil and groundwater samples could be collected from affected areas after a time of operation and compared with samples from unaffected areas.Terrestrial ecology The applicant's data on terrestrial ecology were sufficient to determine, in general, the forest and vegetation types present on the Cherokee site and to determine most of the plant and verte-brate animal species commonly found on the site. The applicant's data were deficient with regard to species composition and various population parameters of plant and animal communities on the site and to the occurrence of endangered species. However, in the staff's judgment, the data supplied by the applicant, when supplemented by available literature on the ecology of the Piedmont Physiographic Province and staff observations, were adequate to permit a valid impact analysis.After determining exactly what routes will be followed by the transmission lines and before any clearing is done, the applicant will be required to submit a report to the staff on the percent-ages of the proposed corridors in various land uses and in forest types given in Sect. 2.7.1 or in the following forest types, which can easily be identified from aerial photographs:
conif-erous, deciduous, mixed coniferous-deciduous, and thicket. The presence of any marshes, swamps, 6-1 6-2 or historic sites must also be reported to the staff. Staff approval of specific routes will be required before the commencement of construction of transmission lines.6.1.2.2 Aquatic A preoperational ecological monitoring program has been undertaken by the applicant with the purpose of describing the important components of the aquatic ecosystem in the vicinity of the CNS site. Sampling was initiated in October 1973, and data have been presented to the staff for the period through October 1974.Major emphasis has been expended on studying the Broad River, Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir, and two onsite creeks (Fig. 6.1). In addition, several tributaries of the river have been sampled to provide complementary background information on the aquatic environment (ER, Fig. 6.1.1-1).The water quality parameters and biological communities studied, plus the applicant's sampling schedule, are presented in the applicant's ER (ER, Tables 6.1.1-1 and 6.1.1-2).
A brief summary of the sampling program is given in Table 6.1, while a more detailed description is given in the ER, Sect. 6.1.1.Table 6.1. Sampling stations, gear, and methods used in the applicant's preoperation aquatic ecological monitoring program Biological community Sampling stations Sampling gear Sampling methods Phytoplankton 1-23 Polyethylene bottles, alpha Polyethylene bottles used for surface sampling;bottles, and a kemmerer bottle alpha bottle used for surface sampling from bridges; kemmerer bottle used for mid-depth and bottom sampling.Periphyton 4, 8, 12, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23 Artificial substrates con- Samples are placed at each station each month.sisting of I in. X 3 in. glass slides Slides are removed every two weeks.embedded in weighted rubber stoppers Zooplankton 1-23 Wisconsin plankton net and Wisconsin plankton net is used in the river Clark-Bumpus net and Clark-Bumpus net is used in the backwaters of the reservoir.
Fifty-meter tows for each net.Benthos 3-16, 21,23 Surber sampler, Ekman grab, and Surber sampler is used for shallow ground Ponar grab and rocky riffler; Ekman grab is used for soft substrates; Ponar grab is used for sand and in fast water.Fish 2, 4, 5, 6, 9-16, 21, 23 Backpack and boat shocker, Electroschockers, 100-m stretch is sampled;seines, fyke nets, and trammel nets seines, 25- or 50-m haul; trammel and fyke nets are set for 72 hr.Generally, the applicant's preoperational monitoring program has been adequate.
A few inade-quacies existed initially which have been subsequently rectified.
These included quantitative sampling for fish, ichthyoplankton, and benthic drift.Beginning with sampling period 8, May 20-25, 1974, the applicant reduced the number of sampling stations from the original 23 to 12. Those that have been retained include 4, 8-15, 17, 21, and 23 (ER, Table 6.1.1-5).
Figure 6.1 indicates those stations located in the immediate CNS site vicinity.
The staff agrees with the applicant that this reduction in the number of sampling stations was expedient and should result in higher quality and more relevant data from the remaining stations.6.1.3 Radiological The applicant has proposed an offsite preoperational radiological monitoring program to provide for measurement of background radiation levels and radioactivity in the plant environs.
The preoperational program, which provides a necessary basis for the operational radiological mon-itoring program, will also permit the applicant to train personnel and to evaluate procedures, equipment, and techniques, as indicated in Regulatory Guide 4.1.A description of the applicant's proposed program is summarized in Table 6.2. Figure 6.2 shows the proposed sampling locations.
The applicant has made a commitment to monitor the radioiodine pathways discussed in Sect. 5.3.4. More detailed information on the applicant's radiological monitoring program is presented in Sect. 6.1 of the ER. The applicant proposes to initiate parts of the program two years prior to operation of the facility, with the remaining portions begin-ning either six months or one year prior to operation.
ES-618 I '-Fig. 6.1. Locations of aquatic sampling stations in the CNS site area.Source: ER, Fig. 6.1.1-2.
6-4 Table 6.2. The preoperational radiological monitoring program Analyses Gross Schedule alpha Gross Gamma Specific nuclides beta analysis 1. Water Monthly x x 89Sr, 9&deg;Sr, 3 H Quarterly x x x 2. Airborne particulates Monthly x x x 131 1 (including iodine, rain, and settled dust)3. Radiation dose and Quarterly dose rate 4. Bottom and shoreline Quarterly x x x 6&deg;Co sediment (including benthos)5. Aquatic vegetation Quarterly x x x 1 3 7 Cs. 4&deg;K and/or plankton (as available)
: 6. Terrestrial vegetation, Quarterly x x x I 3 7 Cs, 4&deg;K pasture grass, and crops (as available)(corn, beans, leafy green vegetables)
: 7. Milk Monthly x 89Sr, 9oSr, 1 3 7 Cs, 4OK, 3 H, 1311 8. Fish Quarterly x x e9Sr, 9oSr, 1 3 7 Cs, 4OK Source: ER, Table 6.1.1.The staff concludes that the preoperational monitoring program proposed by the applicant is generally acceptable; however, to improve the effectiveness of the program, the staff recommends (1) that the applicant improve his analysis of milk samples to obtain a sensitivity of 0.5 pCi/l for 1-131 and (2) that the applicant periodically sample domestic meats or wildlife forms in the pathway to man.6.2 OPERATIONAL PROGRAMS 6.2.1 Radiological The operational offsite radiological monitoring program is conducted to measure radiation levels and radioactivity in the plant environs.
It assists and provides backup support to the detailed effluent monitoring (as recommended by Regulatory Guide 1.21), which is needed to evaluate indi-vidual and population exposures and to verify projected or anticipated radioactivity concentra-tions.The applicant plans to continue the proposed preoperational program during the operating period.However, refinements may be made in the program to reflect changes in land use or preoperational monitoring experience.
An evaluation of the applicant's proposed operational monitoring program will be performed during the operating license review, and the details of the required monitoring program will be incorpo-rated into the Environmental Technical Specifications for the operating license.6.2.2 Terrestrial ecology 6.2.2.1 Cooling tower drift impact assessment Because predictions of minimal vegetation damage were based on unverified drift deposition rates and plume behavior, the staff requires that the applicant establish a series of permanent plots at several locations within the area of cooling tower influence.
The plots should be located in such a way that some lie in areas where the drift is expected or observed to be maximal. Foliage must be inspected for leaf burn and discoloration.
Sampling should be carried out at monthly intervals extending through the first full year of operation of all three units and thereafter at quarterly intervals.
If major damage to dominant vegetation is observed (e.g., extensive 6-5 defoliation, dieback of trees and ornamentals on adjacent properties, decline of screening vege-tation), appropriate steps should be taken to minimize drift losses and subsequent carry-over of circulating water solids. Also, if major damage to dominant-vegetation occurs, groundwater must be sampled to detect any increases in dissolved solids over preoperational concentrations or over natural concentrations in unaffected areas offsite.ES -623 OR METEORO.OGICAL PSAR TABLE 2-34-2 ID WATER, SURFACE OR WELL RAIN AND SETTLED DUST DOSIMETER, TLO AIR PARTICULATES VEGETATION, AQJATIC OR TERRESTIAL B CROPS SSEDIMENT MILK NEAREST RESIDENCE, (18 MI.NEAREST FARM, 0.7M1 A NEAREST USED SHORELINE AREA, A NEAREST MUNICIPAL WATER INTAKE.UNION 21 Mi. 2 0 2 4 MILES NEAREST COMMUNITY, 2.1 MI.A NEAREST DAIRY, 7.6 MI.REFERENCE FOR MOVEMENT OF GROUNDIMWER PSAR APPENDIX 28. GROUNOWATER HYDROLOGY SECTION 2.4 AND 3.1 Fig. 6.2. Proposed radiological sampling stations.6.2.2.2 Vegetation The applicant stated that cleanup and restoration on transmission line rights-of-way entails smoothing and seeding of work areas, including the construction of access roads on the rights-of-way (ER, Sect. 4.2). Thus, all areas on the rights-of-way, according to the applicant's plans, should have a vegetative cover soon after construction is completed along each right-of-way.
The staff requires that, after construction, the applicant survey the locations and approximate sizes of all areas on the rights-of-way where bare soil or subsoil is exposed and that the applicant make immediate attempts to revegetate such areas. This procedure would be most critical on slopes, where possible erosion would be maximal. As explained in Sect. 5.5.1, it is critical that vegetative cover be established before the topsoil is eroded away. After all bare areas 6-6 have been initially revegetated, searches for bare areas should be made simultaneously with the transmission line inspections and bush-hogging and hand-clearing operations mentioned by the applicant (ER, Sect. 5.6).For the station site, the site construction access roads, and the railroad spur, the applicant is required, as above, to survey and treat areas of bare soil.6.2.2.3 Fauna Because of the total ultimate dependency of all faunal populations on primary (plant) production, the staff places most emphasis on requirements that the applicant conserve topsoil and revegetate cleared areas with lush vegetation that forms a complete cover over soil. Given such conditions, animal populations should thrive, and on a long-term basis the total animal community should not experience serious reductions in numbers. Therefore, the staff does not require that the applicant establish a program for monitoring faunal populations.
6.2.3 Aquatic ecoloqy The applicant has not presented definitive plans for the operational aquatic ecological monitor-ing program. Prior to completion of the preoperational program, the data will be evaluated to determine which portions of the program should be continued for operational monitoring purposes.Prior to issuance of an operating permit, the staff will issue Environmental Technical Specifi-cations related to operational monitoring procedures.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6 1. Duke Power Company, Cherokee Nuclear Station Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Docket Nos. 50-491, 50-492, and 50-493.2. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.23, "Onsite Meteorological Programs," USAEC Directorate of Regulatory Standards, Washington, D.C., 1972.3. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.42, "Interim Licensing Policy On As Low As Practicable for Gaseous Radioiodine Releases From Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors," USAEC Directorate of Regulatory Standards, Washington, D.C., 1973.
: 7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS 7.1 PLANT ACCIDENTS INVOLVING RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS A high degree of protection against the occurrence of postulated accidents in CNS is provided through correct design, manufacture, and operation and through the quality assurance program used to establish the necessary high integrity of the reactor system, as will be considered in the Commission's Safety Evaluation.
Deviations that may occur are handled by protective systems designed to place and maintain the plant in a safe condition.
Notwithstanding this requirement, the conservative postulate is made that serious accidents might occur, even though they may be extremely unlikely; and engineered safety features will be installed to mitigate the consequences of those postulated events judged credible.The probability of occurrence of accidents and the spectrum of their consequences to be con-sidered from an environmental effects standpoint have been analyzed by using best estimates of probabilities and realistic fission product release and transport assumptions.
For site evaluation in the Commission's Safety Evaluation, extremely conservative assumptions are used to compare calculated doses that result from a hypothetical release of fission products from the fuel against the 10 CFR Part 100 siting guidelines.
Realistically computed doses that would be received by the population and environment from the postulated accidents would be significantly less than those to be 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 the Cherokee Nuclear Station Environmental Report, dated June 1974.The applicant's report has been evaluated, using the standard accident assumptions and guidance issued by the Commission on December 1, 1971, as a proposed amendment to Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50. Nine classes of postulated accidents and occurrences that range 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 prob-ability within each class.Commission estimates of the dose that 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 esti-mate was based on the projected population within 50 miles of the site for the year 2020.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 occur-rences that 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; however, events of this type could occur sometime during the 40-year plant lifetime.
Although 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, they 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 environmental risk is extremely low. Defense in depth (multiple physical barriers);
quality assurance for design, manufacture, and operation; continued surveillance and testing; and conservative design are all applied to provide and maintain a high degree of assurance that potential accidents in this class are, and will remain, sufficiently small in probability that the environmental risk is extremely low.7-1 7-2 Table 7.1. Classification of postulated accidents and occurrences Class NRC description Applicant's examples 1 Trivial incidents Evaluated under routine releases 2 Small releases outside Minor spills and leaks; evaluated containment under routine releases 3 Radioactive waste system Release of a waste gas storage failure tank; release of contents of a liquid storage tank 4 Fission products to primary Not applicable system (BWR)5 Fission products to primary Fuel cladding defects and steam and secondary systems (PWR) generator tube leaks; off-design transients that induce fuel fail-ure above those expected and steam generator tube leak; steam generator tube rupture 6 Refueling accident Fuel bundle drop inside the contain-ment; heavy objects dropped onto fuel in core 7 Spent fuel handling Fuel assembly drop in the fuel stor-accident age pool; heavy object dropped into a fuel rack; fuel cask drop 8 Accident initiation events Loss of coolant accidents; rod considered in design-basis ejection accident; steam line break evaluation in the Safety Analysis Report 9 Hypothetical sequence of Not considered failures more severe than Class 8 The NRC is continuing a study originated by the USAEC to assess these risks more quantitatively.
The initial results of these efforts were made available in draft form on August 20, 1974.1 This.study, called the Reactor Safety Study, represents 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 accident probabilities.
The Commission 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, which has been discussed with EPA and described in correspondence with EPA, has been placed in the NRC Public Document Room.2 As with all new information developed that might have an effect on the health and safety of the public, the results of these studies will be made public and will 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 which are less than those that would result from a year's exposure to the maximum permissible concentrations of 10 CFR Part 20. Table 7.2 also shows the estimated integrated exposure of the population with-in 50 miles of the plant from each postulated accident.
Any of these integrated exposures would be much smaller than those from naturally occurring radioactivity.
When considered with the prob-ability 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 background radi-ation and, in fact, is well within naturally occurring variations in the natural background.
The conclusion from the results of the realistic analysis is that the environmental risks due to postulated radiological accidents are exceedingly small and need not be considered further.7.2 TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENTS INVOLVING RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS As discussed in Sect. 5.4.2.5, the staff has completed an analysis of the potential impact on the environment of transporting fuel and solid radioactive wastes for nuclear power plants under existing regulations.
The results of this analysis were published in a report entitled Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants.3 The report contains an analysis of the probabilities of occurrences of accidents and the expected consequences of such accidents, as well as the potential exposures to transport workers and the general public under normal conditions of transport.
7-3 Table 7.2. Summary of radiological consequences of postulated accidente Estimated fraction Estimated dose Class Event of 10 CFR Part 20 to population in limit at site 50-mile radius boundaryb (man-rem)1.0 Trivial incidents c C 2.0 Small releases outside C c containment 3.0 Radwaste system failures 3.1 Equipment leakage or malfunction 0.048 5.2 3.2 Release of waste gas 0.19 20 storage tank contents 3.3 Release of liquid waste 0.005 0.57 storage contents 4.0 Fission products to primary NA NA system (BWR)5.0 Fission products to primary and secondary systems (PWR)5.1 Fuel cladding defects and c C steam generator leaks 5.2 Off-design transients that 0.001 0.12 induce fuel failure above those expected and steam generator leak 5.3 Steam generator tube rupture 0.064 6.8 6.0 Refueling accidents 6.1 Fuel bundle drop 0.01 1.1 6.2 Heavy object drop onto fuel 0.17 19 in core 7.0 Spent fuel handling accident 7.1 Fuel assembly drop in 0.006 0.68 fuel rack 7.2 Heavy object drop onto 0.026 2.7 fuel rack 7.3 Fuel cask drop 0.15 16 8.0 Accident initiation events considered in design basis evaluation in the Safety Analysis Report 8.1 Loss-of-coolant accidents Small break 0.11 22 Large break 0.14 54 8.1(a) Break in instrument line from NA NA primary system that penetrates the containment 8.2(a) Rod ejection accident (PWR) 0.014 5.4 8.2(b) Rod drop accident (BWR) NA NA 8.3(a) Steamline breaks (PWRs outside containment)
Small break <0.001 <01" Large break <0.001 <0.1 8.3(b) Steamline break (BWR) NA NA aThe doses calculated as consequences of the postulated accidents are based on airborne transport of radioactive materials resulting in both a direct and an inhaled dose. Our evaluation of the accident doses assumes that the applicant's environmental monitoring program and appropriate additional monitoring (which could be initiated subsequent 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.b Represents the calculated fraction of a whole-body dose of 500 millirems, or the equivalent dose to an organ.CThese radionuclide releases are considered in developing the gaseous and liquid source terms presented in Section 3 and are included in doses in Section 5.
7-4 The initial fuel supply for each unit of CNS will be supplied from Windsor, Connecticut.
New fuel elements will be shipped approximately 830 miles from the fabrication plant to the site by truck.Each unit will replace about 81 of the 241 fuel assemblies each year. Spent fuel elements will be shipped from the site by truck or rail to Barnwell, South Carolina, a distance of about 170 miles.Solid radioactive wastes will be shipped by truck to the nearest disposal site in Barnwell, South Carolina (Chem-Nuclear Services), a distance of about 170 miles. This will involve approximately 53 shipments per year for three units.The transportation of cold fuel to the plant, of irradiated fuel from the reactor to a fuel re-processing plant, and of solid radioactive wastes from the reactor to burial grounds is within the scope of the AEC report mentioned above.3 The environmental risks of accidents in transpor-tation are summarized in Table 7.3. (Normal conditions of transport were summarized in Table 5.3.)Table 7.3. Environmental risks of accidents in transport of fuel and waste to and from a typical light.water-cooled nuclear power reactora Environmental risk Radiological effects Smallb Common (nonradiologicalI causes 1 fatal injury in 100 reactor years; 1 nonfatal injury in 10 reactor years; $475 property damage per reactor year.aData supporting this table are given in the Commission's Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants, WASH-1238, December 1972.bAlthough the environmental risk of radiological effects stemming from transportation accidents is currently incapable of being numerically quantified, the risk remains small regardless of whether it is being applied to a single reactor or a multireactor site.
7-5 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 7 1. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, Draft, WASH-1400, August 1974.2. Letter from W. D. Doub, USAEC, to D. D. Dominick, Environmental Protection Agency, June 5, 1973.3. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants, WASH-1238, December 1972.
: 8. THE NEED FOR POWER GENERATING CAPACITY The staff's assessment of the applicant's need for additional power generating capacity in the period 1983-1989 is presented in this section. The evaluation includes discussions of the ap-plicant's power system, power requirements, power supply and reserve requirements.
8.1 APPLICANTS SERVICE AREA AND REGIONAL RELATIONSHIPS 8.1.1 Applicant's service area The applicant, Duke Power Company (DPC), supplies retail and wholesale electricity to a service area of about 20,000 sq miles located in western North Carolina and South Carolina (Fig. 8.1) and served populations of about 3,205,000 and 566,000 in these two states, respectively, in 1973.'Its service area includes 50 counties in North Carolina and South Carolina; in 44 of these it is the principal supplier of electricity.
2 Duke Power Company supplies retail electric service to about 211 cities and wholesale electric service to about 39 other municipalities for resale over their distribution systems. It also supplies wholesale electrical energy to Rural Electrical Association cooperatives and to other utilities.
In 1973, 15% of DPC's total kilowatt-hour sales were at wholesale rates.3 The applicant obtains about 70% of its operating revenue from its North Carolina customers and about 30% from those in South Carolina.8.1.2 Regional relationships The applicant's service area is within the Federal Power Commission's (FPC) Southeastern Power Survey Region 4 and is located nearly entirely within the FPC's power supply area (PSA) 21 (Fig.8.2). The applicant is a party to the Southeastern Electric Reliability Council (SERC), which is one of the Nation's nine regional reliability councils.
The Southeastern Electric Reliability
'Council encompasses the same area as the Southeastern Power Survey Region. This region has about 17.5% of the area of the continental United States and about 15.4% of the 1967 population.
5 Southeastern Electric Reliability Council is divided into four subregions:
Florida (PSA 24), Southern Companies (PSAs 22 and 23), Tennessee Valley (PSA 20), and the Virginia-Carolinas PSAs 18 and 21). Areas of load concentration within SERC are shown in Figure 8.2. This figure indicates that within PSA 21, most of the major area of load concentration is located within the applicant's service area (as indicated in Fig. 8.1). The applicant is a member of the Virginia-Carolinas (VACAR) subregion.
It is not currently a member of any power pool.8.2 POWER REQUIREMENTS Planning for electric utility needs is based on both a forecast of anticipated annual energy con-sumption and peak load demand over a given period of years. The applicant's historical and projected energy consumption and peak load demands, the effects of energy conservation and the staff's forecast of peak load demand are discussed in the following sections.8.2.1 Energy consumption Historical and forecast energy consumption and annual peak load for the applicant's service area is given in Table 8.1. Energy consumption grew from 20,322 x 106 kWhr in 1964 to 46,502 x 106 kWhr in 1973, a 9.6% compound annual rate of growth. Energy consumption was. 45,630 x 106 kWhr in 1974, a decrease from 1973 of 1.9%. During the period 1964 to 1973 the applicant's service area experienced a rate of growth in energy consumption considerably greater than that of 7.3% for the nation as a whole.6 , 7 ,8 In 1974 national energy consumption remained at the 1973 level. The lack of growth in energy consumption during 1974 is attributable to both a pervasive economic recession and an energy crisis due primarily to high prices and temporary shortages of oil.The percentage consumption of electricity in major customer categories is shown in Table 8.2 for the applicant's system and compared with the South Atlantic states, and the United States as a whole. The figures in Table 8.2 indicate that the applicant's percentage residential sales of electricity is lower than the United States' average but that its commercial and industrial sales percentage is higher. These statistics reflect the degree of industrialization in the applicant's service area and especially reflects the importance of electricity intensive in-dustry, noteably textiles.8.1 ES -619 VIRGINIA-, amSPARTANBUJRG RNISLANDS WYLE I ccSALUDA 0 0 GREENVILLE L N FISHING CREEK n_ SOUTH CAROLINA GREAT FALLS M D= DEARBORN ROE fil&#xfd;.C KY CREEK CEDAR CREE LE HOLLIDAYS BRIDGE ANDERSON WATEREE GEORGIA (Lease)AI STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 13M HYOROELECTRIC STATION D NUCLEAR ELECTRIC STATION CERTAIN MINOR STEAM ELECTRIC AND HYDROELECTRIC PLANTS OMITTED Fig. 8.1. Duke Power Company service area.
8.3 ES -620 SOU'I, CAROLINA 0 150 MILES 22 G E ALABAMA G ULf OF J W"A r' Cj 0 C FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION POWER SUPPLY AREAS MLOAD CONCENTRATION Fig. 8.2. The area encompassed by the Southeastern Electric Reliability Council, its FPC Power Supply Areas, and areas of load concentration.
8-4 TABLE 8.1 ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND SUMMER PEAK LOAD DUKE POWER COMPANY, HISTORIC AND FORECAST, 1964-1988 Year 106 KWhra MWeb Actual 1964 20,322 3,522 1965 22,648 3,826 1966 25,692 4,440 1967 28,139 4,580 1968 31,032 5,364 1969 33,900 5,614 1970 36,641 6,284 1971 39,576 6,622 1972 42,990 7,450 1973 46,283 8,236 1974 45,240 8,058 Forecast 1975 47,734 8,633 1976 52,387 9,721 1977 56,851 10,512 1978 61,346 11,341 1979 65,942 12,209 1980 70,637 13,119 1981 75,699 14,073 1982 81,041 15,074 1983 86,719 16,124 1984 92,746 17,226 1985 98,715 18,383 1986 105,239 19,598 1987 112,096 20,875 1988 119,629 22,217 aSOURCE: ER, Table 1.1.1-1.bSOURCE: Actual, ER Table 1.1.1-1; Applicant's forecast of 12-23-74 attachment to letter from D. B. Blackmon to R. A. Gilbert dated January 31, 1975.
8-5 Table 8.2 Percentage consumption of electricity in several categories for the United States in 1960; for the United States, and the South Atlantic States in 1972, and for the applicant's service area in 1973 South USA USA Atlanticb c DPC d 1960a 19 7 2 a States ' 1973d Residential 28.7 32.4 37.0 27.8 Commercial and 67.3 63.5 59.0 71.3 Industrial Street and 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.3 highway lighting Other public 2.3 2.7 3.2 0.6 authorities Other 0.8. 0.6 0.2 0.02 a Edison Electric Institute, Statistical Yearbook of the Electric Utility Industry of 1972, calculated from data presented on p. 31.bibid-calculated from data presented on p. 33.cDelaware; Maryland; Washington, D.C.; Virginia; West Virginia; North Carolina; South Carolina;Georgia; and Florida.dDuke Power Company, Uniform Statistical Report -Year Ended December 31, 1973, p. E.14, data for 1973. Does not include 15.1% of the total DPC output which was in the category of "Sales for Resale." In forecasting energy consumption, the applicant gives explicite consideration to a number of demographic, economic and technological factors.9 Residential energy consumption forecasts incorporated federal population forecasts, other demographic trends, judgmental assumptions on the future availability of alternative sources of energy and appliance saturation.
Industrial energy consumption forecasts are based on an assumption that industrial growth in the service area will be some what lower than in the recent past. Textile energy is specifically related to GNP in the forecast.Table 8.1 shows consumption is forecast to grow from 45,240 x 106 kwhr in 1974 to 92,746 x 106 kwhr in 1984 and 119,629 x 106 kwhr in 1988. The applicant forecasts a rate of growth declining slower over the period from 8.5% between 1976 and 1977 to 6.7% between 1987 and 1988.8.2.2 Peak load demand Historical and forecast annual maximum peak load demand for the applicant's system is given in Table 8.1. Peak load grew from 3,522 MWe in 1964 to 8,236 MWe in 1973, a 9.9% compound annual rate of growth. Peak demand was 8,058 MWe in 1974 or 2.2% below the 1973 level. As in energy consumption, the rate of growth in peak load was considerably higher than that of the nation as a whole, 7.8% over the period 1964 through 1973.6,7,8 Non-coincident peak demand, nationally, in 1974 was 349,350 MWe, 1.6% over that in 1973.7 As for energy consumption, this lack of growth is attributable to the recession and the energy situation.
The applicant forecast of peak load considers base and weather responsive components (ER 1.1-4).Both summer and winter peaks are forecast.
Forecasts of sales (energy consumption) and peak load are made independently and their consistency is checked by the reasonableness of the derived load factor.9 In its system load forecast of January 10, 1975, the applicant revised its previous forecast downward to account for the anticipated impact of a load management pro-gram now being formulated.
1 0 8-6 The applicant assumes that the present economic recession will retard an upturn in peak demand until 1976. Thereafter, peak demand is forecast to grow to 17,226 MWe in 1984 and 22,217 MWe in 1988. The applicant forecasts a rate of growth declining over the period from 8.1% between 1976 and 1977 to 6.4% between 1987 and 1988. During the forecast period 1975-1990 winter peak load is growing slightly faster than summer peak load surpassing it in 1985 and being 2.0%higher by 1988.11 8.2.3 The impact of energy conservation and substitution on energy and peak load demand The sudden distruption of oil supplies, shortages in natural gas supplies and drastic price increases for all forms of energy have focused the Nation's attention on the importance of energy conservation as well as on measures to increase the availability of alternative energy sources. A number of significant efforts have been made during the past several years in forecasting the nation's energy needs and to estimate the potential for conserving energy and the potential for developing alternative sources of energy. 12,13 While the staff analysis of peak demand in section 8.5.1 adopts certain results of the Federal Energy Administration's Project Independence analysis which accounts for potential energy conservation, it is useful to summarize a number of conservation measures and considerations which have a specific bearing on energy requirements and peak load demand in the applicant's service area.8.2.3.1 Recent experience Implementation of energy conservation measures by households, businesses, and government has already contributed to the lack of growth in the national consumption of electricity since the third quarter of 1973. Consumption of electricity, in the applicant's service area, has been less than previously forecast by an average of 29% during the period October 1973 to October 1974. Monthly peak load demand was lower than forecast by an average of 26% during the same period. While the technical feasibility of numerous energy conservation measures in residences, public buildings, factories, shops and transportation has been well documented, the degree to which these measures will be implemented on a permanent basis is quite speculative at this time and needs further analysis.8.2.3.2 Promotional advertisement and conservation information services In the past, Duke Power Company has attempted, through advertising, to accelerate the demand for electricity in its service area. Generally, the major thrust of advertising was to pro-mote demand during off-peak periods, thereby covering expensive peaking capacity with ex-panded lower cost baseload capacity.
Notably, electric space heating, and water heating have been promoted to offset the higher seasonal peaking demands and to level loads.The applicant terminated promotional advertising in March 197314 and, by direct mail and mass-media advertising, disseminated information designed to promote efficient residential usage of electricity.
Accordingly, elimination of promotional advertising is no longer an important measure for the applicant to use to dampen demand. On the other hand, promotional advertising by manufacturers of electrical appliances and equipment has not been eliminated.
These manu-facturers spent an estimated
$450 million in promotional advertising in 1972.15 The staff's opinion is that there is increasing evidence that programs that promote conservation of electricity will have a significant impact on projected demand.8.2.3.3 Change in utility rate structure.
The Federal Power Commission regulates the rates for interstate wholesale electric energy, 1 6 while the North Carolina Utilities Commission and the South Carolina Public Service Commission regulate the rates that utilities charge the ultimate consumer in the applicant's service area.1 7 Historically, utility rate structures were designed to encourage consumption of electricity by using declining block rates, which reflected the declining average cost of furnishing additional kilowatt hours of electrical energy to each customer.
Under today's conditions of increasingly scarce fuel resources, declining block rates, by lowering the price of each additional kilowatt hour, leads to unnecessary use of electricity.
The most commonly mentioned alternatives to declining block rates to dampen demand for electricity are the increase of block rates, peak load pricing, and flat rates.
8-7 The applicant is continually studying the effects of alternative rate structures.
The North Carolina Public Utilities Commission has stated that, among other considerations, an appropriate rate design should conserve energy resources.
2 5 Table 8.3 presents statistics on the average cost of electricity to consumers and the average energy (kilowatt-hours) used per customer from 1964 through 1971. Statistics such as these indicate that increasing consumption of electricity may occur in spite of increasing prices.The question that statistics such as these do not answer, is at what point will the costs of residential and commercial electricity cause the consumer to significantly decrease his demand.It is likely, however, that with sufficiently high prices the growth rate of total demand could be significantly reduced. Since the demand for electricity is also sensitive to such 'other factors as the gross national product, the local economy, the substitution of electricity for more scarce fuels, population growth, and local temperature variations, there are questions of how long it would take a rate change to have a detectable effect.\8.2.3.4 Load shedding, load staggering, and interruptible load contracts to reduce peak demand Load shedding is an emergency measure employed to prevent system collapse when peak demand placed upon the system is greater than the system is capable of providing.
This measure is usually not taken until all other measures are exhausted.
The Federal Power Commission's report on the major load shedding that occurred during the northeast power failure of November 9 and 10, 1965, indicates that reliability of service of the electrical distribution systems should be given more emphasis, even at the expense of additional costs.1 8 This report identified several areas that are highly impacted by loss of power, such as elevators, traffic lights, subway lighting and prison and communication facilities.
The serious impact on areas such as these means that load shedding should only be considered a temporary method to overcome a shortage of generating capacity during an emergency.
Load staggering, especially if associated with some price incentive, may prove to have some limited potential as a conservation measure. Basically, this alternative involves shifting the work hours of industrial or commercial firms to avoid diurnal or weekly peaks and shifting now critical residential loads to off-peak hours. The applicant's load management program is considering several load staggering measures.)
0 Table 8.3. Statistics on cost and consumption of electricity (1 9 6 4-1 9 7 1)a Average cost to consumers
-cents Average kilowatt -hours per customer per kilowatt -hour (thousands)
Residential Commercial Industrial Residential Commercial Industrial 1971 2.32 2.20 1.10 7.639 42.598 1735.482 1970 2.22 2.08 1.02 6.700 40.480 1695.087 1969 2.21 2.06 0.98 6.246 37.607 1666.019 1968 2.25 2.07 097 5.706 35.009 1578.366 1967 2.31 2.11 0.98 5.220 32.234 1481.496 1966 2.34 2.13 0.98 4.931 30.238 1445.802 1965 2.39 2.18 1.00 3.618 28.093 1289.949 1964 2.45 2.26 1.02 4.377 25.450 1217.878 aFederal Power Commission.
Statistics of Privately Owned Electric Utilities in the United States, 1971, FPCS 226. U.S. Government Office. Washington.
D.C., October 1972.
8-8 For interruptible load contracts to be effective in.system planning, the load reduction must be large enough to be effective insystem stability planning.
Thus, this type of contract is primarily related to industrial customers.
Currently, the applicant does not have a rate schedule for interruptible loads. The acceptability of interruptible load contracts to in-dustrial customers depends upon balancing the potential economic loss resulting from unannounced interruptions against the saving that results from the reduced price of electricity.
If the frequency or duration of interruptions increases as a result of insufficient installed capacity, the customer will convert to a normal industrial load contract.
Even if the applicant had a large interruptible load, it is speculative to project that customers would continue this contractual relationship if faced with frequent and long periods of no electrical service.None of the above measures can be considered as viable alternatives for required additional capacity, and they can do little to solve the energy shortage.8.2.3.5 Factors affecting the efficient utilization of electrical energy During the past two years, much of industry, the Federal Government, and many State and local governments have made the promotion of energy conservation a priority program. The Department of Commerce has developed a department-wide effort to (1) encourage business firms to conserve energy during operation, (2) encourage the manufacturing and marketing of more energy-efficient products, and (3) encourage businessmen to disseminate information on energy conservation.
The National Bureau of Standards has been given a leading role in promoting the development and implementation of energy-saving standards.
The programs include voluntary labeling of house-hold appliances; research, development, and education relative to energy conservation in building; efficient use of energy in industrial processes; and improved energy in environ-mental control processes.
While many efficiencies in electricity usage have already been gained and further efficiencies will be realized, any present estimates of the magnitude of future electricity savings must be treated as tentative and subject to continual reassessment.
The need for generating capacity is based on annual peak load demand and not on the volume of consumption over the year. Any conservation measures that reduce consumption but not peak demand will have little or no impact on the need for capacity.
The applicant's most recent forecasts for total sales and annual peak-load demand indicate that total sales are expected to grow at less than peak demand. The growth in peak demand will continue to be strongly in-fluenced by installation of air conditioning and electric heating in an increasing percentage of residential, commercial and industrial buildings.
Considerable efficiency can be achieved in space conditioning by improved insulation and the use of building materials with better insulation properties as well as by using equipment that transfers or stores excess heat or cold. For example, the seven-story Federal Office Building to be built in Manchester, New Hampshire, illustrates the potential for energy con-servation in future commercial buildings that will use existing technology.1 9 For this particular building, energy savings are anticipated to be a minimum of 20 to 25% over a con-ventionally designed building in the same location.
Heat savings alone are expected to be 44%because of better insulated walls, less window area, use of efficient heating and heat storage equipment, and the use of solar collectors on the roof.In 1971, FHA established new insulation standards to reduce average residential heating losses by one third. Studies have shown that it is possible to gain even greater reductions in heat loss through improved insulation at costs that are economical over a period of years.2 0 Improved insulation helps conserve energy not only in winter but also reduces the air-conditioning burden in the summer.Lighting, which has accounted for about 24% of all electricity sold nationally, is another area'where savings are being realized.
Many experts believe recommended lighting levels in typical commercial buildings have been excessive.
2 1 Calculations reveal that adequate illumination in commercial buildings can be achieved at 50% of current levels through various design and operational changes.2 2 Another study indicates that if all households in 1970 had changed from incandescent to fluorescent lighting, the residential use of electricity for lighting would have been reduced approximately 75%, and total electrical sales would be reduced approx-imately 2.5%.23 However, since the majority of residential lighting-occurs in off-peak hours, the reduction on peak demand would be less than 1%.
8-9 The potential for greater energy efficiency in household appliances is well recognized.
The National Bureau of Standards is working with an industrial task force from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers in a voluntary labeling program that would provide consumers with energy consumption and efficiency values for each appliance and educate them about the use of this information.
Room air-conditioners are the first to be labeled. The next two categories of household appliances that will be labeled are refrigerators, refrigerator/freezers, and hot-water heaters.The importance of energy-efficiency labeling of appliances is that it will allow the consumer to select the most energy-efficient appliance.
A recent study entitled, "The Room Air Conditioner as an Energy Consumer," has estimated that an improvement in the average 1973 efficiency of 6 BTU/Whr to 10 Btu/Whr (a 67% increase) could hypothetically save electric utilities almost 58,000 MW in 1980.24 This-study was based on sales in 1972 and escalated these sales figures at the rate existing at that time to the 1980 date. It was further assumed that new and replacement air conditioners would have the higher efficiencies.
Air conditioners that are more energy efficient require a combination of increased heat exchanger size and higher efficiency compressors that will result in higher initial cost. The consumer must be convinced that it is profitable for him in the long run to purchase the more expensive machine. Today, however, there is a high degree of uncertainty in predicting to what extent consumers will actually purchase these more expensive appliances.
In addition, selection of central air conditioning by developers and many home owners has historically been based on minimizing front-end costs consistent with meeting local building codes.Considerable opportunity for electricity conservation exists in industry in addition to lighting and air-conditioning efficiency already mentioned.
Electric motors should be turned off when not in use and motors should be carefully sized according to work they are to perform. Small savings can be realized by de-energizing transformers whenever possible.
Fuel requirements for vacuum furnaces can be reduced by 75% if local direct-combustion low-quality heat is employed rather than high-quality electrical heating.2 5 The above examples of potential energy saving will certainly impact energy and peak load to some degree in the future. The precise degree, however, is speculative at this time. The applicant is aware of the desireability of promoting energy conservation and is considering the potential impact on peak demand in its system (ER 1.1.2, and Reference 10).In addition, the staff is aware that the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health has recommended heat stress standards to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration which, if adopted, would require a significant number of employers to air-condition their plants.2 6 This possible requirement would likely contribute to peak load demand.8.2.3.6 Consumer substitution of electricity for scarce fuels While conservation measures are rather quickly adopted in a crisis situation, the consumer's substitution of electrical energy for fuels, such as oil or gas, takes several years to result in a substantial upward impact on the need for power. The staff expects that substitution of electricity for scarce energy sources will likely accelerate in the applicant's service area because of the uncertainty of oil and gas supplies and because of the outlook for higher prices for them relative to the price of electricity produced from coal-fueled or nuclear-fueled plants. For instance, in the applicant's service area 25% of living units were electrically heated in 1970 and a projected 60% will be electrically heated by 1980. Other increases are forecasted in the growth of electric water heaters and ranges. The advent of electric auto-mobiles or other new uses of electricity cannot be discounted but are not now quantified in projecting need for power since the use of such items is speculative.
The staff concludes that substitution effect will, to some degree, offset savings from energy conservation techniques.
8.3 RESERVE REQUIREMENTS 8.3.1 Applicant's reserve requirements Reliability of electricity supply is one condition which all electric power systems attempt to assure in capacity planning.
As a member of the Southeastern Electric Reliability Council (SERC)the applicant supports the four objectives of the SERC Agreement: (a) encourage the development of reliability agreements among the systems within the region;(b) exchange information with respect to planning and operating matters relating to the reliability of bulk power supplies; 8-10 (c) review periodically activities within the region on reliability;(d) provide information with respect to matters considered by the Council, where appropriate, to the Federal Power Commission and to other Federal and State agencies concerned with reliability." (ER 1.1-7)Reliability is associated with an excess of generating capacity over the likely annual peak load. This excess is termed the reserve margin.Reliability, although conceptually measurable in terms of probability of a set of coincident events which would lead to a loss of system load, is in practice quite difficult to estimate with any precision.
While probabilistic computational routines such as loss of load computer codes are increasingly used for estimating reserve margins required to achieve specified levels of reliability, the applicant rejects this technique for its system at this time. Three reasons are given: (a) No operating experience exists relative to the size and types of DPC's nuclear units.(b) ,'Such calculations must consider interconnections of transmission systems which would require)an overly burdensome data input.(c) The level of reliability to be chosen is arbitrary and the resulting reserve margins are dependent on the choice of reliability. (ER 1.1-11).The applicant is cognizant of the work being conducted in the area of probabilistic techniques to compute appropriate reserve margins and, in fact, has had loss of load studies made for its system.2 7 To reduce the loss of load probability for the applicant's system to one day in ten years would require over 30% reserve.The applicant's procedure for computing required reserve margin, including allowance for nuclear unit refueling, is to add to the forecast summer peak load an allowance for extreme temperature (4.35%), loss of the largest unit on the system (1,280 MWe), miscellaneous capacity reductions (4.42%) and nuclear unit refueling (1,180 MWe) (ER 1.1-10). Thus, with a forecast peak load of 22,217 MWe in 1988, required reserves would be 4,411 MWe and the reserve margin would be 19.9%. Because the allowances for loss of largest units on system and for nuclear unit re-fueling are constant, the required percentage reserve will decline over time as forecast peak increases.
In its 1970 National Power Survey, the Federal Power Commission estimated the reserve require-ments for the Southeast Region to be 20-21% for the period 1970-1990.28 The Federal Power Commission has indicated that most systems attempt to operate with a reserve margin of 15-25%.For long range planning purposes, it is normal to increase future reserve allowances by 5 to 10% of the forecast peak load as a contingency against unforseen construction delays or estimating errors.2 9 Therefore, the staff would not consider a reserve margin of up to 30% unreasonable for long-range planning in the applicant's system. The staff, however, does view reserve margins for the applicant's system below 15% as dangerously low for purposes of long range planning.8.3.2 Regional reserves As mentioned previously, the applicant is a member of the Southeastern Reliability Council.SERC reviews existing and planned power supplies and transmission systems within its region to ensure high reliability of the region's power supply. The projected reserve margin for SERC for the peak demand of the year is in the range 15-21% for the period 1975-1984 and is in the range of 17-18% for the period 1982-1988.30 The reserve margins indicated above are for the summer peaks; reserve margins for the winter peaks are generally lower than the summer peaks for this region.Reserve margins for the VACAR Subregion of SERC for the peak demand of the year range from 9% to 29% during the period 1975-1984.
Thus, within the SERC, it appears that the VACAR Subregion will have a significantly higher reserve margin than the SERC average for the foreseeable future.Since the applicant's expected reserve margin averages about 17% for the period 1975-1983, it is apparent that the other VACAR members are projected to have higher reserve margins than the applicant's.
8-11 8.4 POWER SUPPLY The applicant's planned system capacity 1975 through 1988 is shown in Table 8.4. Total installed generating capacity available for the 1975 summer peak is 11,214 MWe and firm purchases are 169 MWe.A major unit addition to the system is planned every year from 1975 to 1988 except for 1977 and 1980. By 1988, total capacity, including firm purchases available for summer peak, will be 25,051 MWe.8.5 STAFF FORECAST AND ANALYSIS OF RESERVES The results of an independent analysis of staff demand forecasts and reserve margins are presented in this section. The analysis synthesizes the results of two recent federal studies, one con-cerned with future energy supply and demand and the other concerned with forecasting regional economic activity.8.5.1 Peak load forecast The "Project Independence Report".released by the Federal Energy Administration in November 1974, represents the most comprehensive energy analysis yet undertaken.
The report was developed during the period of March to November, 1974, thus the long run implications of economic and energy related developments during the spring and summer of 1974 are reflected in the analysis.The "Project Independence Report" provides two projections of future electricity demand -- a business-as-usual case, and an increased electrical use case that entails greater government participation in management of energy demand. The increased electrical use case is based upon redistribution of energy consumption toward those sources of energy which can be produced domestically.
Specifically, this case substitutes electricity, using coal and uranium resources, for other energy end use purposes.
Under the business-as-usual case, with oil at $11/barrel, electric demand is projected to grow 6.3 percent per year between 1973 and 1985. Under the Demand Management Case, electric demand is projected to grow 7.4 percent annually during the same period. The results of these two projections are presented in Table 8.5.TABLE 8.5 ELECTRICAL CAPACITY PROJECTIONS (in gigawatts)
Existing 1985 Projections 1,2 Items Capacity, BAU Demand end-1973 $11/BBL. Management Total Electricity Capacity 424 992 1,002 Growth Rate 1973-1985, %/yr. -- 6.3 7.4 Hydro Capacity GWe 65 100 100 Nuclear Capacity GWe 20 204 240 2;3 Coal Capacity GWe 167 327 379 Oil Capacity GWe 78 81 64" Gas Capacity GWe 61 48 48 Combustion Turbine GWes 33 162 171'Beginning of year projections (nuclear at end of year would be 234 and 275 for BAU and AD respectively).
2 Without conservation.
3 Accelerated nuclear construction schedules.
4 The demand management projection includes conversion of about 16,500 megawatts of existing oil-fired generation capacity to coal.5 These figures reflect projected increased market penetration of intermediate load combined cycle plants and continued use of gas turbine peaking plants.Source: Project Independence Report, FEA, Table 11-24.
TABLE 8.4 PLANNED POWER CAPACITY AT THE TIME OF SUMMER PEAK. DUKE POWER COMPANY 1975 THROUGH 1988 (MWe)Item 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 Generating Capability before additions or retirements
-MW 10,909 11,214 12,274 12,274 13,454 14,634 14,634 15,787 16,940 18,085 19,637 21,156 22,343 23,623 Firm Purchases
-MW 169 169 169 169 169 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 Total Production Capacity before Additions
-MW 11,078 11,383 12,443 12,443 13,623 14,782 14,782 15,935 17,088 18,233 19,785 21,304 22,491 23,771 Capacity Additions and (Retirements)
-MW Jocassee 3 and 4 305 Belews Creek 2 1,060 McGuire 1 1,180 McGuire 2 1,180 Catawba 1 1,153 Catawba 2 1,153 Perkins 1,280 1,280 1,280 Cherokee 1,280 1,280 1,280 Bad Creek 500 500 Buck and Riverbend Comb. Cycle (135)Lee 5C, 6C; Dan River 4C,5C;Buck 3, 4 (228)Dan River 6C; Riverbend 8-1IC;Urquhart 3C, 4C; Cliffside 1,2 (261)Buck 7-9C (93)Total Capacity for Summer Peak -NMW 11,383 12,443 12,443 13,623 14,803 14,782 15,935 17,088 18,233 19,785 21,304 22,491 23,771 25,051 SOURCE: Enclosure to letter from D. B. Blackmon to R. A. Gilbert dated January 31, 1975. Re: Catawba, Perkins, and Cherokee Nuclear Stations.
8-13 The FEA report points out a number of uncertainties in the projections of future electricity requirements.
3 1 These uncertainties include relative availability and prices of alternative fuels, growth in peak demand relative to total kwh consumed, the trend in generating efficiency and the success of rate restructuring to lower growth in peak demand. Additional uncertainties discussed in the report concern potential financial and technical constraints on the rate at which generating capacity can be placed in operation.
FEA uses a long run price elasticity of demand, depending on the assumptions about the price of oil, of about -0.44 for household and commercial and -1.20 to -1.36 for industrial and forecasts an average electricity price, in constant dollars, of 22.2 mills/kwh in 1985 compared to 18 mills/kwh in 1972.32 If demand proves to be more responsive to price, future growth in national consumption of electricity would be lower than the estimated 6.3 percent per year.Another significant uncertainity is the relative rate of growth between peak load and energy requirement.
From 1968 to 1972 peak load grew nationally at 8.4 percent annually compared to 7.4 percent for total output. While the staff has no conclusive estimates of the relative growth of peak load demand and energy demand over the next decade, the staff believes that, nationally, load leveling efforts will be only partially successful in reducing the peak load growth rate to equal that of total electrical energy consumption.
A 6.3 percent growth rate in total consumption could imply upwards of a 7.0 percent growth rate in peak load nationally by 1980. Load leveling measures including revised rate structures, and modification of technologies and consumption behavior will take a number of years to be fully realized.Gross National Product (GNP) has grown at an annual rate of 4.3 percent in real terms during the period 1962 to 1973. The growth rate of GNP in constant dollars in recent years has been -0.5 percent in 1970, 3.4 percent in 1971, 6.2 percent in 1972 and 5.9 percent in 1973. The growth rate for 1974 was negative.
Forecasts of the growth rate in GNP and its components under alter-native energy strategies are summarized in Table 8.6. Note that in each case, economic growth is projected to recover slowly form its present low rate but will not reach the level experienced during the 1960's. Growth is projected to be higher in a $7/bbl of oil situation, which has less dampening effect than the $11/bbl situation.
By identifying differences in projected growth of major economic variables such as population and income, it is possible to draw conclusions about the expected rate of growth in demand for electricity within a service area relative to the national rate of growth. The most widely used set of long run regional economic projections, OBERS Projections, Regional Economic Activity in the U.S., is prepared by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service for the U.S. Water Resources Council.3 3 The complex projection procedure used is based on the empirical and theoretically supported observation that economic growth over time is related to the size and productivity of the labor force. Projections of population and the labor force are published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Estimates of future output per man hour are based on detailed analyses of trends in productivity in each sector of the economy and judgmental forecasts of significant future developments which might affect productivity.
While no projections coincide exactly with the Applicant's service area, a reasonably representative forecast can be spliced together, for the service area, by totaling BEA Economic Areas 025, 026, 028, and SMSA (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area) 065.The relevant comparisons between the Applicant's service area and the nation as a whole are laid out in Tables 8.7 through 8.11. Table 8.11 summarizes the comparison.
Note that population is projected to grow 78 percent faster in the Applicant's service area than for the nation during the period 1970-1980.
From 1980 to 1985 population will grow 56 percent faster while in 1985-1990 it will grow 40 percent faster. Total personal income will grow 17 percent faster from 1970 to 1980, 14 percent faster from 1980 to 1985; and 31 percent faster from 1985 to 1990. The deterioration in the relative growth rate of per capita income indicates that the period in which wages in the region began to catch up to the national average is probably over and that wages will probably stabilize slightly below the national average. Overall, it is apparent that the applicant's service area will have a considerably higher rate of growth in population and income than the nation as a whole.
8-14 TABLE 8.6 ANNUALIZED COMPOUND RATES OF GROWTH FOR GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT, CONSUMPTION, INVESTMENT, EMPLOYMENT, AND PRODUCTIVITY
$11/bbl $11/bbl $7/bbl Base Case Accelerated Base Case Supply Gross National Product 1973-77 2.4 2.4 4.3 b 1973-80 2.8 2.8 3.87 1973-85 3.2 3.2 3.7 Personal son-sumptionb 1973-77 2.4 2.4 3.9 b 1973-80 2.9 2.9 3.6 c 1973-85 3.2 3.2 3.4 Gross Private Do-mestic Investmenta 1973-77 2.5 2.5 7.5b 1973-80 2.5 2.6 5.5d 1973-85 3.1 3.1 4.9 Employment 1973-77 1.8 1.8 1.9 1973-80 1.7 1.7 1.8d 1973-85 1.5 1.5 1.5 Productivity 1973-77 0.5 0.6 2.4 1973-80 1.1 1.2 2.1c 1973-85 1.7 1.7 2.2d a 1 9 7 1 dollars serves as base.bBased upon 1974-78 period.CBased upon 1974-80 period.dBased upon 1974-85 period.SOURCE: Project Independence Report, FEA, Table VI-2, P. 320.
8-15 TABLE 8.7 UNITED STATES POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, PERSONAL INCOME& EARNINGS, ACTUAL & PROJECTED, SELECTED YEARS 1962-1990 Item 1962 1970 1980 1985 1990 Population, midyear (million) 185.7 203.9 223.5 234.5 246.0 Per Capita Income (1967 $) 2,585 3,476 4,700 5,400 6,100 Total Employment (million) 66.4 79.3 96.1 101.1 106.4 Earnings Per Worker (1967 $) n.a. 7,090 8,700 9,800 11,000 Total Personal Income ($ billion) 480 709 1,068 1,273 1,517*Employment for 1960.SOURCE: 1972-E OBERS Projections, Vol. 1, Table 1, p. 38.TABLE 8.8 AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATES OF CHANGE, UNITED STATES POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, PERSONAL INCOME & EARNINGS, ACTUAL & PROJECTED, SELECTED PERIODS 1962-1990 Item 1962-1970*
1970-1980 1980-1985 1985-1990 Population 1.2 0.9 9.0 1.0 Per Capita Income 3.7 3.1 2.8 2.5 Total Employment 1.8 1.9 1.0 1.0 Earnings Per Worker n.a 2.1 2.4 2.3 Total Personal Income 5.0 4.2 3.6 3.6*Employment for the period 1960-1970.
Source: Estimated from Table 8.7.
8-16 TABLE 8.9 POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, & PERSONAL INCOME, TOTAL OF BEA ECONOMIC AREAS 025, 026 & 028 & SMSA 065, HISTORICAL
& PROJECTED, SELECTED YEARS 1962-1990 Item 1962* 1970 1980 1985 1990 Population, midyear 3,307 3,647 4,288 4,586 4,906 (thousands)
Per Capita Income (1967 $) 2,037 3,024 4,158 4,744 5,413 Per Capita Income Relative (U.S. = 1.00) .79 .87 .88 .88 .89 Total Employment 1,261 1,576 2,015 2,145 2,284 (thousands)
Employment/Population Ratio .38 .43 .47 .47 .47 Total Personal Income (million 1967 $) 6,738 11,029 17,831 21,758 26,553*Employment for 1960.TABLE 8.10 AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATE OF CHANGE, POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, & PERSONAL INCOME, HISTORIC & PROJECTED, BEA ECONOMIC AREAS 025, 026, & 028, & SMSA 065, SELECTED PERIODS 1962-1990 Item 1962-1970*
1970-1980 1980-1985 1985--1990 Population 1.2 1.6 4 Per Capita Income 5.1 3.2 2.7 2.7 Total Employment 2.2 2.5 1.3 1.3 Total Personal Income 6.4 4.9 4.1 4.1* Employment 1960-1970.
8-17 TABLE 8.11 BEA ECONOMIC AREAS 025, 026, & 028 & SMSA 065 AS A RATIO OF UNITED STATES AVERAGE ANNUAL RATE OF CHANGE OF POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT
& INCOME, HISTORIC& PROJECTED, SELECTED PERIODS 1962-1990 Item 1962-1970*
1970-1980 1980-1985 1985-1990 Population 1.00 1.78 1.56 1.40 Per Capita Income 1.38 1.03 0.96. 1.08 Total Employment 1.22 1.32 1.30 1.30 Total Personal Income 1.28 1.17 1.14 1.31* Employment 1960-1970.
An estimate of the likely growth rate of peak load in the applicant's service area was derived relative to forecast national rates of growth in electric demand population and economic activity.
If the future growth rate in peak load falls.between the forecasted business as usual and the demand management cases, say a 7.0% growth rate, then growth of peak load nationally will average only about 10%. or 11% below the rate experienced from 1964 through 1973. During the 1964 through 1973 period the growth rate of peak.load in the applicant's service area was 27% greater than the national rate. If the applicant's rate of growth in peak load were to be lowered by 11%, it would be reduced from 9.9% to 8.8%. The relative demographic and economic information summarized in Table 8.11 supports a continuation of the substantially higher rate of growth of peak load in the applicant's service area than that nationally.
Population will grow considerably faster in the applicant's service area. Assuming the fertility rate to be essenti-ally the same as the national average and considerable in-miqrati-on, there wi~ll be an-accompany-ing net increase in new households.
While per capita income will not increase relatively as fast as in the 1960's, it will at least keep pace with the national rate of growth. Applicance satu-ration data from the applicant's service area would indicate that there is still considerable opportunity to increase usage of electricity by existing household customers through sub-stitution of electric heating for gas and oil and increased use of air conditioning.
Even if it were assumed that considerable efficiencies could be realized in peak usage through load leveling measures and considerably higher electricity prices, a 7.0% growth rate is a 20.0%reduction from 8.8% growth rate. The conclusion drawn by the staff is that over the period through the late 1980's the applicant will experience an average compound rate of growth in peak load of well over 7.0% and perhaps as high as 8.8%. The staff considers the average 7.5% compound rate of growth in the applicant's peak load forecast, from 1975 through 1988, to be reasonable.
8.5.2 Analysis of the adequacy of reserve margins The following analysis of the applicant's potential reserve situation in the late 1980's, summarized in Table 8.12, clearly illustrates that actual peak load would have to be con-siderably below staff and applicant forecasts before the three Cherokee units would not be needed in 1988. Under the staff's conservative lower forecast based on a 7.0% compound annual growth rate, the three Cherokee units would be needed as scheduled.
Any delay beyond 1988 would result in inadequate reserves.
The reserve margins associated with the applicant's forecast is considered, by the staff, to be inaequate.
A growth rate in peak load as high as 8.8% would completely jeopardize the reliability of the applicant's system. At the other extreme using a 6.0% growth rate, which the staff considers quite unlikely, it would be possible to slip the Cherokee schedule by two years and still maintain adequate reserve.Extrapolation of the applicant's estimates of reduction in summer peak load indicate that in 1988 peak load could be reduced by 5.0%. For the 7.0% growth rate forecast peak load would be 19,764 MWe in 1988 and the reserve margin would be 26.8%, well within acceptable limits.8.6
 
==SUMMARY==
AND CONCLUSIONS The staff has considered the historic electric power demand and electrical energy requirements of the Duke Power Company, Power Supply Area 21, the Southeastern Region and the United States as a whole. Various electrlical and economic forecasts have been evaluated.
These include: energy 8-18 and power forecasts of the applicant, electrical demand forecasts of the Federal Energy Administration and OBER's regional economic projections.
Specific consideration was given to the potential for conservation of electricity on one hand and substitution of electricity for scarce and high priced gas and oil on the other. The applicant's future reserve requirements and generating capacity placement plans were also examined.The staff finds that peak load in the Duke service area will grow at compound annual rates well above 7.0% and perhaps slightly above 8.0% over the period to 1988. The staff also finds the applicant's load forecasts reasonable and on the lower side of the range of growth rates deemed likely. With the applicant's present construction schedule, the three Cherokee units will be needed by 1988 at rates of growth of peak load of 7.0% and higher. Even at an unreasonably low assumed rate of 6.0%, the units would be required by 1989 or 1990 at the latest.TABLE 8.12 RESERVE MARGIN ANALYSIS FOR APPLICANT AND STAFF PEAK LOAD FORECASTS 1983 THROUGH 1990 Item 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Forecast of Sumner Peak Load Applicant's
-MWea 16,124 17,226 18,383 19,598 20,875 22,217 23,630 25,111 Staff's at 8.8% growth -MWe 16,951 18,442 20,065 21,831 23,752 25,843 28,117 30,591 at 7.0% growth -MWe 14,833 15,871 16,982 18,171 19,443 20,804 22,260 23,818 Extreme lower limit assumption at 6.0% growth -MWe 13,760 14,585 15,460 16,388 17,371 18,413 19,518 20,689 Total Capacity for Summer Peak -MWb 18,233 19,785 21,304 22,491 23,771 25,051 25,051 25,051 Reserve Margin Applicants forecast-%
13.1 14.9 15.9 14.8 13.9 12.8 6.0 c Staff's at 8.8% growth-% 7.6 7.3 5.2 3.0 0.1 c c c at 7.0% growth-% 22.9 24.7 25.5 23.8 22.3 20.4 12.5 5.2 Extreme lower limit assumption at 6.0% growth-% 32.5 35.7 37.8 37.2 36.8 36.1 28.3 21.1 a Applicant's forecast of 12/23/74.b Applicant's capacity schedule as of added in 1989 and 1990.c Negative reserve margins.1/10/75. It is assumed that no additional capacity is 8-19 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8 1. Duke Power Company, Uniform Statistical Report -Year Ended December 31, 1973, p. 1.2. Moody's Public Utility Manual, Moody's Investor's Service, Inc., 1973, p.8 3 6.3. Duke Power Company, Uniform Statistical Report -Year Ended December 31, 1973, p. E-14.4. Federal Power Commission, "The 1970 National Power Survey, Part II Electric Power in the Southeast, 1970-1980-1990." 5. Ibid., p. 11-3-I.6. Edison Electric Institute, Statistical Year Book of the Electric Utility Industry for 1972, Table 6S, p. 13.7. 56th Semi-Annual Electrical Power Survey, A report of the Electric Power Survey Committee of the Edison Electric Institute, October 1974.3. Electrical World, February 1, 1975 p. 30.9. "Applicant's Response to AEC Regulatory Staff's Questions on Need for Power," pp 4,5, attachment to letter from W. H. Owen to William H. Regan, Jr., dated November 15, 1974, Re: Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-413, -414.10. Letter from D. B. Blackmon to R. A. Gilbert, dated January 31, 1975, Docket Nos. 50-413,-414.11. Reference 9, p. 3.12. Federal Energy Administration "Project Independence Report", November 1974, also the accompanying 21 technical reports and the transcripts of 10 public hearings, U. S. Govern-ment Printing Office, Washington, D. C..13. Ford Foundation Energy Policy Project,'A Time to Choose:America's Energy Future," 1974, Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
: 14. Supplied by applicant.
: 15. National Advertising Investment Service Book Z972, Leading National Advertisers, Norwalk, Conn. (all except Newspapers).
Newspapers, Advertising Age,,September 10, 1970, Crain Communications, Inc.16. Federal Power Act. Sect. 201, March 1, 1971.17. Supplied by applicant.
: 18. Federal Power Commission, "Northeast Power Failure", U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., December 1965.19. "This Building Saves Energy", Business Week, November 10, 1973 pp. 205-206.20. J. Moyers, "The Value of Thermal Insulation in Residential Construction:
Economics and Conservation of Energy", ORNL-NSF-EP-9, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, December 1971.21. R. Stein, "A Matter of Design", Environment, p. 17-29, October 1972.22. Ibid.23. J. Tansil, Residential Consumption of Electricity 1950-1970, ORNL-NSF-EP-51, July 1973.24. J. C. Moyers, "The Room Air Conditioner as an Energy Consumer," ORNL-NSF-EP-59, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, October 1973.25. Federal Power Commission, Office of the Chief Engineer, "Staff Report, A Technical Basis for Energy Conservation," April 1974.
8-20 26. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Occupational Exposure to Hot Environ-ments, HSM 72-10269, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1972.27. Applicant's Answers to Regulatory Staff Questions, dated Janaury 27, 1975.28. Federal Power Commission, "The 1970 National Power Survey, Part I", December 1971, Table 18.12, p. 1-18-23.29. Federal Power Commission, "The 1970 National Power Survey, Part I", December 1971, p. 1-1-58.30. Southeastern Electric Reliability Council, "Coordinated Bulk Power Supply Program -1974-1992", April 1, 1975, pp. 5-6 31. Ref. 12, 127.32. Ref. 12, Appendix A II, p 60.33. "1972 OBERS Projections, Regional Economic Activity in the U. S., Series E Population, by Economic Area, Water Resources Region and Subarea, State, and SMSA and Non-SMSA Portions of the Areas, Historical and Projected, 1929-2020", (in 7 volumes) U. S. Water Resources Council, Washington, D. C., April 1974.
: 9. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 9.1 ALTERNATIVE BASE-LOAD ENERGY SOURCES AND SITES 9.1.1 Alternatives not requiring creation of new generating capacity 9.1.1.1 Purchased power The applicant has indicated (ER, Sect. 9.1.1) that purchase of base-load power is not a viable alternative in amounts in excess of those already scheduled (148 MWe, 1984-1988).
Purchased energy is generally only a viable alternative when excess capacity exists in another region or system during the time period when needed by the applicant.
Constructing new capacity in a dif-ferent region or system, especially to supply the needs of the applicant, would merely shift the energy-producing burdens to another region without any significant overall advantages.
Moreover, wheeling large blocks of power from one system to another inescapably results in transmission losses. Also, if large blocks of power were wheeled on a routine basis, the existing transmission interconnections would not be sufficient to wheel this power and to also maintain existing relia-bility of service criteria.
Thus, new transmission lines would undoubtedly be required from the power source to the applicant's system.In its report to the Federal Power Commission for the 1970 National Power Survey, the Southeast Regional Advisory Committee discussed seasonal diversities within the southeast as capacity sources. The.Committee concluded that opportunities for seasonal exchange not already implemented were relatively small and uncertain so that little, if any, transmission for seasonal exchange purposes could be justified..
1 The staff concludes that purchasing base-load power for the expected lifetime of CNS is not a practicable alternative.
9.1.1.2 Postponed retirement or reclassification of existing units The applicant has indicated an intent to retire some existing generating capacity (approximately 717 MWe) between 1975 and 1987 (Table 8.4). By 1987, all of the existing nonsupercritical base-load coal-fired stations (the supercritical coal-fired units are Belews Creek 1 and 2 and Marshall 3 and 4) will probably largely be used for intermediate-type operation.
Because of the difference between the planned retirement capacity and the capacity of the proposed station, postponed retirement cannot be considered a viable alternative to the proposed action.9.1.1.3 Base-load operation of intermediate or peaking facilities Extended operation of units designed for intermediate or peaking operation would result in ex-tensive maintenance problems and reduced availability of the peaking capacity and reduced system reliability when needed, since these units are not designed for nearly continuous, base-load operation.
This case is particularly true for the peaking units and, to a lesser extent, for intermediate-type units. Moreover, fuel costs for these units are higher than those designed for base-load duty; also, fuel for some of these units (oil- and gas-fired) is expected to be in relatively short supply and may not be available for their continuous operation.
Since a sub-stantial portion of the applicant's peaking capacity is hydroelectric or pumped-storage hydro-electric capacity, the extent to which these facilities can be operated is dependent upon the water supply. The applicant has indicated that both types of hydroelectric facilities are limited to use only for peaking purposes (ER, Sect. 9.1.3). The applicant has also indicated that its system needs a major block of generation to operate in the load-following portion of the curve and that to upgrade these (fossil-fueled) units to base-load operation would deprive the system of an important part of the generation mix needed for efficient operation.
Another aspect to be considered is that without the addition of new generating capacity, the peak demand of the applicant's system will eventually outgrow the system's total generating capacity and will result in the absence of any reserve capacity.
Thus, the staff concludes that base-load opera-tion of existing intermediate or peaking facilities is not a feasible alternative for the long term.9-1 9-2 9.1.1.4 Reactivating or upgrading older plants Because the applicant plans to retire only small existing units between 1975 and 1987 (Table 8.4)and because those scheduled to be retired in 1974 and 1975 are also relatively small (totaling only 151.7 MWe) and are used only for peaking purposes (ER, Sect. 1.1.2, Table 1.1.2-2), reacti-vating older plants apparently is not a viable alternative to building new base-load capacity in the amount to be supplied by CNS.Upgrading existing facilities by a significant extent is generally not economically feasible because most boiler and turbine-generator facilities are closely matched. Thus, upgrading would require replacement of boilers, turbines, and condensers, with a resulting probable cost approaching that of new capacity.
An associated additional disadvantage is that all output from these units would be lost during the rebuilding period. Furthermore, installation of higher capacity at a particular location would require additional capability to dissipate waste heat and probably additional transmission lines. The applicant has indicated that upgrading existing plants is not feasible (ER, Sect. 9.1.2). The staff does not consider upgrading to be a viable alternative to replace the power expected to be supplied by CNS.9.1.1.5 Conclusions The staff concludes that, although postponing reclassification of some base-load units to inter-mediate-type operation (load-following) might allow the construction of CNS to be delayed for a period of time, it would not eliminate the need for base-load capacity in the future. Thus the staff concludes that there are no feasible alternatives to meet the projected energy requirements without the creation of new generating capacity.9.1.2 Alternatives requiring the creation of new generating capacity 9.1.2.1 Energy type and source considerations Coal Coal supplied the energy for 84.1% of the power generated by the applicant in 1973.2 Low-sulfur coal, or an S0 2-removal system, is expected to be required in new stations that will begin operation during the time CNS is scheduled to begin generating power. Southeastern coal is generally high-sulfur coal although the applicant has indicated that the coal currently used is less than 1% sulfur (ER, Sect. 9.3.2). Another source of low-sulfur coal would be from west-ern mines such as those in Montana; consequently, transportation costs would be high. The applicant has not indicated whether or not low-sulfur eastern coal would be available for the proposed units. Therefore, the staff has considered that any coal-fired plant in the applicant's system might use high-sulfur southeastern coal along with S0 2-removal systems.The staff has estimated capital costs of a 3840-MWe coal-fired station located at the Cherokee site, utilizing mechanical-draft cooling towers with and without S0 2-removal systems. These costs are presented in Table 9.1, which compares them with the applicant's estimates for a coal-fired station and with the staff's and applicant's estimates for a uranium-fueled station.Operating and maintenance cost estimates are also given, and annual production costs are compared at plant factors of 0.8, 0.7, and 0.6.Oil Oil was used to generate about 2.5% of the applicant's power in 1973;2 its use was mainly for intermediate-type and peaking units. Its relatively small usage compared to coal (see above, Coal) is indicative of the relative costs of these two sources of energy in the applicant's service area in 1973. Thus the applicant does not consider oil to be a feasible alternate fuel source (ER, Response to Question 9.1.7). The staff concurs in this evaluation.
In addition to the economic aspects that preclude the further consideration of oil as a fuel for a large base-load power station, other factors also discourage its use. An important factor is the future availability of oil in the United States as a fuel for base-load power stations.
As events since late 1973 have shown, oil supplies from foreign countries (which make up a signifi-cant pa'rt of our total annual consumption) are subject to availability and costs as dictated to a large extent by political considerations.
The cost factor is important not only as related to predicting the economics of station operation but also with regard to the United States' balance-of-payments problems.
The latter problems couldt lead to restrictions on the large-scale use of oil for power stations in order to conserve it for other purposes for which there is no readily available substitute (such as fuel for internal combustion engines and raw materials for synthetic 9-3 TABLE 9.1. Estimated Capital and Operating Costs for 3840-MWe nuclear (PWR) and coal-fueled power stations utilizing mechanical-draft cooling towers All figures are 1988 dollars Coal Nuclear With SO -removal Without SO removal equipment equipmeni Capital, dollars/kWe a 678b 550 452 Applicant's estimateC 598 374 Unit production costs, dollars/MWhr d Fuel 8.9 25.6 29.3 Operating/Maintenance 2.4 e 3.9 g 2.1 g Total 11.3 29.5 31.4 Annual Production costs, millions .of dollars (Plant factor) (0.8)'(0.7)
(0.6) (0.8) (0.7) (0.6) (0.8) (0.7) (0.6)Fuel h 239 209 180 689 603 517 788 690 591 Operating/maintenance 64 56 48 105 92 79 57 50 43 303 265 228 794 695 596 845 740 634 Present Xvorth production cost, dollars/kWel 744 651 560 1950 1707 1464 2075 1817 1557 Total present worth 1422 1329 1238 2500 2257 2014 2527 2269 2009 generating cost, capital plus production, dollars/kWe Kilowatt-hours 9 generated/yr (10 ) 26.9 23.6 20.2 26.9 23.6 20.2 26.9 23.6 20.2 Annualized generating cost, mills/kWhr 1  21.5 23.0 25.0 37.8 39.0 40.6 38.2 39.2 40.5 aSee Summary and Conclusions of this section for a description of the methods of estimating capital costs.bAverage value for three 1280-MWe units. Commercial operation of Units 1, 2, and 3 is scheduled for January 1984, 1986, and 1988 respectively.
Length of workweek was considered to be 40 hr.Interest during construction was assumed to be 8%/year (compound).
Escalation rates during construction used for the calculations were 8.5%/year for site labor, 7.5%/year for site materials, and 7.5%/year for purchased equipment.
CER, Table 9.3.1-1, plant cost. Excludes substation and transmission line costs.dThe Nuclear Industry, 1974, USAEC Report WASH 1174-74, Chapter 1. The estimated 1974 dollar cost of $3.02/MWhr was esclated to 1988 at 8%/year. The applicant has reported in Electrical World, July 15, 1975 an even lower cost of $2.23/MWhr.
eAn operating and maintenance cost of $O.81/MWhr for 1974 derived from Chapter I of WASH 1174-74 was escalated to 1988 at 8%/year.fCoal costs are based on March, 1975 data on the costs and quality of fossil fuels delivered to electric utility generating plants in the continental United States (Federal Power Commission News, Vol. 8, No. 25, June 20, 1975). The low sulfur coal contains 0.5% or less sulfur. The costs shown are for coal delivered in North Carolina and were 122.5*/MBtu for low sulfur and 107.1*/MBtu for high sulfur (2-3% sulfur). A heat rate of 8800 Btu/kWhr was assumed (Uniform Statistical Report-Year ending December 31, 1973, Duke Power Company, p. E-19, average value for base-load, supercritical Marshall Units 3 and 4). All costs were escalated at 8%/yr.9 0perating and maintenance costs for Duke Power Company for 1971 of $0.566/M'#hr (Steam-Electric Plant Construction Cost and Annual Production Expenses, Twenty-Fourth Annual Supplement-1971, Federal Power Commission, February 1973, Table 10, XXIX) were escalated to 1988 at 8%/year.1974 operating and maintenance costs for a working S0 2 removal system were O.6/MWhr ("Stack Gas Scrubber Makes the Grade," Chem. Eng. News 53, p. 22 (Jan. 27, 1975)) and were escalated to 1988 at 8% per year.hCalculated for a plant factor of 0.76 and ratioed to plant factors used.iAssuming a 10% discount rate for a 30-year period.
9-4 organic chemicals).
Therefore, even disregarding the economics of station operation, the unrelia-bility of foreign supplies of oil makes it desirable for a utility not to increase its dependence on oil as a fuel source. The staff concludes that it is not reasonable at this time for the applicant to plan a base-load electrical generating station that would consume large quantities of oil.Natural gas Only about 2.5% of the applicant's 1973 power was generated by the use of natural gas, 2 and this power was used mainly for intermediate-type and peaking units. For the future, domestic supplies of natural gas are not expected to be available in the quantities required for long-term (30-40 years) operation of a natural-gas-fueled power station to replace the applicant's proposed uranium-fueled station.3 Although consumption of gas by electric utilities for generation of electrical power increased by about 203% during the period 1962-1971,4 the 1970-1971 consumption increased only 1.6%, and during 1971-1972 consumption decreased slightly (Fig. 9.1).5 In the South Atlantic states, con-sumption decreased by 1.7% during 1970-1971.4 A major reason for the nationwide reduced gas ES- 1634 5 4 0 z 0 I-0E 3 (I)z 0 C-)U)-J<: z 2>191/ X X-,-- ,-- X//x//-x/X x-x x_62 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 YEAR 4974 Fig. 9.1. Consumption of natural gas in the United States by electric utilities for electrical energy generation.
Source: Edison Electric Institute, Statistical Year Book of the Electric Utility Industry for 1973, Table 41S.
9-5 consumption by electric utilities is the difficulty in obtaining new supplies.6 The trend is to channel the Nation's limited supplies of natural gas away from use as a boiler fuel into house-hold and other premium uses.Therefore, the staff does not consider that natural gas is a viable alternative fuel for the applicant's proposed base-load station.Hydroelectric Because of the'characteristics of streamflows in the applicant's service area, hydroelectric power generation is limited in usefulness to peaking service (ER, Response to Question 9.1.3).In 1973, hydroelectric facilities (including pumped storage) generated about 5.4% of the appli-cant's total power generation.
2 The applicant has indicated that there are only a few hydro-electric sites remaining that are suitable for development for peaking service and none for base-load service (ER, Sect. 9.2.1, p. 9.2-4). The applicant has stated that the Federal Power Com-mission lists 30 locations in its service area where hydroelectric power could be developed; the estimated total annual energy potential of all 30 sites is only about one-twelfth the annual energy generation planned for CNS (ER, Response to Question 9.1.3, citing ref. 7). The staff concludes that it is not practicable to utilize hydroelectric power in the applicant's service area to supply base-load power in the amount expected to be generated by CNS.Geothermal Geothermal electric power generation, at favorable geologic sites, has been found to be feasible and competitive with other commercial sources of energy. However, world capacity was only about 1000 MW in 1973.8 It has made significant contributions to the power supply of northern California.
The first geothermal plant (12.5 MW) in the field, The Geysers field, was commissioned in 1960.Subsequent additions (in units as large as 55 MW) have led to the current capacity at this field of about 302 MW at an average total generating cost of less than 6 mills per kilowatt-hour; ultimate capacity of this field is estimated at between 500 and 1000 MW.9 Development of geothermal energy as a source of steam for the production of electric power in the United States has occurred only in this one field in northern California.
Other possible loca-tions are under investigation, but these are primarily in the western part of the United States Although a thermal spring does appear to exist near the applicant's service area in North Carolina,'
0 the applicant has indicated that the kinds of geological formations that produce steam suitable for use in geothermal plants appear to be nonexistent in the Carolinas (ER, Response to Question 9.1.4).Geothermal energy development is not without significant environmental problems.
Chief among these are thermal effects, land despoilment, contamination of ground and surface waters, noxious gases, noise, land subsidence, and requirement of a supply of cooling water for closed-system generating modes."' The possibility of seismic effects also exists. A geothermal station also requires more land than nuclear or fossil-fueled plants and has a greater water consumption and waste thermal discharge per unit of electricity than these other plants because of lower turbine conversion efficiencies at the lower geothermal steam pressures and temperatures.
The staff concludes that the applicant cannot reasonably consider geothermal power as an alternate energy source for the applicant's proposed base-load uranium-fueled power station within the time frame required for the power to be available.
Solar power Although solar generation of electricity may be a future supplier of electrical energy in the United States, a pilot plant has not yet been put into operation.
To succeed as a base-load plant, low-cost methods of power storage (to supply power when the sun is obscured by clouds or at night) would have to be developed and coupled with the solar energy conversion units. Even if a considerable number of technological problems are solved, commercial operation of a solar power station would not be expected until about 1990.12 If solar energy is utilized for a peaking power station (in localities where the peak occurs during hot, sunny days when air conditioning is a major load), even this energy source is not likely to be competitive before 1990.13 Thus the staff does not consider solar power as a viable alternative to the applicant's proposed base-load uranium-fueled power station.
9-6 Wind power Power from the wind has been obtained on a 1-MW scale in Vermont, and currently there are plans to construct a 0.1-MW windmill in Ohio.1 4 Because wind power is intermittent, it is unsuitable as a source of base-load power unless coupled with low-cost storage facilities that have not yet been developed.
Additionally, the use of large systems of windmills on land might change air current patterns that would, in turn, affect local temperatures and humidities.1s Proposed pairs of 800-ft-tall towers with wind-powered turbines slung from cables in between 1 4 also have obvious aesthetic problems.1 6 However, tower heights of 100-150 ft are currently considered optimum in terms of tradeoffs between construction costs and the increased strength and constancy of the wind with increasing altitude.1 4 As a consequence of the above-mentioned con-siderations, the staff does not consider that power from the wind is a viable alternative to the applicant's proposed base-load station at this time.Fusion power The present status of nuclear fusion as a source of energy is such that a demonstration plant is not expected to be built before about 1990, and a commercial power station is not expected to be available before the year 2000.17 Therefore, the staff does not consider fusion power to be a viable alternative to the applicant's proposed nuclear power station at this time.Municipal solid wastes A utility in New Jersey 1 8 considered the 35,000 tons/day of solid wastes (domestic, commercial, and industrial) produced in New Jersey as an alternative fuel source for electric power genera-tion. Using an average heat content of 5000 Btu/Ib and the assumption that 50% of the wastes produced are combustible, this utility calculated that the power that could be generated would be 700 MWe. Even if sufficient solid waste from other sources were available, it is very doubtful that the administrative, legal, and technical problems could be resolved to create a facility to replace the applicant's proposed base-load station in the time frame required.
The staff does not consider that the burning of municipal solid waste is a viable alternative.
Coal gasification Pilot plants for coal gasification have been constructed.
This process appears to be a promising alternative for fueling large central power stations, but it is not developed to the extent that it can be considered as an alternative to the applicant's proposal.
A commercial process might be available by the late 1980s.Coal liquefaction Development of coal liquefaction processes has not progressed to the same extent as for coal gasification processes.
Although one or more processes should be commercially available by the late 1980s, their development will not be in time to be considered as an alternative to the applicant's proposed station.Magnetohydrodynamics Construction of a large-scale magnetohydrodynamic electrical generating station depends upon the solution to a number of technological problems.
Therefore, such a station is not expected to be available until even later than coal gasification or liquefaction technology and, consequently, will not be available in the time frame required by the applicant.
Other There are a number of other alternative energy sources, such as conversion of foreign natural gas to methanol and its transportation to the United States as a liquid; extraction of fuel oil from oil shale or from tar sands; or the use of fuel cells. However, these sources cannot be considered as viable alternatives to meet the applicant's requirements for power in the time frame that this power is needed, because they are either not technically feasible at this time or are not available in the quantities needed.
9-7 Summary and conclusions Of the various types of energy sources that were considered, the staff found that only coal was a viable alternative to nuclear as fuel for a large base-load power station. The staff's cost comparison of these two types of power stations is given in Table 9.1. The following is a brief discussion of the staff's method of comparison.
A computer program has been used by the staff to estimate capital costs for the nuclear and coal stations.
This computer program, CONCEPT (see Appendix D), was designed primarily for use in exam-ining average trends in costs, identifying important elements in the cost structure, determining sensitivity to technical and economic factors, and providing reasonable long-range projections of costs. The main factor in this computerized approach is the technique of separating the plant cost into individual components, applying appropriate scaling functions (to account for the difference in size from a reference design) and location-dependent cost adjustments (to account for costs of materials and labor at particular regions of the country), and escalating these costs to different construction and startup dates. These capital cost estimates are given in Table 9.1 for both the coal-fired and uranium-fueled plants. The coal-fired plant was evaluated with and without S0 2-control equipment.
From an economic standpoint, the values presented in Table 9.1 indicate that a nuclear power station is the clear choice of the two viable types considered whether or not S0 2-removal equipment is needed for the fossil plant.From an environmental viewpoint, the major effects of the alternative generating system results from the condenser cooling water requirements and the radioactive and nonradioactive particulate and gaseous effluents.
The coal-fired station would have essentially the same type of condenser cooling water system as the nuclear station; but because of its higher efficiency and the trans-fer of some heat to the atmosphere through stack gases, the intake water requirement, the quantity of water evaporated by the cooling tower, and the quantity of water returned to the Broad River as blowdown would be less (by about 30%) than for a nuclear station. The particulate and gaseous emissions from a coal-fueled station would be significantly higher than those from a nuclear station, but they would meet the applicable standards and thus should be acceptable.
Although the radioactive effluents from a nuclear station are potentially higher than those from a coal-fired station, the controls imposed on the nuclear station would result in such effluents being equivalent to only a fraction of the natural background radioactivity.
The creation and shipment of radioactive wastes from the nuclear station are adverse environmental effects, as are the transportation and onsite storage of coal for the coal-fueled station. In addition, the use of coal as a fuel would require the storage or disposal of large volumes of ash.From an aesthetic standpoint, the presence of smokestacks and their plumes at a coal-fired station is an additional feature not present with a pressurized-water nuclear reactor station. However, this feature will generally be overshadowed by the presence of the plumes from the mechanical-draft cooling towers.The staff concludes that the significantly lower generating costs of a nuclear station, compared with the coal-fueled station, are not offset by any particular environmental advantage of the latter station; therefore, the selection of a nuclear station is warranted.
9.1.2.2 Candidate regions' study for plant siting The applicant's service area encompasses about 20,000 sq ibiles in the Piedmont sections of North and South Carolina.
Thus, it has a large area from which to select a suitable site, and the applicant has indicated that it has found no justifiable reason or advantage for considering sites outside its service area; neither the economic nor the environmental impact of the proposed project would thereby be improved (ER, Sect. 9.2.1).From power network reliability and transmission considerations, it is generally considered desir-able to locate power stations reasonably close to those areas utilizing their output. Thus, an initial major criterion with respect to power plant site selection is consideration of the existing and predicted loads (and load-generation mix) in relation to existing capacity, the capacity under construction, and the environmental and capital costs of transmission lines. A second major criterion is the availability of condenser cooling water that is required in rela-tively large amounts for base-load power stations.
As a consequence of the latter consideration, the applicant has divided his entire service area into four load-generation regions that generally correspond to the four major river basins (Savannah, Broad, Catawba, and Yadkin) in the applicant's service area (Fig. 9.2) (ER, Sect. 9.2.1). Table 9.2 lists the four regions and the base-load capacity in each by 1983.The four areas, which generally run from the northwest to the southeast, bear no relationship to the load development in the applicant's service area, since load development has generally followed the main line of the regional railroad system that runs generally from the northeast to ES-621 WINSTON -SALEM -DURHAM& WINSTON- SALEM[V- 2 YADKIN-NUCLEAR IV-3 YADKIN-COAL HICKORY- 'CHARLOTTE NORLAK If-MANCHERC
$SPARTANBURG SHELBY% SHELBY f CHARLOTTE
..\ --LA K E 11-3 CHEROKEE-COAL WYLR -_ -2 CHEROKEE GREENVILLE I
* NUCLEAR '~ SPARTANBURGT 11-1 S.C. COOLING NORTH CAROLINA IPOND -NUCLEAR (i_ q -OTFAROibLINA 7LAKE ,JOCASSA/L A KE'f AI-NDERSlON V I LA r_ -ANDERSON&#xfd;kA N 0E R SO0N SAVANNAH RIVER 0 io 20 30 40 50 I l I I MILES Fig. 9.2. Load-generation regions in Duke Power Company's service area. Source: ER, Fig. 9.2.2-1.I I 9-9 the southwest.
The transmission network within the applicant's system has been developed as an integrated network to permit installation of new generating capacity to economically serve the entire service' area. However, in the long run, both economic and reliability considerations dictate a reasonable balance of load and generation within each of the areas, even though an imbalance may exist for short periods of time (ER, Response to Questions 9.1.6 and 9.2.1).Table 9.2. Duke Power Company's four major load-generation regions, their major rivers, and their approximate 1983 base-load power capability Approximate base-load Region Major river power capability in 1983 (MWe)Greenville-Anderson Savannah 2950 Spartanburg-Shelby Broad 770 Hickory-Charlotte Catawba 2440 Winston-Salem-Durham Yadkin 3000 The siting procedure for locating CNS was carried out simultaneously with the siting of the Perkins Nuclear Station, since construction of both stations is planned on approximately the same time schedule.
Each station will consist of three 1280-MWe nuclear units, with the Perkins units scheduled for commercial operation in 1983, 1985, and 1987 and the Cherokee units scheduled for commercial operation in 1984, 1986, and 1988. The applicant has indicated that potential sites for these two stations exist in all four regions of its service area. However, the Broad River and Yadkin River regions were selected as the primary candidate areas mainly because of the resulting improved system reliability and operation with a minimum of new transmission line mileage and the availability of sites for closed-cycle cooling operation with minimum land requirements.
One additional site, which is outside these two regions on the lower Catawba River by the Wateree Reservoir, was also considered.
9.1.2.3 Candidate site-plant alternatives The two viable alternatives for fueling the proposed station were uranium and coal. Having reached this consideration, the applicant sought suitable locations for these plants in each of the two selected candidate areas (plus the location near the Wateree Reservoir, as mentioned above). In making a selection of potential suitable sites, the applicant indicated that the following site criteria were used: 1. Land area -sufficient acreage.2. Physical site characteristics
-all characteristics suitable.3. Nature of surrounding area -low population density; minimally affected land use.4. Benefits to surrounding area- local tax revenues, employment opportunities.
Using these criteria, four site-plant alternatives were located in each of the two candidate areas, and two site-plant alternatives were located near the Wateree Reservoir, for a total of ten site-plant alternatives.
One potential nuclear station location, which could utilize either a cooling pond or closed-cycle cooling towers, was found in each candidate area; one potential site utilizing closed-cycle cooling towers was found in each area to be suitable for either a coal or a nuclear station; and the Wateree Reservoir location was considered to be suitable for a nuclear station using either closed-cycle cooling or once-through cooling. As indicated above, of the ten site-plant alternatives, three involved either a cooling pond or once-through cooling at an existing reservoir.
The applicant indicated that the Environmental Protection Agency had informed them that cooling towers would also be necessary for these systems (ER, Sect. 9.3.5). Thus the applicant indicated that these three site-plant alternatives utilizing lake cooling for waste heat dissipation were not feasible alternatives; therefore, the only feasible cooling system is closed-cycle cooling towers. A summary of the significant characteristics of the five potential sites (two of which are suitable for either coal or nuclear fuel) is given in Table 9.3.As discussed in Sect. 9,1.2.1, regarding costs of producing power in nuclear plants or coal-fired plants, the economic advantage clearly belongs to the uranium-fueled stations.
In compar-ing the potential sites, there appears to be no significant environmental advantage for the coal-fired stations in relation to nuclear stations.
Moreover, as indicated in Table 9.3, the coal-fired stations will generally require more land than the nuclear plants (for ash disposal purposes).
Thus, from the site-plant alternatives presented by the applicant, the choice appears to be the selection of the better two nuclear-plant locations from five potential choices -Turkey Table 9.3. Comparison of the applicant's feasible site-plant alternatives All sites to utilize closed-cycle cooling towers Broad River region Yadkin River region Wateree Reservoir Turkey Creek Cherokee Hunting Creek Yadkin (Perkins) (Catawba River)(nuclear)
Nuclear Coal (nuclear)
Nuclear Coal (nuclear)Location 30 miles ESE of 21 miles ENE of 9 miles NW of 6-8 miles SF nf 20 miles nf I .....tet Topography Cooling water Total land required, acres Land excess costs over Cherokee, millions of dollars Exclusion area, acres Current land use Transportation access (miles from interstate hwy)Access road construction Highway, miles Railroad, miles Spartanburg, S.C.Gentle hills and slopes 7350-acre lake (to be constructed)
Spartanburg, S.C.Gentle hills and slopes Broad River Mocksville, N.C.Gentle hills and slopes 7200-acre lake (to be constructed)
Mocksville, N.C.Gentle hills and slopes Yadkin River S.C.Gentle hills and slopes Wateree Reservoir 8300 12 450 Rural Poor (20)0.5 8.9 110 2263 450 Rural 2584 4.5 Rural 8124 10 450 Rural Good (10)0.2 16 1600 2 450 Rural 0.2 6.4 1100 3 Rural 0 450 Rural Poor (20)710 Good (7)Good (10)CD 0.2 7 21 0.5 6.5 Transmission line required, miles Transmission line excess costs over Cherokee, millions of dollars Switching stations, number Construction labor force Major operation impacts Aesthetic features-Impacts on biota 0.2 6.4 26 0.5 1 12 21 117 11 15 0.5 240 74 20 2 1 I 2 Readily available Minor Cooling towers and plumes Construction of new lake Readily available Potential ground fog Cooling towers Cooling towers, plumes, and plumes and chimneys Minor Available Minor Cooling towers and plumes Construction of new lake Available Potential ground fog Cooling towers Cooling towers, plumes, and plumes and chimneys Minor Probably available Minor Cooling towers and plumes Minor 9-11 Creek, Cherokee, Hunting Creek, Yadkin (Perkins), and Wateree. As compared to Cherokee and Yadkin (Perkins), the Turkey Creek and Hunting Creek sites require considerably more land for the cooling water storage ponds, and they also require significantly longer transmission lines.Thus, since there are no apparent environmental advantages to the Turkey Creek and Hunting Creek sites as compared to Cherokee and Yadkin (Perkins) and since there are additional environmental disadvantages associated with the requirement of additional land for storage reservoirs and transmission lines, the selection of Cherokee and Yadkin (Perkins) appears reasonable.
The other alternative site, Wateree, although not requiring as much land for the station, does require about 220 additional miles of transmission lines. There does not appear to be any environmental advantage to be gained by the additional expenditures required for this transmission line from Wateree. Therefore, it would appear that the selection of the Cherokee and Yadkin (Perkins) sites, as compared to the Wateree site, is a reasonable choice.Summary The applicant has made a search for suitable sites within its service area. Although ten site-plant combinations were identified, six involved the same three lakes. In one case the cooling system to be used for the plant on each of these lakes was once through and, therefore, did not comply with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as implemented by EPA regulations (40 CFR Part 423). Therefore, lake combinations utilizing once-through condenser cooling systems were not considered in the staff's final comparisons.
These same three lakes were also considered with closed-cycle cooling, and this was the comparison used in the staff's analysis.
Two of the site-plant alternatives utilized coal as fuel. No significant environmental advantage appeared to accrue for a coal-fired station, as compared to a nuclear station; and since the coal-fired station is at a significant economic disadvantage, the applicant's choice of a nuclear station appears reasonable.
Of the five potential nuclear plant sites, the applicant selected the Cherokee site and the Yadkin (Perkins) sites for locations for the proposed six nuclear units to begin operation in 1984-1988.
There appears to be no significant environmental disadvantages associated with nuclear plant operation at the selected sites. The other three potential sites appear to offer no significant environmental advantage as compared to those selected.
Moreover, a signifi-cant amount of additional acreage for the plant site and for transmission lines would be required if power plants were constructed at these three other locations, as compared to the two selected sites. Therefore, the staff concludes that the applicant's method of site selection was reason-able and that none of the other sites offer any obvious superiority to the Cherokee and Yadkin (Perkins) locations.
9.2 ALTERNATIVE PLANT DESIGNS 9.2.1 Cooling systems 9.2.1.1 Once-through cooling At full load, CNS will reject about 2.6 x 1010 Btu/hr (7616 MW) of heat into the environment.
If this release were accomplished by a once-through cooling system using a typical temperature rise through the condensers of 20 F', a cooling water flow rate of at least 2.6 x 106 gpm (5790 cfs) would be required.
Since this rate exceeds the average flow rate in the Broad River, once-through cooling is obviously not a viable alternative for the CNS.9.2.1.2 Dry cooling towers Dry cooling towers transfer heat by radiation and convection from water flowing inside finned tubes to a moving stream of air outside the tubes. The lowest temperature the water could pos-sibly achieve is the dry-bulb temperature of the air. Thus the condensing pressure of the turbines will be higher than if wet cooling towers were used (where the water temperature can approach the wet-bulb temperature of the air), and the system will have a significantly lower thermal efficiency.
In addition, since the heat-transfer coefficient to the dry air is rela-tively low, surface area requirements and costs are high. Large, dry-type cooling towers have not been developed commercially in the United States to the extent that cost and performance data are readily available.
Therefore, this-method of cooling is not considered practical at this time.9.2.1.3 Wet-dry type cooling towers This type of cooling tower has provisions for operating without the evaporation of water when outside temperatures are sufficiently low or when visible plumes, fogging, or icing would create a particular problem. These towers cost significantly more than the wet type, and they afford poorer plant thermal efficiencies.
The wet-dry type tower is not a viable alternative for CNS.
9-12 9.2.1.4 Cooling ponds The water surface area required for a cooling pond is I to 3 acres for every megawatt of elec-tricity generated; therefore, to cool the condensing water needed for the three units at CNS would require a surface area of 4000 to 12,000 acres. The water evaporation rate from the pond surface would not be greatly different from that in thecooling towers. If the bottom must be sealed against seepage losses or if caves and other underground passages must be plugged, these expenses can add significantly to the costs. The environmental impact and the costs of creating a large pond make this alternative impractical for CNS.9.2.1.5 Spray pond A spray pond for CNS might require an area of 150 to 200 acres. Drift and ground-level fogging effects would be considerably greater than for cooling towers, although both would tend to be confined more to the general vicinity of the pond. A spray pond would probably be required in addition to the settling basin because water supplied from the Broad River to make up for evapor-ation normally contains too much suspended material to be used directly.
The nuclear service water pond and waste water pond could not be incorporated as part of the spray pond for cooling condensing water. A spray pond is considered to be one of the less attractive alternatives for the CNS cooling system.9.2.1.6 Wet, mechanical-draft cooling towers with rectangular layout The performance of wet, mechanical-draft cooling towers with the cells laid out in rows in a rectangular fashion would be similar to the circular mechanical-draft (CMD) towers proposed by the applicant.
However, when the wind direction tends to be perpendicular to the rows in the rec-tangular layout, the plume buoyancy forces would not be as great because there would be less merging of plumes to gain increased buoyancy forces. 'The land area requirements for the rectangu-lar layout were estimated by the applicant to be about 145 acres as compared to about 37 acres for the circular mechanical-draft types (ER, Fig. 10.1.2-1).
The applicant also estimates the capital cost of the rectangular layout to be more than for the circular mechanical-draft type by about $12 million (ER, Table 10.1.0-1 and Response to Question 10.1.4).9.2.1.7 Natural-draft-type cooling tower Wet, natural-draft-type cooling towers are perhaps the most viable of the alternative cooling methods for CNS. Although the height of such towers (500 ft or more) would make them highly visible, thisheight contributes significantly to the plume rise performance, and essentially no ground-level fogging, icing, or drift problems could be expected.
Natural-draft-type towers create relatively little noise. Although the applicant estimates the capital cost to be con-siderably higher than for the CMD type, the savings in operating costs are offsetting, and the net costs are different by less than 1% (ER, Table 10.1.0-1 and Response to Question 10.1.4).Three large natural-draft towers could serve in place of the nine CMD units proposed for the station, but, according to the applicant, the land area requirement would be about 52 acres as compared to the 37 acres required for the circular mechanical-draft towers (ER, Fig. 10.1.3-1).
9.2.2 Intake system In selecting the appropriate intake structure for CNS, the applicant considered four alternative designs: (1) a bankside river intake structure, (2) an off-river intake structure, (3) a per-forated pipe intake with off-river pump structure, and (4) an infiltration bed intake with off-river pump structure.
EPA guidelines for the best technology available for the design of intake structures 1 9 suggest that (1) an intake structure should be constructed flush with the river bank, (2) the traveling screens should be located flush with the front face of the structure to allow the river current to sweep across the traveling screens, and (3) provisions should be made to locate fish passage-ways between the screens and the trash racks.The staff considers that the applicant's proposed design, the bankside river intake structure, which incorporates these guidelines, is the best among the four alternatives considered.
9-13 9.2.3 Blowdown water discharge The applicant has offered two alternatives to its.proposed method and location (ER, Sect. 10.3.2.1)for discharging cooling tower blowdown: 1. Bankside single port discharge (ER, Sect. 10.3.2.2).
The discharge would be from a single port on the west bank of the river about 1200 ft downstream of the dam. The discharge would be at or about the river water surface, with a discharge velocity of about 5 fps. (For the staff analysis of theialternative see DES Section 3.4 and 5.3.)2. River bottom single port diffuser (ER, Sect. 10.3.2.3).
The discharge would be from a single port on the river bottom about 1200 ft downstream of the dam. Discharge would be perpendicular to the river water flow, and the staff assumes that the discharge velocity would be about 5 fps.The staff has assessed all three options and considers that the proposed method demonstrates the following advantages and disadvantages when compared to the two alternatives.
Advantages
: 1. The proposed method is more economical.
: 2. The proposed method entails less land usage and construction impact.3. Both alternatives would require disruption of the river bottom to some extent because of cofferdam requirements.
Disadvantages
: 1. The proposed method has the poorest potential for rapid and adequate dilution of the blowdown with river water. The river current exhibits a pattern which the staff considers would be conducive to faster and more thorough mixing at the point where the alternative discharges are located.2. The staff considers the alternatives to have a lesser potential for aesthetic impact.3. The staff considers that the proposed discharge has a higher potential for contraven-tion of state standards on thermal discharges than do the alternatives because the alternatives allow more effective mixing, as discussed above.Overall, the staff is of the opinion that, from aquatic and thermal impact standpoints, either of the two alternatives is probably preferable to the proposed discharge because of the potential effects of residual chlorine and the heated blowdown.
Therefore, staff approval of the proposed discharge is dependent upon an applicant commitment concerning limitations on chlorine as outlined in Section 5.5.2.2 and the development of alternate discharge arrangements or procedures so that state thermal standards are met.9.2.4 Transmission lines The applicant has outlined a proposed routing and an alternate routing for each of the three fold-ins connecting with other lines of the applicant's existing and proposed system (Fig. 3.9).Comparisons for each of the three fold-ins are given below, based mainly on staff estimates for alternate routes. Based on the staff's analysis, the proposed routes appear to be preferable to the alternatives in terms of environmental impacts.Cherokee Station to Shelby Tap-Peach Valley 230-kV line The selected route is 0.5 mile longer than the alternative but does not require a crossing of the Broad River, as does the alternative.
Land use in terms of the amount of land in forest and field is similar for both routes. Another possible alternate route would follow the existing right-of-way for a 44-kV line that runs northwestward and crosses the Shelby Tap-Peach Valley line. This alternative, however, would be 5.9 miles long compared to the 5.2-mile selected route, and it would require clearing 162 acres on a 251-ft right-of-way.
9-14 Cherokee Station to Catawba-Pacolet 230-kV line The selected-route is 0.7 mile shorter than the alternative and does not require a crossing of the Broad River. The alternate route comes to within about 5000 ft of Hickory Grove, but other-wise, land uses along the two routes are similar. The selected and alternate routes cut across approximately 0.67 mile and 0.3 mile, respectively, of forested game management areas. The alternate route would parallel 4.2 miles of existing right-of-way of a 44-kV line (staff judgment from aerial photograph) and would require clearing a right-of-way only 251 ft wide along this stretch; the total acreage to be cleared, however, would be slightly less (196 vs 207) for the selected route because of its shorter length.Cherokee Station to Catawba-Shelby Tap 230-kV line The selected route is 2.8 miles shorter than the alternative.
Land uses along both routes are similar, and both routes require a crossing of the Broad River. The alternate incoming route crosses about 0.6 mile of a game management area, while the selected route crosses no game management area. The staff considers the selected routes to be preferable to the alternate routes.9.2.5 Railroad spur A 3- to 4-mile segment of the proposed 7-mile spur from the CNS will either parallel or be con-structed on an existing 33-kV right-of-way corridor through forested land. The remaining segment will require purchase of new corridor through land that is approximately 75% forested.
The appli-cant submitted an analysis of three alternate routes and concluded that the proposed route is the preferable one, based on a number of environmental, social, and economic considerations.
2 0 The staff agrees and requires that the spur be constructed on the existing right-of-way as much as. practicable.
The spur should be located as close to one side of the right-of-way as possible so that if a transmission line must be constructed along the spur, a minimum amount of forest adjoining the right-of-way will need to be cleared.
9-15 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 9 1. Federal Power Commission, "Electric Power in the Southeast, 1970-1980-1990" in The 1970 National Power Survey, Part II, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.. April 1969, p. 11-3-24.2. Duke Power Company Uniform Statistical Report -Year Ended December 31, 1973, pp. E-18A, E-19.3. "U.S. Energy Outlook -Fuels for Electricity," National Petroleum Council, 1973, p. 17.4. 1972 Annual Report -Federal Power Commission, January 1973, p. 21.5. "Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1973," U.S. Department of Commerce, p. 512.6. 1972 Annual Report -Federal Power Commission, January 1973, p. 20.7. "Hydroelectric Power Resources of the United States, Developed and Undeveloped," Federal Power Commission, January 1, 1972.8. D. E. White, "Characteristics of Geothermal Resources," in Geothermial E&#xfd;nergy -Resources, Production, Stimulation, P. Kruger and C. Otte, Eds., Stanford University Press, 1973.9. R. Schuster, "Turning Turbines with Geothermal Steam," Power Engineerin'g, March 1972, p. 37.10. G. W. Waring, Thermal Springs of the United States and Other Countries of the World -A Swnary, Geological Survey Professional Paper 492, Fig. 3, 1965, p. 13.11. Federal Council for Science and Technology, Assessment of Geothermal Energy Resources, Chapter 5, June 26, 1972.12. NSF/NASA Solar Energy Panel, An Assessment of Solar Energy as a National Energy Resource, University of Maryland, December 1972.13. E. R. G. Eckert and R. N. Schmidt, "Solar Energy -Thermal Conversion," in Energy, ment, Productivity, Proceedings of the First Symposium on RANN: Research Applied to National Needs, Washington, D.C., November 18-20, 1973, National Science Foundation, pp. 42-45.14. N. Wade, "Windmills:
The Resurrection of an Ancient Energy Technology," Science 184: 1055.June 7, 1974.15. "Energy Crisis in America," Congressional Quarterly, p. 56.16. A. L. Hammond, W. D. Metz, and T. H. Maugh II, Energy and the Future, Amer. Assoc. for the Adv. of Sci., c. 1973, p. 50.17. "Energy Research and Development-An Overview of our National Effort," Hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Repre-sentatives, 93rd Congress Ist Session, Statement of H. G. Stever, Director, National Science Foundation, May 15, 1973, p. 4.&#xfd;18. Directorate of Licensing, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Draft Environmental Statement, Hope Creek Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-354 and 50-355, November 1973.19. Environmental Protection Agency, "Development Document for Proposed Best Technology Available for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact of Cooling Water Intake Structures," December 1973.20. W. H. Owen, Duke Power Company, letter to W. H. Regan, Jr., NRC Staff, August 1, 1975.
: 10. CONCLUSIONS 10.1 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 10.1.1 Abiotic effects Of the 1272 acres within the site boundary, about 750 acres of forested and semiforested land will be cleared during construction.
A net volume of about 1,461,000 yd 3 of excavated material will be used to fill low-lying areas on the site. A total of about 406 acres at the site will be occupied by ponds (184 acres), settling basins (96 acres), cooling towers (37 acres), switching stations (36 acres), and permanent station structures (53 acres). Transmission line rights-of-way will require about 654 acres. The principal associated impact will be the conversion of about 550 acres of forested land to low-growing grassland and herbaceous cover. The remaining land will probably revert to its former uses (croplands and pasture) following construction.
Construc-tion of the railroad spur line will permanently remove about 73 acres of woodland and 10 acres of harvested cropland from their current uses. Access roads will remove about 23 acres from their present land use (mostly forested areas). The approximately 1373 acres of forested land that will be cleared for station and transmission line construction represents about 3.7% of the total forested land within a 5-mile radius and about 1% and 0.01% of Cherokee County's and South Carolina's forested areas, respectively.
Removal of the aforementioned acreages from their current land uses is not expected to have a significant effect on area land-use patterns.Site construction will remove about 12% of the backwaters of Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir from recreational uses such as fishing, waterfowl hunting, and boating. Station operation will result in the loss of an average of about 112 cfs of Broad River water through evaporation and drift, which represents about 4.5% of its mean monthly flow. Loss of this amount of water is not expected to significantly affect other uses of the river. Station discharges to the river will meet all applicable State and Federal water quality standards; therefore, these discharges are not expected to adversely affect other river water users. Local groundwater is not expected to be significantly adversely affected by station operation.
Cooling tower operation will produce visible plumes that may extend for as much as 15 miles for 5% of the time during winter months. Ground-level fogging, as a consequence of cooling tower operation, was predicted by the staff to occur an additional 25 hr/year at some points within 1/4 mile of the towers. This additional fogging is considered to be small and not of major con-cern. Additional icing from tower operation is also expected to be inconsequential.
Salt depo-sition from cooling tower drift is expected to have a negligible impact on areas outside the site boundary (maximum deposition, approximately 23 lb/acre-year within 3/4 mile of the towers).10.1.2 Biotic effects 10.1.2.1 Terrestrial The major adverse environmental impacts on terrestrial ecosystems during construction will result from land clearing and erosion. Impacts to terrestrial wildlife at the site will range from loss of some individuals due to direct destruction during construction (the less mobile species)to habitat destruction and subsequent small reductions in the populations of some species. The clearing of approximately 1% of Cherokee County's forested land for station and transmission line construction will reduce the county's population of wildlife that usually inhabits this type of habitat by about the same fraction.
However, successional stages of vegetation are impor-tant to some species (e.g., white-tailed deer, bobwhite quail, cottontail rabbit); and the subse-quent revegetation of some of the cleared areas will tend to increase the population of those species. Area waterfowl populations are not expected to be significantly affected by station construction or operation.
10.1.2.2 Aquatic Construction of the river intake and discharge structures and runoff from the site during rain-storms (during construction) will cause increased turbidity in the river and the reservoir.
About 50% of the reservoir's backwater areas will be affected to some extent. Therefore, during 10-1 10-2 construction, some turbidity-intolerant fishes (e.g., bluegills and largemouth bass) will tempor-arily avoid these areas. However, after construction, the biota of these areas is expected to revert back to its former composition.
In general, impacts of station construction on the reservoir are expected to be minor.Withdrawal of water from the river for cooling tower makeup and radioactive waste dilution will range from 2 to 23% of the river's total flow, depending upon withdrawal rates and seasonal river flows. Because the water passing the intake site would normally soon pass over Ninety-Nine Islands Dam if not removed by the intake structure, entrainment losses from station operation are not expected to affect the reservoir.
However, downstream fish populations could potentially be affected by ichthyoplankton losses.Chemical and dissolved oxygen concentrations in the station's discharges are not expected to adversely affect the aquatic biota in the river. Thermal discharges, as a consequence of cooling tower blowdown, are likewise expected to have negligible impact on these biota.10.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 10.2.1 Scope The purpose of this section is to set forth the relationship between the proposed use of man's environment implicit in the proposed construction and operation of the generating station (as permitted under the terms of the proposed construction permit) and the actions that could be taken to maintain and enhance the long-term productivity.
10.2.2 Enhancement of productivity The construction of CNS will have potentially beneficial effects on the economics of both North and South Carolina.
The capacity of CNS represents 14.8% of the total projected system depend-able capacity of Duke Power Company at the time the plant is to be in operation.
At present, the applicant's service area includes about 20,000 sq miles in west-central North Carolina and northwestern South Carolina.10.2.3 Uses adverse to productivity 10.2.3.1 Land usage Approximately 2263 acres will be required for the CNS site, with approximately another 655 acres being required for transmission.
Of this acreage, about 53 acres will be under permanent usage, that is, permanent facilities.
There will be 16 families and one recreational home displaced as a result of the applicant's acquiring land for the construction of CNS. Since only about 6% of the area within 5 miles of the site is cleared land suitable for pasture or farming, little impact on agricultural products is expected to result from the construction of CNS. The State and local taxes on the property (estimated to be $16.4 million annually) greatly outweigh any loss from agri-cultural production.
10.2.3.2 Water usage The construction of CNS will decrease the surface area of the reservoir available for public usage. The impoundment of a backwater area to create the basins represents about 12% of the reservoir area.About 1.9 x 1010 gpy of water will be consumptively used by CNS, representing approximately 3%of the annual flow of the river at the site. This use is not considered a significant impact on present or future uses of the river. Releases from the circulating water system and the wastewater treatment system, when mixed with the river flow, will be within State and Federal water quality standards.
The staff concludes that there will be no significant adverse effect on water usage due to construction or operation of CNS.10.2.4 Decommissioning No specific plan for the, decommissioning of CNS has been developed.
This is consistent with the Commission's current regulations that contemplate detailed consideration of decommissioning near the end of a reactor's useful life. The licensee initiates such consideration by preparing a
10-3 proposed decommissioning plan that is submitted to the NRC 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 NRC.To date, experience with decommissioning of civilian nuclear power reactors is limited to six facilities that 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.The following alternatives can be and have been used in the decommissioning of reactors.(1) Remove the fuel (possibly followed by decontamination procedures);
seal and cap the pipes;and establish an exclusion area around the facility.
The Piqua decommissioning operation was typical of this approach.
(2) In addition to the steps outlined in (1), remove the superstructure and encase in concrete all radioactive portions that remain above ground. The Hallam decommis-sioning operation was of this type. (3) Remove the fuel, all superstructure, the reactor vessel, and all contaminated equipment and facilities and 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 radioactive mate-rial has been removed, alternative (3) would not require any subsequent surveillance.
Possible effects of erosion or flooding will be included in these considerations.
Estimated costs of decommissioning at the lowest level are about $1 million plus an annual mainte-nance charge on the order of $100,000.1 Estimates vary from case to case, with a large variation arising from differing assumptions as to level of restoration.
For example, complete restoration, including regrading, has been estimated to cost $70 million.2 At present land values, considera-tion of an economic balance alone likely would not justify a high level of restoration.
However, planning required of the applicant at this stage will ensure that variety of choice for restora-tion is maintained until the end of useful plant life.The degree of dismantlement would be determined by an economic and environmental study involving the value of the land and scrap value versus the complete demolition and removal-of the complex.In any event, the operation will be controlled by the rules and regulations in effect at the time in order to protect the health and safety of the public.10.3 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 10.3.1 Scope Irreversible commitments generally concern changes set in motion by the proposed action that, at some later time, could not be altered to restore the present order of environmental resources.
Irretrievable commitments are generally the use or consumption of resources that are neither re-newable nor recoverable for subsequent utilization.
Commitments inherent in environmental impacts are identified in this section, while the main dis-cussions of the impacts are in Sects. 4 and 5. Also, commitments that involve local long-term effects on productivity are discussed in Sect. 10.2.10.3.2 Commitments considered The types of resources of concern in this case can be identified as (1) material resources, such as materials of construction, renewable resource material consumed in operation, and depletable resources consumed and (2) nonmaterial resources, including a range of beneficial uses of the environment.
Resources that, generally, may be irreversibly committed by the operation are (1) biological species destroyed in the vicinity, (2) construction materials that cannot be recovered and re-cycled with present technology, (3) materials that are rendered radioactive but cannot be decon-taminated and materials consumed or reduced to unrecoverable waste including the U-235 and U-238 consumed, (4) the atmosphere and water bodies used for disposal of heat and certain waste efflu-ents to the extent that other beneficial uses are curtailed, and (5) land areas rendered unfit for other uses.
10-4 10.3.3 Biological resources 10.3.3.1 Terrestrial A total of about 406 acres will be covered with structures and ponds. Of this total, permanent station structures and cooling towers will cover about 90 acres. This acreage represents a hab-itat loss, but only that part of the site that cannot be recovered after dismantlement of the plant can be considered a permanent loss.10.3.3.2 Aquatic About 17% of the acreage of Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir will be lost as running water habitat due to construction of the sedimentation basin. There will be an irretrievable loss of some fish and planktonic organisms from the Broad River due to withdrawal of the makeup water necessary for operation of the plant.10.3.4 Material resources 10.3.4.1 Materials of construction Materials of construction are almost entirely of the depletable category of resources.
Concrete and steel constitute the bulk of these materials; numerous other mineral resources are incorpo-rated in the physical plant. No commitments have been made on whether these materials will be recycled when their present use terminates.
Some materials are of such value that economics clearly promotes recycling.
Plant operation will contaminate only a portion of the plant to such a degree that radioactive decontamination would be needed to reclaim and recycle the constituents.
Some parts of the plant will become radio-active by neutron activation.
Radiation shielding around each reactor and around other components inside the primary neutron shield constitutes the major materials in this category, for which it is not feasible to separate the activation products from the base materials.
Components that come in contact with reactor coolant or with radioactive wastes will sustain variable degrees of surface contamination, some of which would be removed if recycling is desired. The quantities of materials that could not be decontaminated for unlimited recycling probably represent very small fractions of the resources available in kind and in broad use in industry.
Quantities of mate-rials used in nuclear plants of about 3300-MWe power output (three 1100-MWe units) are shown in Table 10.1. Production, consumption, and reserves are also given.Construction materials are generally expected to remain in use for the full life of the plant, in contrast to fuel and other replaceable components discussed later. There will be a long period of time before terminal disposition must be decided. At that time, quantities of materials in the categories of precious metals, strategic and critical materials, or resources having small natural reserves must be considered individually, and plans to recover and recycle as much of these valuable depletable resources as is practicable will depend on need.10.3.4.2 Replaceable components and consumable materials Uranium is the principal natural resource irretrievably consumed in plant operation.
Other mate-rials consumed, for practical purposes, are fuel-cladding materials, reactor-control elements, other replaceable reactor core components, chemicals used in processes such as water treatment and ion-exchanger regeneration, ion-exchange resins, and minor quantities of materials used in maintenance and operation.
Except for the uranium isotopes U-235 and U-238, the consumed resource materials have widespread usage; therefore, their use in the proposed operation must be reasonable with respect to needs in other industries.
The major use of the natural isotopes of uranium is for production of useful energy.3 The three reactors in the plant will be fueled with uranium enriched in the isotope U-235. After use in the plant, the fuel elements will still contain U-235 slightly above the natural fraction.This slightly enriched uranium, upon separation from plutonium and other radioactive materials (separation takes place in a chemical reprocessing plant), is available for recycling through the gaseous diffusion plant. Scrap material containing valuable quantities of uranium is also recycled through appropriate steps in the fuel production process. Fissionable plutonium recovered in the chemical reprocessing of spent fuel is valuable for fuel in power reactors.
10-5 Table 10.1. Estimated quantities of materials of construction of water-cooled nuclear power plants Approximate World U.S. U.S. Strategic quantity used b b b and Material in planta production consumptions rmerves critical (metric tons) (metric tons) (metric tons) (metric tons) materialc Aluminum 135 9,089.000 4,227,000 8,165,000 Yes Asbestos 135 2,985.000 712,000 1,800.000 Yes Beryllium 0.9 288 308 72.700 Yea Cadmium 0.067 17,000 6.800 86.000 Yes Chromium 450 1,590,000 398,000 2,000,000 Yes Copper 6,000 6,616,000 1,905,000 77,564,000 Yea Gold 0.0015 1,444 221 9,238 No Lead 22.5 3,329,000 1,261,000 32,024,000 Yes Manganese 1,200 7,711,000 1,043,000 907,000 Yes Mercury 0.045 9,837 2.727 703 Yes Molybdenum 7.5 64,770 23,420 3,858,000 No Nickel 300 480,000 129,000 181,000 Yes Platinum 0.003 46.5 16.0 93.3 Yea Silver 3 8,989 5,005 41,057 Yea Steel 30.000 574.000,000 128,000,000 2,000,000,000 No Tin 0.15 454,200 82.100 47 Yes Tungsten 0.015 35.000 7,300 79,000 Yes Zinc 300 5.001,000 1,630.000 30,600.000 Yes aQuantities used are compiled from various sources for two-unit plants of about 2300 MW extrapolated to Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3.bProduction, consumption, and reserves were compiled, except as noted, from the U.S. Bureau of Mines publications Mineral Facts and Problems (1970 ed., Bur. Mines Bull 650) and the 1969 Minerals Yearbook They are expressed in terms of contained element, regardless of the form. "'Production" usually includes material recovered from both primary ores and secondary sources such as scrap recovery.Production and consumption figures are for 1969 unless otherwise noted. Estimates of reserves were published in 1969 but are based on data compiled over a number of years. The reserves stated are the quantities extractable at currently competitive prices; they include inferred as well as measured and indicated ores, when such information was available.
Usually, resources recoverable with advanced methods or at greater cost are much greater than the reserves listed.CDesignated by G. A. Lincoln, "List of Strategic and Critical Materials," Office of Emergency Preparedness:
Fed Regist. 37(39): 4123 (Feb. 26. 1972).If the three units of this plant operate at 80% of capacity, about 15,000 metric tons of contained natural uranium in the form of U 3 0 8 must be produced to feed the plant for 40 years. The assured U.S. reserves of natural uranium recoverable at a cost of $8 or less per pound of U 3 0 8 are 200,000 tons of uranium.4 In addition to the assured reserves, the amount of natural uranium recoverable at $10 or less per pound of U 3 0 8 is estimated to be 315,000 tons, but this increment will require a major effort in exploration and development to bring it into production.
4  The long-term uranium resource situa-tion in the U.S. will depend on the larger expected reserves of-ore recoverable at greater cost and on utilization of breeder reactors.The 15,000 metric tons of mined natural uranium required to feed the fuel cycle for this three-reactor plant consists of 110 metric tons of U-235, with the balance consisting of U-238. In the power plant itself, 77 metric tons of U-235 and 71 metric tons of U-238 will be consumed by fis-sion or transmutation.
In this process, 23 metric tons of recoverable fissionable plutonium will be produced.
The staff has estimated the additional irretrievable losses of uranium in other portions of the fuel cycle to amount to 2.3 metric tons of U-235, and 180 metric tons of uranium depleted to about 0.2% of U-235 would remain. In the long term, this stock of depleted uranium may be used as feed material in other reactor fuel cycles. In consideration of the reserves of all depletable fuels, uranium consumption in the proposed operation is a reasonable productive use of this resource.In view of the quantities of materials in natural reserves, resources, and stockpile and the quantities produced yearly, the expenditure of such material for the power plant is justified by the benefits from the electrical energy produced.
10-6 10.3.5 Water and air resources A maximum of about 1.9 x 1010 gpy of water will be consumptively used by the station. However, the use of the water can be viewed as an irreversible loss only in the same sense as is natural evaporation from water bodies. The staff does not consider that such usage will have a long-term effect.The effect of construction and operation of the proposed plant will have little effect on air re-sources beyond the minimal damage caused by the various equipment emissions.
10.3.6 Land resources About 3000 acres of land would be committed to the construction and operation of this power station for the years the plant would be licensed to operate. The staff does not expect this land to be returned to present usage after decommissioning of the station. The applicant will probably continue to use the land for some form of power production.
10.4 COST-BENEFIT BALANCE 10.4.1 Benefit description of the proposed facility The major direct and indirect benefits are discussed below and are tabulated in Table 10.2.10.4.1.1 Expected average annual generation The principal benefit of the proposed facility will be the availability to the applicant's service area of 3840 MWe of base-load capacity and of an annual expected generation of electrical energy of 25,565,000,000 kWhr (assuming a plant factor of 0.76). Station output at plant factors of 0.8, 0.7, and 0.6 are presented in Table 9.1.10.4.1.2 Expected proportional distribution of electrical energy The power generated by this facility will go directly into the applicant's transmission grid to supply the electrical power needs within its service area. This electrical energy is expected to be distributed to the several categories of the applicant's customers as shown in Table 10.2.These estimates are based on the observed 1973 distribution of sales in these categories (ER, Table 8.1.1-2).
Operation of this station will increase the reliability of the applicant's and the region's power supply and will help satisfy the area's electrical energy requirements, there-by making possible some of the commercial and economic activities and residential amenities that the people of this area demand.10.4.1.3 Other products from the facility The applicant does not plan to sell steam or other beneficial products from this facility.10.4.1.4 Taxes Federal, State, and local (county) taxes have been estimated by the applicant to be about 71.4, 44.6, and 16.4 million dollars annually, respectively (ER, Sect. 8.1.2.2).10.4.1.5 Local purchases during construction Although most of the large capital investment for the station will be spent outside the area, the applicant has estimated that during, construction, an average of about $700,050 would be spent for regional and local materials, services, and supplies (ER, Sect. 8.1.2.4).10.4.1.6 Research Other than the required monitoring programs, the applicant does not plan any specific research program in conjunction with the operation of this facility.
The staff considers that the ecolog-ical research conducted as necessitated by the pre- and postoperational monitoring programs will be of some benefit.
10-7 Table 10.2. Benefits from the proposed Cherokee Nuclear Station Direct benefits Capacity, MWe Electrical energy generation Average annual electrical energy generation, GWhr (0.76 plant factor)Proportional distribution of electrical energy Percent Residential 23.9 Industrial 44.2 General service 17.1 Other 14.8 Other products 3,840 25.57 None Indirect benefits Employment Construction, man-years Construction payroll (total), millions of dollars Operation, number of employees Operation, annual payroll, millions of dollars Taxes Federal, annual, millions of dollars State, annual, millions of dollars County, annual, millions of dollars 18,149 424 250 8.2 71.4 44.6 16.4 10.4.1.7 Environmental enhancement The applicant has indicated that station operation would permit the retirement of older, less environmentally pleasing fossil-fueled generating units (Table 8.4).10.4.1.8 Employment An average of 1395 employees per year over an expected 8-year construction period is expected to result in a total construction payroll of $424 million. Permanent station operation will re-quire an estimated 250 employees, with an expected annual payroll of $8,200,000.
10.4.2 Cost description of the proposed facility 10.4.2.1 Power generation costs The staff has estimated that the station's capital costs would average about $536/kWe for the three proposed units. Fuel and operating and maintenance costs were estimated by the staff to be about $196 million per year at a plant factor of 0.76. This information, along with information on operating and maintenance costs at plant factors of 0.6 and 0.8, is presented in Table 9.1.10.4.2.2 Environmental costs The major unavoidable environmental impacts expected to be incurred by construction and operation of the proposed station are summarized in Table 10.3.
1 m 10-8 Table 10.3. Environmental costs of Cherokee Nuclear Station Effect Reference section Summary description Land use Land required for station Land required for transmission lines Railroad spur Access roads Loss of agricultural production Erosion Visual Water use Evaporative consumption Chemical discharges to Broad River Thermal discharges to Broad River Cooling tower plumes Social and economic effects During construction During operation Radiological impact Cumulative U.S. population dose Occupational Integrated dose to construction personnel Ecological impacts on aquatic life Construction 4.1 4.1 4.1.4 4.1.5 4.1.1 4.3.1.1, 4.3.1.2 5.1.1.1, 5.3.2.1 5.2.1 3.,6, 5.2.1 5.2.3, 5.3.1 5.1.1.1, 5.3.2 4.4 5.6 5.4.2.5 5.4.2.5 4.4.1 4.3.2 1272 acres within site boundary fence. -751 acres to be cleared.654 acres. 550 acres to be cleared.83 acres (73 acres to be cleared)23 acres 772 acres at station. Minor elsewhere Can be minimized by good construc-tion practices Extensive visibility of cooling tower plumes 112 cfs maximum evaporative and drift losses. (4.5% of mean monthly flow, 23.8% of low flow)22 ppm maximum increase in TDS River temperature rise generally less than 5F 0 Minimal fogging and icing effects Some potential impact on local communities Minor adverse effects on local communities 210 man-rems/year 1400 man-rems/year 60 man-rems Temporary increase in turbidity of about 50% of Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir 10-9 Table 10.3. Environmental costs of Cherokee Nuclear Station (Cont'd)Effect Ecological impacts on aquatic, life (Cont'd)Entrainment Impingement Chemical discharges Thermal discharges Ecological impacts on terrestrial life Construction of station Construction of transmission lines Operation of station Operation of transmission lines Reference section Summary description 5.5.2.1 5.5.2.1 5.5.2.2 5.5.2.2 4.3.1.1 4.3.1.2 5.5.1.2 5.5.1.3 Will range from 2 to 23.8% of river flow. Potential adverse effect due to ichthyoplankton losses.Intake velocity less than 0.5 fps.Minimal effects if EPA standards and staff requirements for total residual chlorine in discharge are met.Effect may be significant.
Appli-cant must take steps to meet state standards.
Some losses. Minor lasting impact.Some losses. Minor lasting impact.Minimal if vegetative cover is reestablished after construction No significant impacts if proper maintenance procedures are followed.
10-10 10.4.2.3 Decommissioning costs No specific plan has been developed for decommissioning this station, but estimated decommission-ing costs range from $1 million plus an annual maintenance charge of about $100,000 to a cost of about $70 million for complete restoration of a station (Sect. 10.2.4).10.4.2.4 Other costs The environmental costs associated with the nuclear fuel cycle have been treated generically (see also Table 5.5).5 The contribution to environmental effects associated with the uranium fuel cycle are sufficiently small as not to affect significantly the conclusion of the cost-benefit balance.10.4.3 Cost-benefit balance of Commission's RM-50-2, "as low as practicable" Since issuance of the Draft Environmental Statement, the Commission on April 30, 1975, issued its opinion in RM-50-2, Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion "As Low as Practicable" for Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Reactor Effluents, CLI-75-5, NRCI-75-4/R
: p. 227. The Commission's opinion has put an interim value of $1000 per man-rem dose reduction that can be achieved by use of additional radio-active waste treatment equipment.
The total dose to the U.S. population annually (total body plus thyroid) from operation of the Cherokee Nuclear Station is estimated as 210 man-rems as an upper bound (see Table 5.4). At $1000 per man-rem, an additional annual expenditure of $210,000 could be justified.
However, for each $1000 spent, the dose must be reduced by at least 1 man-rem. This upper-bound figure of $210,000 (0.21 million dollars) per year for CNS for dose reduction costs can be compared to the total annualized cost difference of $378 million be-tween a coal-fired station (with SO 2 removal equipment) and the above station calculated from the data in Table 9.1, using a 0.7 plant factor. Even this $0.21 million per year additional cost would not change the staff's original conclusions as shown in Sect. 9.10.4.4 Summary of the cost-benefit balance In 10 CFR 51, the NRC has required that a cost-benefit analysis be prepared for each nuclear station considered for licensing.
In this analysis, all of the potentially significant benefits and costs (or risks) expected to accrue if the proposed station is constructed and operated according to the applicant's proposal (on which is superimposed the conditions to be required by the staff) are identified and described.
Regulation 10 CFR 51 (and the spirit and language of the National Environmental Policy Act which it implements) requires consideration of all poten-tially adverse effects on the broadly defined environment.
No method for assigning dollar values to many of the diverse considerations now commands general acceptance or has even been developed; therefore, it is not possible to rest the required cost-benefit balance on a simple monetary balance. However, in this environmental statement, the staff has described, to the extent prac-ticable, the environmental costs and benefits in quantitative terms by indicating, for example, expected ranges of percentage losses of affected biota, specifically affected land uses in rela-tion to the total land in the area currently so used, and the incremental effects of the station's thermal and chemical discharges on the Broad River. Those costs and benefits identified by the staff and considered to be of the most importance in reaching a conclusion with respect to the proposed action have been summarized in the earlier portions of Sect. 10.Overall, the major benefit of CNS is the electric power to be generated by the station, which will allow economic growth (assuming that this base-load power is necessary in the time frame projected) in the applicant's service area during the period of station operation.
Most of the costs are diffuse; they will be borne unequally by people according to when, where, and how they live.Construction activities will cause some inconvenience and costs to local communities.
Station operation should cause only minor inconvenience to local residents.
The increased tax base as a consequence of the large capital investment in the station will benefit Cherokee County.Construction of the station and transmission lines will cause some damage to aquatic and terres-trial biota. However, this construction should not result in the long-term disturbance of any major ecosystem.
Station operation will be in accordance with staff requirements such that no significant adverse effect is expected on aquatic or terrestrial biota.As indicated in Sect. 9, the staff considers that there would be no reduction in overall costs of base-load power by the use of an alternate site, the use of alternative fuels, or any combination of alternatives.
The staff concludes, on the basis of the assessments summarized in this environmental statement, that the construction and operation of Cherokee Nuclear Station, as conditioned in the Summary 10-11 and Conclusions and as predicated on the assumption that base-load power in this amount is needed by the applicant's service area in the time frame projected, will have accrued benefits that out-weigh the economic and social costs. The staff concludes that the distribution of costs and benefits does not place unreasonable costs on any segment of the population.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 10 1. Atomic Energy Clearing House, 17(6): 42 (Feb. 8, 1971); 17(18): 7 (May 3, 1971); and 16(35): 12 (Aug. 31, 1970).2. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Supplement No. 2 to the Environmental Report, Units 1 and 2, Diablo Canyon Site, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, July 28, 1972.3. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Mineral Facts and Problems, 1970, p. 230.4. "ERDA Weekly Announcements," vol. 1, No. 1, March 26, 1975, p. 2.5. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, "Environmental Survey of Nuclear Fuel Cycle," November 1972.
11.0 DISCUSSION OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.25 the Draft Environmental Statement for the Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3 was transmitted with a request for comments to: 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 Housing and Urban Development Department of the Interior Department of Transportation Energy Research and Development Administration Environmental Protection Agency Federal Energy Administration Federal Power Commission State of South Carolina Clearing House Chairman, Board of Commissioners, Cherokee County, Gaffney, South Carolina In addition, the NRC requested comments on the Draft Environmental Statement from interested persons by a notice published in the Federal Register on April 4, 1975 (40 FR 15138). Comments in response to the requests referred to above were received within the spec.ified 45 day comment period from: Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (ARM)Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (AGRS)Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (AGSC)Department of Interior (DOI)Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA)Comments were received after the expiration of the comment period from: Department of Commerce (DOC)Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (AGFS)Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW)State of South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department (SCWMR)State Land Resources Conservation Commission (SCLRC)Department of Archives and History (SCAH)Public Service Commission (SCPSC)Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCHEC)State of North Carolina Department of Administration (NCDA)Duke Power Company (DPC)Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Federal Power Commission. (FPC)The staff consideration of comments received and the disposition of the issues involved are reflected in part by text revisions in other sections of the Final Environmental Statement (FES)and in part by the following discussion which will reference the comments by use of the abbreviations indicated above. As noted earlier, all comments received are included in Appendix A of this statement.
11.1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS BY THE APPLICANT Following publication of the Draft Environmental Statement (DES), the applicant issued an Amendment 3 to the Environmental Report which made extensive changes in the parameters used in the staff's analysis for the DES. The applicant then filed comments on the DES which reflected these changes. Since most of the changes (and therefore responses to the applicant's comments)were reflected by textual revisions of the DES, the list of such revisions would be inordinately lengthy and only those comments which required a non-texual response are presented in Section 11.11-1 11-2 11.1.1 Land Use Impacts (DPC-A19, A24, A25)The staff has re-examined its acreage figures, which were based on maps and figures supplied by the applicant, and is of the opinion that its original data are essentially correct. Minor adjustments in acreage data and also minor text revisions have been made to update the material presented in this FES to conform to information furnished by the applicant after the publication of the DES. The 3000 acres reported in Section 10.3.6 is the sum of the 2263 acres to be controlled by the applicant for the site, the 654 acres for transmission lines and the 83 acres for the rail spur.11.1.2 Turbidity Tolerance of Blue Gill and Largemouth Bass (DPC-A20)In the context of the type of spawning cycle for the above fish species, the staff remains of the opinion that they are turbidity intolerant during the spawning period and possible decreases in specie populations could occur.11.1.3 Duck Radiological Ingestion Dose (DPC-A21)The staff estimate is based upon the duck's tissue at equilibrium with aquatic plants in the radwaste discharge region and, as such, is a conservative estimate.11.1.4 Sensitivity of Analysis for 11,31 in Milk (DPC-A22)The analytical sensitivity for radioiodine in milk should be the same in the pre-operational and operational programs.
The staff considers an 1131 sensitivity of 0.5 pCi/liter of milk to be necessary for validation of the grass-cow-milk pathway model.11.1.5 Improved Understanding of Doses Received from Accidents by Reference to the x/Q Values Used (DPC-A23)The guidance in the proposed Annex to Appendix D, 10 CFR Part 50, which is intended to approximate the 50 percentile x/Q values, was followed for Section 7.1 of the Cherokee DES. The weighting of the Consequences by wind direction is performed only for the man-rem estimates to obtain average man-rem. The site boundary consequences are calculated in the downwind direction assuming 50 percentile meterological conditions.
The relative concentration value used at this boundary for short term releases was 1.02 x 10-4 sec/m 3.This is one-tenth the relative concentration given in the regulatory guide for a ground level release with no building wake effect considered.
It should be noted that the staff does not consider the precise meteorological dispersion values critical because increasing the computed dose by even a factor of ten would not alter the conclusions as to the low environmental risk due to those accidents.
11.1.6 Table 7.2 Should Show a Greater Difference in Dose from Large and Small LOCA's (DPC-A23)There is not a greater difference between the two estimates largely because the staff calculation assumes in the case of the small line break that the containment may be purged after about four days so that access to the containment and clean-up may begin.11.1.7 Comment on Table 8.1.2 (DPC-A23)The staff analysis in Section 8.5.2, which references Table 8.12, makes the point that, at 3n extreme lower limit growth rate of 6% in the peak load, the Cherokee schedule could slip by two years and still have adequate reserves maintained.
The Table therefore reflects this slip and shows no capacity additions for 1989 and 1990.11.1.8 Alternative Base-Load Energy Sources and Sites (DPC-A24)The applicant has objected to the staff's characterization of its non-base-load-capacity stations as being not "designed for nearly continuous base-load operation." Although this objection may be valid for some of the applicant's coal-fired plants which were initially operated base-load, the original statement would apply to the combustion turbine, conventional oil, combined-cycle and diesel units which were listed in Tables 1.1.2-1 and 1.1.2-2 of the applicant's ER as being 11-3 for intermediate and peaking duty. Thus, applied to these units, the statement was correct as written. Also the applicant has indicated to the staff that Cliffside Unit 5, listed in ER Table 1.1.2-2 as being a base-load coal-fired station, was designed to operate in the future as an intermediate-type plant (since it is not designed for "supercritical" conditions) and thus would be an example of a coal-fired plant not designed for base-load duty throughout its lifetime.
Thus, the staff believes that, in general, its original characterization of difficulties with operating intermediate or peaking units as base-load was correct.The applicant has also commented that it is not correct to lump conventional hydro capacity with pumped-storage hydro. The staff did so because both were listed in ER Table 1.1.2-2 as being used for peaking purposes.
If the pumped-storage hydro capacity is more accurately characterized as intermediate-type capacity, ER Table 1.1.2-2 should be corrected to reflect this for Jocassee Units 1-4 and the proposed Bad Creek facility.11.1.9 Visible Plumes from Cooling Tower Operation (DPC-A24)The basis for the staff's statement that cooling tower operation will produce visible plumes that may extend for as much as 15 miles was Figure 5.1.4-2 of the applicants original ER. Figure 5.1.5-1 of Amendment 2 to the ER is not directly comparable since it is apparently based on an annual average and is not for the winter months. Thus, the staff has no basis to change its original evaluation.
11.1.10 Reservoir Turbidity Increase during Construction (DPC-A24, A25)The basis for the statement in the DES that 50% of the Ninety-nine Islands Reservoir would be affected by increased turbidity during construction was the staff's assessment (which is unchanged in' the FES) as given in Section 4.3.2.1 of the DES.11.1.11 Annual Property Taxes for the Station (DPC-A24)The statement in Section 10.2.3.1 of the DES that the annual property taxes for the station would be $38 million was based on the presentation of that figure on page 8.1-3, Section 8.1.2.2 of the original ER. The figure has been changed in accordance with recently-revised estimates submitted by the applicant.
Later estimates by the applicant may change these values again.11.2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS BY FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES 11.2.1 Introduction 11.2.1.1 Dredge or Fill Permit (EPA-A32)The applicant has stated that a clarification on the status of such a permit will be requested from the Corp of Engineers.
11.2.1.2 Use of FPC Projects Lands and Waters The applicant filed a request on September 8, 1975 with FPC to grant approval to the revised exhibits reflecting changes in the Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir Project due to construction of the Cherokee Nuclear Station. This request also includes permission to withdraw water from Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir.
The applicant has also petitioned FPC to shorten procedures for granting of this approval pursuant to Section 1.32(b) of Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR Section 1.32(b)).11.2.2 The Site 11.2.2.1 Site Streams (SCWMR-All)
The construction of the site ponds will inundate the lower portion of the two site streams, not"totally destroy" them.11.2.2.2 Reference for the Joint Distribution of Wind Speed and Wind Direction (EPA-A35)One full year (September 11, 1973 through September 11, 1974) of onsite joint frequency distributions of wind speed and direction at the 33-ft level by atmospheric stability (as defined by vertical temperature gradient between 30-ft and 130-ft) are presented in ER Table 2.6.2-1.Similar distributions with wind speed and direction from the 135-ft level are presented in ER Table 2.6.3-2.
11-4 11.2.3 Facility Description 11.2.3.1 Discharge of Radioeffluents by Volatilization (SCHEC-A14)
The staff's evaluation of the applicant'sproposed liquid radwaste system design found it acceptable.
Therefore no consideration was given to alternate designs.11.2.3.2 Filtration on Downstream Side of the Gas Decay Tanks (SCHEC-A14)
Based on the staff's source term analysis, filtration of this stream is not necessary.
Therefore, the provision of additional filtration equipment was not considered.
11.2.3.3 Exhausts of Radioactive Noble Gases (DOC-A3)The staff's source term and calculated exposures from releases of noble gases are based on the premise that a large number of nonaccidental releases from the Gaseous Waste Processing System (GWPS) occur under normal operating conditions over the projected 40-year plant life. On this basis, the staff has assumed that the releases occur randomly and that average x/Q values apply.While the staff recognizes that unfavorable dispersion conditions could arise during any given release, the assumption is made that the average value for x/Q for a large number of releases occurring randomly over the 40-year plant life will approach the annual relative concentration (x/Q) and, therefore, this value has been used.There a number of factors which substantiate this assumption; (1) Discrete releases of gaseous effluents will be governed by the limiting conditions of the Environmental Technical Specifications.
It will be incumbent upon the plant operator to establish procedures for the control of gaseous releases to assure that the technical specifications limiting conditions are not exceeded.
The procedure usually employed to control doses at or beyond the site boundary from releases of noble gases is that of permitting release only under favorable meteorological conditions.
(2) The typical mode of release of gases from waste gas storage tanks is by a slow bleed, e.g., 1 to 2 scfm, into the plant vent. This provides a dilution factor prior to release which increases the effective dispersion.
Release of the contents of a 700 ft 3 tank containing gases at 345 psig would require approximately 6 days at a release rate of 2 scfm or approximately 12 days at 1 scfm.(3) Staff calcualtions show that the GWPS has adequate capacity to permit holding one tank in reserve for back-to-back shutdowns.
There should be no reason to require the operator to dispose of GWPS tank contents over a short period of time, i.e., less than one hour.From the above, the staff concludes that releases will occur randomly during the year because the releases will be made during more favorable meteorological conditions, that individual releases will be of several hours duration, and that substantial dilution of tank gases will occur prior to discharge from the plant vent. For these reasons, the staff considers that the use of the annual average relative concentration (x/Q) in determining annual dose to the population is appropriate and is valid for the purposes of the Environmental Statement.
11.2.3.4 "Waters of the United States" for Treating Waste Waters (EPA-A27, A31)In Amendment 3 to, the applicant's Environmental Report, the Waste Water Treatment System has been modified (FES, Section 3.6). Under the new design, "waters of the United States" will not be used for waste treatment.
All treatment will be provided prior to release.11.2.3.5 Discharge of Vent Gases (EPA-A28)Waste gases displaced from aerated tanks, demineralizers, BRS and waste evaporators will exhaust to the gas collection header which will be vented through the auxiliary building exhaust vent.The auxiliary building exhaust air will be continuously monitored prior to release to the environment.
The staff calculates the iodine-131 releases from the auxiliary building exhaust air, including the waste gases from the gas collection header, to be 0.008 Ci/yr/reactor.
11-5 11.2.3.6 Collection of Liquid Leakage to the Turbine Building (EPA-A28)The applicant has stated that he will transfer the liquid waste contents of the turbine building sump to the MLWMS whenever primary to secondary leakage exists as determined by continuous monitoring of the steam jet air ejector and the steam generator blowdown effluent release lines.The turbine building sump contents will be sampled and monitored prior to release.11.2.3.7 Documentation of Effluent Release Points (EPA-A28)In view of the fact that staff-approved design changes occur during plant construction, the staff believes that final documentation of effluent release points should be deferred until the applicant applies for his operating license.11.2.3.8 Liquid Source Term (EPA-A34)Although the staff calculates the waste output from each subsystem during evaluation, the wastes may be combined for sampling and will be released through a common discharge line. During sampling and discharge, the identity of wastes by subsystem is lost. It is the combined total waste release from the discharge line which is considered in the dose calculations.
Therefore, the staff considers it appropriate that the total system, rather than subsystem, releases be given in the FES.11.2.3.9 Treatment of Containment Cooler Condensate Liquid (EPA-A34)The Figure 3.7 was in error and has been corrected in the FES.11.2.3.10 Applicant Estimate of Gaseous 1131 Discharge (EPA-A34)The applicant calculated the turbine building iodine-131 releases to be 0.002 Ci/yr/reactor.
The value of 0.007 Ci/yr/reactor was in error and has been corrected in the FES.11.2.3.11 Radioactive Liquid Waste Dispersion Models (EPA-A34)These models were discussed in Section 3.5 not 2.5 as was indicated in the DES and are presented in Section 3.5 of the FES.11.2.3.12 Meteorological Data for the ORFAD Program (EPA-A35)The meteorological data used in the ORFAD analysis of ground level fogging are recorded on U.S.Weather Bureau tape and consists of 10 years of observations from the Charlotte Weather Station.The FES has been revised to show that the additional cooling tower data needed are listed in Table 3.2.11.2.4 Environmental Impacts of Construction 11.2.4.1 Geologic Information and Erosion Control (DOI-A5, SCLRC-A12)
The NRC staff in the environmental statement describes in general and with minimal detail the geologic features of a site since such information will be covered in much greater detail in the staff's Safety Evaluation Report from information presented with applicant's ER and particularly in the PSAR. This information together with the visit to the site has resulted in an evaluation for potential erosion considered valid by the staff. The applicant plans to limit runoff according to EPA standards (Sect. 4.3.1.1) and the staff will require the applicant to submit a detailed control plan prior to initiation of construction activities (p iii).11.2.4.2 Site Vegetation Management (DOI-A7)Although the applicant has not developed a wildlife management program for the site, a commitment to clean up and appropriately landscape the site as expediously as possible after construction has been made (Section 4.5.1). In Section 4.3.1.3 the staff has made recommendations concerning implemektation of the above commitment.
11-6 11.2.4.3 Noise Impacts (EPA-A33)The staff continues to be of the opinion (Section 4.4) that noise will not be a major impact to the human environment.
The applicant has committed (Section 4.5) to reduce construction noise to acceptable levels and to equip motor-powered equipment with noise reducing devices.11.2.5 Environmental Impacts of Facility Operation 11.2.5.1 Fish Impingement (SCWMR-All)
The applicant has redesigned the water intake structure to conform to staff recommendations which will minimize fish impingement (Sect. 3.4) and has indicated that data on fish impingement based on monitoring of the intake will be furnished to SCWMR upon request. Robinson is not a Duke Power Company project.11.2.5.2 Discharge Temperature (SCWMR-All)
The applicant in Amendment 3 to the ER has changed the point at which the cooling tower blowdown is discharged.
The staff has examined this change and concluded in Section 5.5.2.2 that environmental effects from the thermal discharge will be minimal.11.2.5.3 Radiation Exposure from Drinking Water (SCHEC-A14)
The staff has developed a quantitative estimate of the maximum annual population-ingested dose which could be delivered to the U.S. population by both liquid and gaseous radioactive emissions of the Cherokee Nuclear Station. These estimates are presented in Section 5.4.2 of the FES.11.2.5.4 Medical Care and Emerqency Care (HEW-A8)Medical care for employees and all information related to emergency planning are described in Section 13.3 of the applicant's PSAR. Names and locations of hospitals with which arrangements have been made to cope with emergencies are also described.
Emergency planning is reviewed by NRC as part of the safety review and the conclusions will be reported and made public in the Safety Evaluation Report. The scope and depth of the NRC review at the Construction Permit (CP) application stage provides assurance that a responsible plan of action can be developed for protection of the public in the event of a serious reactor accident.Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 describes NRC minimum requirements regarding emergency plans which the applicant must meet. The applicant has met the requirements for the CP stage contained in sub-part II of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50.11.2.5.5 Water Level Fluctuation in Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir (DOI-A6)This comment is partially addressed in Section 5.2.1. Additionally, Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir normally fluctuates between 175 and 325 acres. The maximum increase in reservoir drawdown that would be produced by consumptive CNS water losses would be 0.2 foot. This small increase in drawdown should not create any additional stress to benthic organisms or fish. There is very little recreational use of this reservoir.
The primary recreational use, fishing, will not be affected.11.2.5.6 Environmental Dose Commitment (EPA-A29)The staff does not believe that the environmental dose commitment concept need be introduced into the assessment of environmental impact of a nuclear power reactor. The annual population dose estimates, which embody individual dose commitments to the U.S. population are given in Section 5.4.2. It has been the staff's experience that information indicating the 'maximum effect'in terms of annual population dose (man-rem) adequately characterizes the impact of a nuclear power reactor.11.2.5.7 Chemical Effects (EPA-A31, 32)The staff is of the opinion that the WWTS proposed by the applicant will reduce the amounts of chemicals before release to values which will not exceed EPA Effluent guidelines.
The WWTS is capable of treating these wastes by coagulation, precipitation, pH adjustment and sedimentation as suggested in the EPA Development Document.
11-7 The applicant has stated that the WWTS will meet the following effluent characteristics:
: 1) pH -6.0 to 9.0 2) Total Suspended Solids -30 mg/l average and 100 mg/l maximum 3) Oil and grease -15 mg/l average and 20 mg/l maximum 4) Settleable Solids -<0.1 mg/l 5) Iron, total -1 mg/l 6) Copper, total -1 mg/l A summary of the staff's conclusions is given in Section 5.3.3.EPA effluent limitations for cooling tower blowdown include a 24 hour average concentration of 5.0 mg/l for phosphorus (as P). Referring to Table 3.7, the CNS cooling tower blowdown will release an average of 7.2 mg/l of phosphate (P0 4). This is equivalent to about 2.4 mg/l of phosphorus (as P) and, therefore, the EPA effluent limitations will not be exceeded.11.2.5.8 Radiation Doses -Additional Comments 1, 2, 3 and 7 (EPA -A34i The NRC staff is presently reassessing assumptions and evaluating models for projecting radio-active effluent releases and calculated doses in order to reflect the Commission's guidance in its opinion issued April 30, 1975, in the rulemaking proceeding.RM-50-2.
The revised specific models for a detailed assessment of individual and population doses have not been completed.
For the interim, it can be said that the individual doses associated with the radioactive releases of the Cherokee Nuclear Power Station will be in accord with the requirements stated in Appen-dix I. Upper bound population dose estimates are presented in Section 5.4.2 of the FES.11.2.5.9 Emissions from the Diesel Generators (EPA-A34, 35)Air pollutants from diesel generator operation are presented in the applicant's ER (ER, Section 3.7.7). Fuel use corresponding to each one hour test period is estimated by the applicant at 2000 pounds.11.2.5.10 Damage to Ichthyoplankton from Pumping Radewaste Dilution Water (EPA-A35)The applicant's Amendment 3 to the ER, which was issued after the DES was published, indicates that radwastes will not longer be diluted by a system involving pumps. FES Figure 3.1 shows the station water use.11.2.5.11 Effects of CNS on FPC Project No. 2331 (FPC-A40)The applicant has stated that "These items and their environmental impact are discussed in the Environmental Report and the Draft Environmental Statement.
The DES describes the Broad River as being wide and shallow and the Ninety-Nine Islands reservoir as a run-of-the-river hydro-electric reservoir which was constructed about 1910. Further, the reservoir has virtually no remaining storage capacity.
Therefore, the portions of the reservoir removed from the project by construction of the dams will have a very minor impact on project operations.
The effect of the consumptive water use will result in a small loss in energy output of the project but will not affect its peaking power. However, the loss in output is insignificant compared to the additional base load generation provided by Cherokee Nuclear Station." The staff agrees with this evaluation.
11.2.6 Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Programs 11.2.6.1 Environmental Sampling Program (HEW-A8)The staff concluded that the preoperational program of the applicant was generally acceptable.
As noted in the comment, wildlife is prevalent in the area and thus sampling of this medium would not represent a significant pressure on the community.
Thus, the staff has included in its recommendations in Section 6.1.3 that the applicant periodically sample terrestrial animals and food items in the pathway to man.
11-8 11.2.6.2 Groundwater Sampling for Salt Accumulation (DOI-A6)The natural deposition of solids in precipitation is about 53 lb/acre-yr, and the maximum additional deposition due to tower drift-is expected to be 23 lbs/acre-yr (Section 5.3.2.3).
This addition of solids to natural input is not expected to have any significant effect on ground waters and the staff will not require the applicant to establish monitoring programs for total dissolved solids in ground water unless significant damage to dominant native vegetation in the area is observed during vegetation monitoring programs required by the staff.11.2.6.3 Dose Assessment (EPA-A28)The applicant will be required to takeperiodic census of animals producing milk for human con-sumption.
This requirement will be included as part of the environmental radiological technical specifications to be written before the facility goes into operation.
11.2.6.4 Preoperational and Permanent Meteorological Tower Location (EPA-A35)Amendment 3 to the applicant's ER, which was issued after the DES was published, shows in Figure ER 6.1.3-2 the location of the preoperational towers. In addition, the applicant stated in Section 6.1 of the ER that the tentative location of the permanent towers would be approxi-mately 2000 ft. ENE of the plant. However, since three of the cooling towers have been relocated to that area, the applicant does not know the precise location of the permanent towers but does commit to locating them to comply with the Regulatory Standard Review Plan with respect to exposure and cooling tower effects.11.2.6.5 Calculational Procedures for Computing Annual x/Q Estimates (EPA-A35)As stated in Section 6.1.1 of the draft statement, the calculational procedures used to compute annual average x/Q estimates are presented in Regulatory Guide 1.42, "Interim Licensing Policy On As Low As Practicable For Gaseous Radioiodine Releases From Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors," Rev. 1, March 1974, and consist of a Gaussian diffusion model spread uniformly over 22 1/20 sector with adjustments for building wake effects.11.2.7 Environmental Impact of Postulated Accidents Involving Radioactive Materials 11.2.7.1 Waste Disposal (AGFS-A4)The solid wastes will be shipped to Chem-Nuclear Services in Barnwell, South Carolina (Section 7.2).This facility is licensed by the state. The concerns with respect to the license provisions, existing environmental analysis report for the site, surveillance and monitoring required, etc.were examined by the state before the license was issued for this burial site.11.2.7.2 Consequences of a Postulated Class 9 Accident (DOI-A5)The current staff position on Class 9 accidents is stated in Section 7.1 of this Environmental Statement.
The applicability of the draft Reactor Safety Study (DRSS) to any specific site is also discussed in Section 7.1. The Commission's interim general statement of policy on the DRSS states, in part, that " ... the contents of the draft study are not an appropriate basis for licensing decisions.";
therefore, the staff does not use the DRSS in making a determination as the potential environmental impact of postulatedaccidents at any site.11.2.7.3 Probability Distribution of x/Q Estimates (EPA-A35)The guidance in the Annex to Appendix D, 10 CFR Part 50, is intended to approximate the 50 per-centile x/Q values. The weighting of the consequences by wind direction is performed only for the man-rem estimates to obtain average man-rem. The site boundary consequences are calculated in the downwind direction assuming 50 percentile meteorological conditions.
It should be noted that the staff does not consider the precise meteorological dispersion values critical because in-creasing the computed dose even by a factor of ten would not alter the conclusions as to the low environmental risk due to these accidents.
11-9 11.2.8 The Need for Power-Generating Capacity 11.2.8.1 Southeastern Electric Reliability Council (SERC) Responsibilities (FPC-A38)The applicant is of the opinion that the statement that SERC "coordinates the planning of the members' generation and transmission facilities" is not accurate because, as a reliability council, one of SERC's stated objectives is to "encourage the development of reliability agree-ments among the systems within the region." The applicant further states that SERC has no authority, per se, to effect such coordination.
11.2.8.2 Total Capacity for Summer Peak-MW for 1983 (FPC-A40)The "total capacity for summer peak-MW" of 18,233 for 1983 is correct in Table 8.4 of the DES.There were, however, three other errors in that table which have been corrected in the FES.11.2.9 Cost-Benefit Analysis of Alternatives 11.2.9.1 Plutonium Recycle (SCHEC-AI5)
In making the cost comparisons shown in Table 9.1 of the FES, the staff takes no economic credit for plutonium recycle.11.2.10 Evaluation of Proposed Action 11.2.10.1 Compensation to Downstream Water Users (FPC-A40)It appears to the staff that compensation to downstream water users involves the application of local State law and is not properly a subject within the jurisdiction of this licensing proceeding.
11.3 LOCATION OF PRINCIPAL CHANGES IN THE STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Topic Commented Upon ..Placement of the Discharge Structure (SCWMR-AlO)
Soil Classification (AGSC-A2)Transmission Facilities (SCLRC-A12)
Solid Waste Disposal Site (SCHEC-A-15)
Land Clearing (AGFS-A4)Topography of Site (DOI-A5)Acreage Estimates (DOI-A6)Number of Site Dams (DOI-A6)Fish Impingement from Intake Structure (DOI-A6)Effect of Chlorine on Aquatic Communities (DOI-A6)Entrainment Losses (DOI-A6,7)
Site Impoundments (EPA-A30,31)
Construction Effects Involving Runoff (EPA-A32)Alternate Biocide (EPA-A32)Windrose for the 135 ft. Level (EPA-A35)Section Where Topic is Addressed 3.4, 3.5 2.7.1.1 4.3.1.2 7.2 4.1.1 2.7.1.1 i, 1.1 4.3.2.3 3.4.2, 5.5.2.1 3.6.1, 5.5.2.1 5.5.2.1.4.3.2.4, Table 4.3 4.3.1.1, 5.3.3 5.5.2.2 2.6.2, Fig. 2.3 Contents APPENDIX' A COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENV I RONMiENTAL STATEMIENT Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
..... ...............
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service .........U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service ....U. S. Department of Commerce ..........
......................
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service ...........
U. S. Department of the Interior ........ ....................
U. S. Energy Research and Development Administration
.........
.....Department of Transportation, U. S. Coast Guard ...........
Department of Health, Education and Welfare .............
State of North Carolina .......................North Carolina Department of Administration
.............
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control ....Duke Power Company ...............
...........................
Environmental Protection Agency Federal Power Commission
............
........................
North Carolina Department of Administration
.............
A-2 A-2 A-3 A-3 A-4 A-S A-7 A-8 A-8 A-9 A-14 A-14 A-15 A-26 A-37 A-41 A-1 f a)DEPARTMENT OF THE- ARMY CHARLESTOW DISTRICT, CORPS OF ERGIWEERS P.O. BOX 919 CHARLESTON, S.C. 29402 g UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SO1L CONSERVATION SERVICE 901 Sumter Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201 STA -S"o -0 91 Srl-o-491a 50--/994.~b3/4-'V493
.9 8 April 1975 ".SANGR0" Mr. William H. Regan, Jr.Chief, Environmental Projects, 4.Branch 4 Division of Reactor Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission r7 5"0 -y e Washington, D. C. 20555 0 f92.
 
==Dear Mr. Regan:==
v 73 This is in response to your letter dated 1 April 1975 requesting our cgmments on your draft environmental statement for the Cherokee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3.We have reviewed the draft statement and have no comment at this time.Sincerely, 7 Colonel, Corps oftngineers District Engineer Copy furnished:
DALE P.HQDA (DAEN-CWP-V)
&#xfd;&#xb6; Cci':. Corps of Engineers WASH DC 20314 Deputy District Engineer Division Engineer, South Atlantic ATTN: SADYN General Counsel. (10 cys)Council on Environmental Quality Executive Office of the President 722 Jackson Place, N. W.Washington, D. C. 20006 O& 'I;.'k'e April 21, 1975 Mr. William H. Regan, Jr., Chief Environmental Projects Branch 4 Division of Reactor Licensing Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 " .
 
==Dear Mr. Regan:==
\'.,.We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the, Cherokee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2 and 3 transmitted with yourletter of April 1, 1975.In paragraph 2.7.1.1 you have referred to our old classification of Red-Yellow Podzolic of the great soil group. Under present day classi-fication we refer to this group as the Hopludults.
We have no other comments on the statement.
Sincerely yours, G. E. Huey State Conservationist
~i 52 S 01)410,7 A-2 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Th' Assistant Secretary for Science and Tcchrlology Washngton.
O.C. 20230 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20250 May 20, 1975 5~4Z April 21, 1975 Mr. William H. Regan, Jr., Chief&#xfd;Environmental Projects Branch 4 Division of Reactor Licensing Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555'/Mr. Wm. H. Regan, Jr.Chief, Environmental Projects Branch 4 Division of Reactor Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
 
==Dear Mr. Regan:==
In response to your letter of April 1, the Agricultural Research Service has reviewed the Draft Environmental Statement related to the proposed Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, of the Duke Power Company.We concur in the recommendations of your staff and have no additional comments.Sincerely,* ,) :-' :...'3 H. L. Barrows Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator
 
==Dear Mr. Regan:==
The draft environmental impacE statement for "Cherokee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3," which accompanied your letter of April 1, 1975, has been received by the Department of Commerce for review and comment.The statement has been reviewed and the following comments are offered fm-your consideration.
Ge-er-! 17&#xfd;.,entF There are no geodetic control survey monuments located within the project area. However, there may be geodetic monuments i. te t s,,.ission lina routes. if th&#xfd;ei is aly plaunle,.activity along the transmission line routes which will disturb or destroy these monuments, the National Ocean Survey (NOS)requires not less than 90 days notification in advance of such activity in order to plan for their relocation.
NOS recommends that funding for the project includes the cost of any relocation required for NOS geodetic monuments.
Specific Comments Page 3-12, paragraph 2.. Strictly speaking, the "infrequent exhausts" of radioactive noble gases from one of the three decay tanks of the gaseous waste management system should not be averaged over the entire year as was done in table 5.3 through the use of an annual average concentration factor (chi/Q). However, as a practical matter, since these releases constitute about 25 percent of the total released through I I ,- -, 5755 A-3  other mechanisms (75 percent being released more or less con-tinuously to the atmosphere), the effect of the GWMS gases on the cumultative individual doses due to gaseous effluents will not be great.Thank you for giving us an opportunity to provide these comments, which we hope will be of assistance to you. We would appreciate receiving two copies of the final statement.
Sincerely, Sidney &#xfd;RGall Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICU WOREST SERVICE Southa.tern A-, Stat. and Pr6vate Forest 1720 Pach-te Road. N.W.Atlanta. Gegora 30309 LTURE May 21, 1975&#xfd;-"-IMAY2
" cow:.';%P: L Mr. Wmi, 11. Rogan', Jr.Chief, Environmental Projects Branch 4 Division of Reactor Licensing United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 L
 
==Dear Mr. Regan:==
Here are U. S. Forest Service, State and Private Forestry comments on the draft environmental statement for Cherokee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3, Duke Power Company.Land Clearing -The forest products removed from the 1373 forested acres to be cleared in construction activities are important to the local economy and should be placed in commerce through local sales.Current advice on local market conditions is available from the S. C. 'Forestry Commission.
rEzicn .:stzz-be major construction impacts in the area selected.
The staff is to be commended for requiring immediate revegetation of denuded sites and applicant surveys every two months for compliance.
Decommissioning of the Facility -Although in accord with current Commission regulations, dcferment of concrete planning for decommissioning until near the end of the reactor's useful life is contrary to NEPA Section 101(b)(1) and places the cost burden on subsequent, non-benefiting generations.
Off-Site Waste Disposal -The 1050 drums of solid radioactive waste per each reactor which will be shipped off-site, annually, is a major operational impact and should be more completely described and evaluated in this statement.
More information is needed on the disposal site: Location, license provisions, existing environmental analysis report for the site, surveillance and monitoring required, etc.Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft environmental statement.
Sincerely, ,c- PAUL E. BU FFoi o Area Environmental Coordinator 200~O -11 b (s417 A-4 11r, 3 United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 PEP ER 75/332 MAY 16 1975
 
==Dear Mr. Regan:==
Thank you for your letter of April .1, 1975, requesting our review and comment on the draft environmental impact state-ment for the Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Cherokee County, South Carolina.Our comments are presented according to the statement format and according to subject.Geology and Mineral Resources The brief description of geology, plus an introductory reference to the applicant's Environmental Report and Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (p. 2-4, par. 2.4.1), are not adequate as a basis for estimating geologic-related impacts of construction of three nuclear reactors, entail-ing .9.3 million cubic yards of excavation in hilly terrain.A detailed review of the applicant's Environmental Report reveals that it contains little more geologic information than the draft environmental statement.
although it does provide a geologic map and cross section. Because of the recognized erosion hazard and the requirement for an erosion-control plan as a condition of permit issuance (p. ii, #7b), it would be advisable to provide more information on the distribu-tion and physical properties of geologic materials, particular-ly of surficial deposits in the 750 acres that would be most severely disturbed.
Adequate information on the foregoing subjects is presumed to be available, as reference has been made to 60 test borings completed in the immediate site area (p. 2-5, par. 2.5.2).The applicant has also referred to geologic studies at the s-ite such as test borings, test pits, in situ permeability tests, refraction profiling, in-hole wave velocity measurement, static and dynamic laboratory tests, and analyses of bearing capacity and settlement (ER, p. 6.1-29). Although results are evaluated in the PSAR, some of the subsurface data is also pertinent to an evaluation of potential environmental impacts of plant construction, at least insofar as the data reveal the 2 properties of the nine million cubic yards of subsurface materials to be excavated during construction, and to be emplaced as fill within the site boundaries.
However, little or no such data has been provided, with the exception of rock permeability.test results from borings (ER, Table 2.5.4-1)./Topography of the site, which is intimately related to potential erosion problems, has been described in a highly generalized and not wholly consistent manner and should be revised. For example, th& first mention of topography noted in the draft environmental statement is "the topography of the site ...consists mostly of gentle slopes" (p. 2-6, par.2.7.1.1).
Topographic maps provided in the applicant's Environmental Report suggest that this statement is misleading.
However, without benefit of any photography or detailed topo-graphic map in the environmental statement, it is difficult to obtain an impression of site topography from the generalized statements provided.
Later it is stated that "most of the land is gradually to steeply sloping" (p. 2-7, last par.), and still later the site is described as "located in hilly terrain" (p. 3-1; par. 1).The -us ... mL&. aubiGt+/-L, ha sIuL been evaLua'ced, but instead reference is made to the Reactor Safety Study (p. 7-2, par. 1), which includes an evaluation of impacts of Class 9 accidents based on average conditions at 100 reactor site'. However, any site posing special risks in the event of a core melt- through accident should be evaluated individually.
The environmental statement for Cherokee Nuclear Station should evaluate whether consequences of a Class 9 accident would be more .;evere than at the average site, and if so, should evaluate site-specific impacts. In particular, our review of the Reactor Safety Study indicated that it did not include a detailed evaluation of core melt accidents on the ground and surface water environment.
Further, it appeared from that report that the quantities of radionuclides entering the ground in any accident involving the core melting through the base of the reactor building would be so large as to require a detailed evaluation of the consequences on the water environment at each reactor site.CONSERVE ENERGY.553 Saie Energy and You Serve America!A-5 3 The average rate of accumulation of salt from cooling-tower operation is indicated as equivalent to that in runoff, assuming "no dilution or dispersion" (par. 5.2.2). However, the rate of horizontal or lateral movement for ground water is much lower than that of runoff or stream flow; thus there are repeated and prolonged opportunities for the infiltration of successive increments of precipitation or drift bearing salt-.within the period of time required for a given amount of ground water to move beyond the stipulated 25,000-foot radius. Computations based on data presented in the environ&#xfd;mental report (pages 2.5-7, 8, 9, 10; figures 2.5.4-2, 3, 4;and tables 2.5.4-1, 2, and 5) suggest that the velocity of movement of ground water in the area is probably on the order of, 2 to 3 feet per day. Vertical permeabilities appear to average about 15 percent of the horizontal rock permeabilities; presumably the vertical permeabilities for the fractured rocks underlying the soil horizon will be equal to or greater than those of the soil. With the high gradients of vertical perco-lation,- infiltration rates should be reasonably rapid. There-fore, the accumulation of salt within ground water and probably within the unsaturated zone should be addressed in the statement.
Sampling of-ground water for salt accumulation should be included in the cooling towers impact assessment (p.6-1 to-6-8, RH. .9). reforts if ,rill~41 nrnbhlu b.raentn!" after a considerable period of operation and after numerous periods of infiltration by precipitation (although downward movement through local, vertical rock fractures might also be surprisingly rapid). At any rate accumulations may build up over periods of years.In addition to the ground water sampling of representative wells, periodic sampling of the lower portions of typical soil profiles to determine accumulation of salt from downward percolating soil moisture or from recirculating soil moisture would be advisable.
This work in conjunction with a reasonable program of samplingof ground water may indicate the mechanism of concentration of salt in the subsurface and subsequently permit more efficient planning.The reference to natural-draft cooling towers (p. 1-1, par. 1)should be changed to mechanical-draft cooling towers. The site is described as covering 2,263Aacres on page i (par. 3a) but as 2,308 acres on page 1-1 (par. 1). A reference is made to a 450-acre exclusion area (p. 4-6, par. 1), elsewhere given as'736 acres by the applicant's information (p. 4-3, par. 2)and as 1,272 acres by the staff's estimate.
Construction of two dams is referred to on page 4-11 (par. 7), but the number should apparently be three (fig. 2.4)..Mineral production in Cherokee County has been limited to stone, clays, and sand and gravel. The environmental state-ment provides sufficient information to adequately assess mineral resources and impacts. The proposed project should have no significant impact on local mineral production or resource potential.
Fish and Wildlife Resources The proposed makeup water intake structure located in the Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir has the potential for impinging a significant proportion of the fish population in the reservoir.
Fish losses due to impingement could have a severe impact on this resource.
Therefore, alternative less damaging intake structure designs should be explored.
Pro-visions for the return of impinged fish should be considered.
The draft statement indicates that the potential exists for severe damage to the aquatic communities of the Broad River from the releases of chlorine during blowdown operations.
'nererore, mne Commission is requiring tne applicant to limit the release of residual chlorine to meet applicable EPA standards.
Procedures to effectively guarantee compliance with these standards should be described.
The discussion of fluctuating water levels in the Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir caused by the consumption of makeup water during periods of low flow should be expanded.
The final statement should include projections of the expected frequency of various reservoir drawdowns and potential effects on benthic organisms and the spawning of fishes, particularly.
centrarchids.
The effects of drawdown on recreational uses.of the reservoir should also be considered..It'is agreed that the potential for substantial entrainment losses of eggs and larvae of certain fishes in the makeup water intake exists if prolonged low river flows coincide with periods of high ichthyoplankton abundance.
This A-6 UNITED STATES ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 10545 MAY 1 6 197S situation could have a significant adverse impact on recruitment of fish downstream of the reservoir.
Therefore, the data requested by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff concerning the abundance of ichthyoplankton in the river, periods of severe entrainment potential, and the expected percent losses of eggs, larvae, and juveniles of each fish species due to entrainment should be provided in the final statement.
Environmental Effects of Site Preparation and of Station and Transmission Facilities Construction It is stated in this section that cleared areas replaced by lawns, shrubbery, and scattered groves of trees can, with proper management, support fairly dense populations of certain wildlife species and can provide attractive areas for migrating birds. A detailed discussion of the proposed management program for the Cherokee Station should be pro-vided in the final statement.
We hope these comments will assist you in preparing the final environmental statement.
Sincerely yours, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior Mr. William H. Regan, Jr.Chief, Environmental Projects Branch 4 Division of Reactor Licensing Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555/Wm. H. Regan, Jr., Chief Environmental Projects Branch 4 Division of Reactor Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
 
==Dear Mr. Regan:==
This is in response to your letter dated April 1, 1975, inviting the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Statement, NUREG -75/017 related.to the proposed Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3.We have reviewed the subject statement and have no comments.Thank you for the opportunity to review this Statement.
Sincerely, Assessments and Coordination Officer Division of Biomedical and Environmental Research cc: CEQ (5)o5UTIOG03 A-7 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
_______ UNITED STATES COAST GUARD -.. COASTGUAEDE(G-WS/73)WIASHINGTON, DC.1 ...... oE(202) 426-2262-AY 2 2.1975-. MAY 2 7 1 9 7 5  t.M r. W in .H .Regan, Jr. Mr.' U1h -r./Chief, Environmental Projects Branch 4 chief Division of Reactor Licensing
..Divis Nucle DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION.
AND WELFARE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON.
DC. =01 MAY 2 3 1975 jilliam H. PRegan, Jr.E, Environrxntal Projects Branch 4 ion of Reactor Licensing Pr Regulatory Carmission ngton, D. C. 20555 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washi
 
==Dear Mr. Regan:==
This is in response to your letter of 1 April 1975 addressed to Mr. B. 0. Davis concerning a draft environmental impact statement for Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Cherokee County, South Carolina.The concerned operating administrations and staff of the Department of Transportation have reviewed the material submitted.
We have no comments to offer nor do we have any objection to this project.The opportunity to review this draft statement is appreciated.
Sincerely, W. E, CLD'r Captain, U. S .Depl,! f.F:. ' -7:"
;
 
==Dear ,==
1r. Regan: Ve have reviewed the draft Envirornnontal Irgact Statement concerning the Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3. On the basis of our review, we offer the followring conTents: 1. We reco-,rend the sarpling of poultry and eggs be, included in the environrental noanitoring program. Also, since deer, quail, and rabbits are prevalent in the area, they should be sampled, at least on an annual basis, during the pre-operational monitoring program preferably during the hunting season. PLabbits' should also beL sarpled at rancbm.2. We found no specific nontion in the statenrnt of the bupact on medical and health facilities during either the construction or the operational phase of thie project. ',!his siould defintely be wneioned in the final statcrent.
Also, the final stat-a'rnt should include a systia-ati.c section concerning tne steps to be taken to assure adequate rrcical facilities will Dc available to p-rsonnel who nsal ba injured, incuur raCdiation injury, or be contaminated by radioactivity during the operational stage.3. More infonration should be included in the statement concerning the irleact of canstruction and operational staff requiressents on facilities and services withi particular attention to public health and sedical servicess within the affected anea.Thank you for the 6pportunity to review this docuent. aire Custard Director Office of Environasental
'ffairs 5757 575 A-8 Thank your for the opportunity to review theStatement.
\...: , ..... :,,Sincerely, JAMES B. EDWARDS Offit of t rnrIVISON OF AMINISTRATIO GOVERNOR Edgar A Brown Building State Clearinghouse May 27, 1975 Columbia, South Carolina 29201 rCl~j r/cs Mr. Nilliam H. Regan, Jr., Chief Enclosures Environmental Projects Branch 4 Division of Reactor Lecensing United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission IWashington, D. C. 20555 Re: Docket No. 50-491, 50-492, and 50-493.
 
==Dear Sir:==
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement related to the proposed Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 has been reviewed by the State Clearinghouse.
The Statement was referred to the following agencies for comment: Department of Archives & History State Archeologist Department of Health & Environmental Control State Public Service Commission Department of Wildlife & Marine Resources S. C. Land Resources Conservation Commission U. S. Forest Service S. C. Department of Agriculture S. C. Nuclear Advisory Council S. C. Water Resources Commission The Division of Radiological Health, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control has not yet completed their comments.Their comments will be forwarded to you in the near future.Enclosed for your information and consideration in preparing the final statement are comments from the Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, the State Land Resources Conservation Commission, the Department of Archives and History, and the Public Service Commission.
A-9
,\ South Carolina&#xfd;%,11STATE ApPLICATI0ON
'P' -roject Notification
& Review System IE FE-" PROJECT NOTIFICATION REFERRAL Clearinghouse fi Use Only TO: Wildlife and Marine-Resources COiiTRwL E Post Office Box 167 ST. NO FY Columbia, SC 29202 01 2 4 : APR- 0 S. C. ULDLIFE & SUSPENSE DATE.4S044 1c lESOU .CCS APAR-i,}: The attached project notification is being referred to your agencyin 4/30 Mr. Elmer C. Whitten, Jr.Project Notification 01 2004 5 July I .l97S System coordinates the review of proposed Federal or federally assisted development programs and projects.
Please provide comnments below,,relatina the proposed project to the plans, policies, and programs of your agency. All comments will be reviewed and compiled by the State Clearinghouse.
Any questions may be directed to this office 'y phone at 758-2946.Please return this form prior to the above suspense date to: A State Clearinghouse Division of Administration 1205 Pendleton Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Signature E__er__________n Name Elmer C. Whitten, Jr.RESULTS OF AGENCY REVIEW Q PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH AGENCY PLANS AND POLICIES AGENCY REQUESTS CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS COMMENTS " ,.sirT[ AGENCY COMMENTS ON CONTEMPLATED' APPLICATION AS FOLLOWS: Personnel of the S. C. Wildlife and Marine Resources have reviewed the Draft Environmental Statement by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission relating to the proposed Cherokee Nuclear Station and wish to comment as follows.The Cherokee Nuclear Station is a Duke Power project to construct three nuclear units and plant in Cherokee County. adjacent to the Broad River and Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir.
Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir is a three hundred acre river run reservoir used primarily for the production of hydroelectric energy.The lake is divided into two small backwater areas by the Broad River. The backwater areas contain large quantities of silt deposited by the river, particularly during periods of heavy flooding.Sedimentation is so advanced in many areas that the original lake has (I. enara.e continuation she s if necessary)
FOR T!1 REV , "*/S ,,NAT.&CIRE:
DATE: .july 1, 1975 T TI1 '---1<fOJTtVE DIRrCTOR_
PHONE: 758-6536{n-ntAt-d by hrush snd trees. The backwater areas are characteristic of a normal shallow impoundment except for greater than normal circulation.
Turbidity in the impounded areas is reflective of the Broad River in being quite high.The Broad River above and below the reservoir is wide and shallow with alternate areas of pool and shoal habitat.The water of both the -river and impoundment is generally of high quality. Productivity in both areas is somewhat lower, due to the high turbid;ity.
Recreational use of the lake and river is limited. Pleasure toating and duck -hunting would occupy the lowest priority of ruses. While fishing is the most common activity on the lake, it ioo is judged to be limited. The primary fishing pressure is toward the various species of Lepomis and Ictalurids with an occasional catch of large largemouth bass, Micropterus salnoides.
According to local conservation officers, most people choose to travel to either Lake Greenwood, Wylie or Cherokee rather than fish the Ninety-Nine Islands Lake or the Broad River. There are no data avail-able to determine if this is due to poor fishing or the somewhat low esthetic value of the area as opposed to others.In addition to the lake and river, two small streams with flows of one'and three cubic feet per second are to be effected by the project. These streams contain primarily Cyprinid and would be classified as dace-trickle streams.The Cherokee Nuclear Station will consist of three nuclear reactors used to produce 3,817 MWt each. Steam turbine generators will utilize the heat to produce 1,280 MTWt of electrical power-for each unit. The cooling of exhaust steam will be by circular mechanical-draft wet cooling towers utilizing makeup water from the Broad River ,directly above the Ninety-Nine Islands Dam. Construction of the plant and the various ponds for storing nuclear service water and makeupwater will involve 32 acres of backwater from the Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir and, the two small streams previously mentioned."Low level" radioactive waste, diluted with river water and cooling tower blowdown water, will be discharged from a structure approximately 1200 feet down stream from the Ninety-Nine.
Islands Dam. The water discharoed will have a summer temperature of 90oF but a winter temperature of 70&deg;F. Construction of the discharge structure will require the placement of a temporary cofferdam.
During the construction phase of this project, siltation resulting from clearing and other construction activities will increase, but assurances are made that all means possible will be used to control and limit this. The adverse effects resulting from siltation should A-10  Mr. Elmer C. Whitten, Jr.Project Notification 01 2004 5 July 1, 1975South Carolina Sou.t Caol s STATE APPLICATION
'7'., Project Notification
& Review System IDENTIFIER PROJECT NOTIFICATION REFERRAL Clearinghouse Use Only TO: St, Land Resources Conservation CONTROL NUMBER Post Office Box 11708 DIST. NO. FY Columbia, SC 29211 M 01 E]F be only short term tO the biological community and longer for its habitat. Plant construction will totally destroy two dace-trickle streams.Fish impingement data should be made available to the Wildlife De-partment for a minimum of one year's normal operation.
Recent data from the Keowee and Robinson projects indicate that impingement is causing significant losses, and we should be aware of this in order to request changes when possible.
Plankton losses due to entrainment are considered to be light and of minor significance.
Losses in a river system should not be considered as critical asthose in an impoundment.
State and Federal standards as related to discharge temperature are being met; however, it would be desirable to return the discharge temperature to an even lower level. The thermal plume particularly during the spring could have some adverse effects on spawning fish.It is requested that Duke Power justify or explain as to why this can't be done.After reviewing the draft statement as well as Duke Power Company's environmental statement, we can see little justification for objecting to the project other than those previously mentioned, which are considered important.
If all EPA water quality requirements are met and the project is constructed and operated with a high degree of responsibility, then the adverse impacts to the freshwater fisheries resource should be at a minimum.The proposed development site is in the Broad River division of the Central Piedmont Game Management Area and includes some very fine game lands that now support very good populations of both big and small game.Clearing about 1,373 acres of mixed forest habitat, as is planned for this project, will have considerable detrimental effect on game populations in the immediate vicinity of the project.Careful planning in plant materials used to stabilize transmission line right-of-way's road sides, and other areas to be planted after construction is completed, will help mitigate for the loss of natural wildlife habitat.Planting of selected plant materials on the edges of ponds will be helpful to the Waterfowl population that use the Broad River.SUSPENSE DATE 4/30 The attached project notification is being referred to your agency in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-95. This L t ..%. _---I System coordinates the review of proposed Federal or federally assisted development programs and projects.
Please provide connents below, relatino the proposed project to the olans, policies, and programs of your agency. All comments will be reviewed and compiled by the State Clearinghouse.
Any questions may be directed to this office by phone at 758-2946.Please return this form prior to the above suspense date to: r2..- .Division of Administration Signaturep-'
''"" V 1205 Pendleton Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Name Elmer C. Whitten. Jr.RESULTS OF AGENCY REVIEW 5 PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH AGENCY PLANS AND POLICIES 51 AGENCY REQUESTS CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS COMMENTS 5 AGENCY COMMENTS ON CONTEMPLATED APPLICATION AS FOLLOWS: ATTACHMENT
... APp is 97 -t L"'; -"0N OF ,ti ,SRATION (Use senarate continuation sheets if necessary)
JATjr :cs FOR THE REVIIVI G AG5NCY: SIGNATURE:
/1' /c,/ A T ITLE : DATE: iaZ. -/( i/'5"-PHONE: 7," 7 / -?A Form 7 (4/15/74)A-l1 April 14, 1975 Page ii, paragraoh 7.b. This statement could be considered to be all-inclusive in so f, as erosion is concerned.
it is a very general statement implying good intentions to control erosion whenever and wherever it develops.4,3.1.1 The Site. One needs a detailed contour map and a good understanding of the constructi on plans (including the construction schedule) plus a visit to the site to adequately judge the erosion control plans presented in this section.-
Both ter.porary and permanent erosion control measures need to be presented in more detail before their adequacy can be determined-.
There measures could be mechanical or vegetative or a combination of the two.4.3.1.2 Transmission Facilities.
This section needs to state more specifically the temporary and permanent erosion control measures that will be used and where they will be applied. Strip maps of the areas to be cleared and treated could be used to good advantage. , Seeding mixtures and schedules developed in cooperation with local authorities are likely to be more affective and practical than the seedings listed. Local mixtures and schedules would have the advantages of being better adopted to local soil and site conditions, of being designed for more specific purposes, and of being better suited for the time of year the vegetation is to be planted.Such information should be used with mechanical erosion control practices.
The net result should be more efficient planning and quicker establishment of erosion control. Topsoilirg may not always be necessary and can be uneconomical.
Special attention must be given to drainage-.
:ays crossing or paralleling access roads,.especially those on steep slopes and which are'ikely to be heavily traveled.A, , 1&75 D "1 .. OF Q1D1J.tI, "ATIO South Carolina r, :CiSTATE APPLICATION
' Project Notification
& Review System IDENTIFIER PROJECT NOTIFICATION REFERRAL Clearinghouse
'Use Only TO: Public Service Commission CONTROL NUMBER P. 0. Box 11649 DIST. NO. FY Columbia, SC 29211 0 2004 SUSPENSE DATE-4/30 The attached project notification is being referred to your agency in _ 4/30 accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-95. This System coordinates the review of proposed Federal or federally assisted development pregrems and projects.
Please provide coennents below, relatino the proposed projec't to the plans, policies, and programs of your agency. All comments will be reviewed and compiled by the State Clearinghouse.
Any questions may be directed to this office by phone at 75852946.Please return this form prior to the above suspense date to: State Clearinghouse ) " Division of Administration.
Signature____________
1205 Pendleton Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Name Elmer C. Whitten, Jr.RESULTS OF AGENCY REVIEW APR 1 I El PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH AGENCY PLANS AND POLICIES AGENCY REQUESTS CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS tOMMENTS .I C] AGENCY COMMENTS ON CONTEMPLATED APPLICATION AS FOLLOWS: The Catawba Nuclear Station is included in the 10-20 year forecast requirement of Duke Power Company, and the Public Service Commission is of the opinion that the Station should be constructed to provide electric service to be required on planned completion date for the.facility.(Use separate continuation sheets if necessary)
FOR THE REVIE141E AGENCY:/SIGNATURE:
WL'>--. 2/.,;Z--c
-DATE: April 10, 1975 TITLE: Director-Administrative Services PHONE: 758-3565:-7A Form 7 (4/15/74)A-12 South Carolina-STATE APPLICATION
~ ._ Project Notification
& Review System IDENTIFIER PROJECT NOTIFICATION REFERRAL Clearinghouse Use Only TO: Dr. Charles Lee " DiSCONTROL NUMBER Dept of Archives & History DIST. NO. FY Post Office Box 11669 "APR 1 0 1975 2 [ 0 ]Columbia, SC 29211 S.C. DEPARTM'ENT OF H HISTORY. SUSPENSE DATE 4/30 The attached project notification is being referred to your acency in 4130 accordance with Office of Management -and Budget Circular A-95. This System coordinates the review of proposed Federal or federally assisted development program!and projects.
Please provide comments below, relating the proposed project to the plans, policies, and programs of your agency. All comments will be reviewed and comoiled by the State Clearinghouse.
Any questions may be directed to this office by phone at 758-2946.Please return this form prior to the above suspense date to: State Clearinghouse t .Division of Administration Signature , ;. .-.1 2 0 5 P e n d l e t o n S tr -,:c " " Columbia, South Corolina 29201 Name Elmer C. Whitten, Jr.RESULTS OF AGENCY REVIEW 0 PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH AGENCY PLANS AND POLICIES 1 /AGENCY REQUESTS CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS COMMENTS AGENCY COMMENTS ON CONTEMPLATED APPLICATION AS FOLLOWS: No Renster properties appear t, be a ec ted by this project. We know c, no other hlztcrical includir.;
those oligiblu for the National Register,, that need to be taken into acO..uzt ..0,i- 2oo4Ly, .J-It..j W.L54A Weoees,n,:6,obia, S. C.ws INt'sr, J. socm sel Hill, S. C.Y&. Boase E. Ce..e...-e&#xfd;
..l,,sse, 0; C.*ljho Head lhhad. S. C.sc-cRe NVAnT7 J. Bio-0 i.).elee&#xfd;,h S. 0., e-. Bc-u CD. Onec:AS.&#xfd;d~dd, S. C.i.) L--io E. Posrc ,slonbio, S. C.S.y, .C.LUohobia, S. C.SOUTH CAROLINA NUCLEAR ADVISORY COUNCIL Chioi-ma N, i ce Chcir ns.?COLUMBIA April 14, 1975 Tb 0 State Hou.xe P. 0. Box 142 Colmbl., S. C. 29202 ci 3,.FI 17 5I7 APR 15 1975 p,1VISioN' OF AADIMNLA FATIOU Mr. Elmer W'hitten, Jr.S. C. State Clearin_.house Office of the Governor -Div. of Administration Room 455 -Edgar A. Bromn Building 12(5 Pendleton Street Colu7bia, South Carolina 29201
 
==Dear Mr. Whitten:==
Enclosed are copies of the following info-nation:
: 1. MIinutes of the Iarch 4, 1975, meeting.2. A GE SLrmary of the rFuel Recovery Industry.3. Spent Fuel Disposition Capabilities.
I have also include exerpts from the lOC Draft Environenntal Statement for the Duke Cherokee Nuclear Station. The full copy we received will be at DhEC. M,1r. Wlhitten has ac-ked for ocrmnents by April 30. I will notify Rr. Whitten by copy of this letter that w..e will discuss at our meeting of May 6, and return any canrnents after that meeting.Very truly yours, W. \Wlilloughby Chainran WW:bo EDclosures (Use separ continuation shos if necessary).
FOR THE REVIEWING/iCY. DATE: /SIGNATURE:
DATE: ?''T ITLE: ( PHONE: 4 Forme 7 (4/15/74)A- 13 d]North Carolina Department of Administration OFFICE OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS EDWIN DECKARD DIRECTOR BOARD MEMBERS Lachlan L.. Hyatt, Chairman William M. Wilson. Vice-Chairman I. DeQuincey Newman. Secretary W. A. Barnette.
Jr.&#xfd;Leonard W. Douglas, M.D.J. Lorin Mason, Jr., M.D.Caroline G. Newhall JAMES E. HOLSHOUSER, JR., GOVERNOR 0 BRUCE A. LENTZ, SECRETARY June 3, 1975 Hr. William H. Regan, Jr., Chief Environmental Projects Branch 4 Division of Reactor Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 205S5 V- 47 Re: Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Docket Nos. STN 50-491, 50-492, & 50-493., SCH No. 038-75
 
==Dear Mr. Regan:==
The above referenced draft environmental impact statement has been reviewed by the Departments of Natural and Economic Resources, Human Resources, Military and Veterans Affairs, and Southwestern Planning and Development Commission
-Region A.At this time, the State Clearinghouse has no objection to this project.Sincerely, Jane Pettus (Miss)Clearinghouse Supervisor JP:mw SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIROl V'IENTAL CONTROL E. KENNETH AYCOCK. M.D., M.P.H.. COMMISSIONER J. MARION SIMS BUILDING'-
26a BULL STREET COLUMBIA.
SOUTH CAROUNA 29201 June 5, 1975 Director Division of Reactor Licensing.
.,, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Coemission Washington, D. C. 20555
 
==Dear Sirs:==
Having reviewed the document entitled, "Draft Environmental Statement related to the proposed Cherokee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3," the State of South Carolina's Division of Radiological Health has the following inquiries and/or comments: 1. In one of the more recent nuclear licensing:actions we have encountered an argument to the effect that discharge of liquid radioactive effluent by volatilization rather than as a liquid discharge has less detrimental environ-rdental effects, particularly when dowrntream, usage of water includes drinking water supplies.
Is such a concept more practicable with the Cherokee facility?2. Referencing Figure 3.7a we would inquire whether or not it is practicable to install filtration on the side of the gas decay tanks prior to discharge through the unit.vents?3. The discussion on page 5-15 concerned with exposure to popu.-lation deriving their drinking water frdm the Broad River is limited to those persons within a 50 mile radius. This seems quite arbitrary when the City of Columbia, South Carolina, derives its water supply from the Broad River at a point several miles below the 50 miles radius. Total man-rem contribution should include this population center. Consistent with coament one above, it may be more practicable to avoid liquid discharge for an alternate vapor discharge.
lie WEST JONE S STREET RALEIGH 27603 BgiB) 829-2594 C..u A-14 Director Division of Reactor Licensing June 5, 1975 P. 0. so. all.DuxuE Powirm COMIPANY GENERAL OFFICES 422 SOUTH CHURCH STREET CW.RLOrIE, N. C. 28201 TELEPHONE:
AREA 704 314.4011 4. As a matter of correction on page 7-4 Morehead, Kentucky, is mentioned as the nearest radioactive waste disposal site, in actuality the nearest disposal site is at Barnwell, South Carolina.5. In the discussion of alternatives, we note that it seems to be a conclusion that plutonium recovered in the nuclear fuels cycle will be utilized as fuel in subsequent fuel loads. It is not clear how much of the economic advantage realized from nuclear versus fossil generation depends upon plutonium recycle. We think that this should be made explicit in view of the Ccnmaission's present indecision with respect to plutonium recycle.We appreciate the opportunity afforded to conmaent upon the draft environmental inpact statement.
Should further clarification of our comments be desired, please feel at liberty to contact us.Very truly yours, k/IHe;Sb &#xfd;~eia'lyv Dtirao Division of Fadiological Health SB:bo cc: Mr. Elmer'Whitten S. C. State Clearinghouse Office Of the Governor June 6, 1975 Mr. William H. Regan, Jr., Chief Environmental Projects Branch 4 Division of Reac~tor Licensing United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 RE: Project 81 Cherokee Nuclear Station Docket No's STN 50-491, 50-492, and 50-493 File No. CK-1444.00
 
==Dear Mr. Regan:==
Please refer to your letter of April 1, 1975, enclosing the Notice of Availability of the NRC Draft Environmental Statement for Cherokee Nuclear Station.Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51, we are enclosing our comments on the subject document.We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Statement and trust that the Commission will deem it fit to include these comments in the Final Environmental Statement.
YouTs very truly, C. Dail, Chief Engineer Civil-Environmental Division LCD/DBB/sm Enclosures
-10 copies* "2-"" -. Ut A-15
 
==SUMMARY==
AND CONCLUSIONS DES. Item 3, Page i c. The heat dissipation system, including NSW Cooling Towers, will require a maximumn water make up of 55,814 gpm of which 50,514 gpm will be consumed for drift and evaporation losses. (ER Figure 3.3.0-1, Amend-ment 3.)d. The DES in this paragraph states, "The applicant will not withdrew make up water when river flows are less than 470 cfs". It, however, fails to mention that under low flow conditions, i.e., when the natural stream flow is less than about 470 cfs (the 7QIO flow at the Gaffney gage), augmentation of river flow equal to plant consumptive require-ments will be provided through releases from existing Duke owned up-stream reservoirs.
DES, Item 7. Page ii c. The intake structure is designed to conform to EPA guidelines. (Details submitted in Amendment 3, Subsection 10.2.2.)DUKE POWER COMPANY d. A selected railroad route will be determined by a comparative route study.COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT CHEROKEE NUCLEAR STATION Docket Nos. STN 50-491, 50-492, and 50-493 June 6, 1975 CNS-DES A- 16
,I. I NIITR0DUCTION
: 2. THE SITE 1.1 THE PROPOSED PROJECT 2.2 REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHY, LAND AND WATER USE Page 1-1 page 2-1 Condenser cooling will be accomplished through the use of circular The DES states that a house count was made in Cherokee County In November, mechanical draft cooling towers and not natural draft cooling towers as 1974. The house count was actually made in November, 1973.stated in the DES.The DES states that population projections for the years 1983 and 2022 were made. Population projections are made for the years 1984 and 2024.2.6 METEOROLOGY Page 2-5 The DES states that climatological data from Charlotte, Greenvllle-Spartan-burg Airport, and onsite data have been used. Climatic data from Greenville Airport and from Spartanburg Airport have been used in addition to data from sources noted.The DES states that on-site wind data for the period September 11, 1973, through April 30, 1974 have been used. All analyses based on on-site data have been updated to include one full year of data. This comment refers to all references to on-site meteorological data in DES.The DES incorrectly states that the "fastest mile" wind speed recorded at Charlotte was 74 mph. The "fastest mile" wind speed recorded at Charlotte through 1974 was 59 mph. The ER has been amended to include thu "fastest mile" wind speed recorded at Greenville Airport -79 mph.2.7 ECOLOGY OF THE SITE AND ENVIRONS The DES states that the Applicant has provided only preliminary data on plant species composition of forests. Applicant has provided additional data in Amendments 2 and 3 of the ER.Page 2-8 The DES states that lowest flows in the Broad River occur from June through.September.
As shown in ER Figure 2.5.1-5, the period of lowest flow is July through September.
Page 2-11 The DES states that a list of zooplankton taxa collected is presented in Table 2.7.2-3. The list is actually presented in Table 2.7.2-4.CNS-DES 1-I CNS-DES 2-t A-17 Additional technical corr-"ions shouldbe made'as noted: P. 2-11. Paragraph
: 1. Reference 1 does not address aquatic ecology P. 2-11. Paragraph
: 4. The chironomid, Demicryntochironomus sp., is actually nr. Demicryptochironomus sp. n. which is an undescribed genus.P. 2-11. Paragraph
: 8. Ictalurus sp. should be Ictalurus spp.P. 2-11. Paragraph
: 8. Clupeids should not be capitalized.
Centrarchids is mksspelled.
P. 2-11. Paragraph
: 9. Dorosoma sp, should be Dorosoma spp. and Notropis'sp. should be Notroais spp, Shiners are not &#xa3;bundant in the reservoir except for Notropin niveus in the main channel where current exists.P. 2-12. Table 2.2. The following names are misspelled:
Clinos&#xfd;tomus funduloldes.
Hyboenathus nuchalis and Etheostoma thalassinum.
P. 2-13. Paragraph
: 2. Eliminate
: n. sp. after Hybopsis.
Etheostoma thalassinum is misspelled twice. The Hybopsis n. sp. appears to be uncommon rather than common.3. THE STATION 3.3 STATION WATER USE Page 3-1.ER Figure 3.3.0-I and Table 3.3.0-1, referenced in the DES, have been revised per Amendment 3.3.4 HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM Page 3-2 The DES states that blowdown will be discharged about 1200 feet downstream of the Ninety-Nine Islands Dam. This location has been changed to downstream and adjacent to the west abutment of the dam, as shown in ER Figure 3.1.O-2, ER Figure 3.1.0-4, ER Figure 3.4.1-3, Amendment 3.The DES states that the nine towers will be located immediately west of the reactor buildings.
The location of the towers has been revised to six Immediately west of the reactor buildings and three immediately east, as shown in ER Figure 3.4.0-1 and ER Figure 3.4.1-1, Amendment 3.Page 3-3 The DES states that the three units at CNS may use a total of 600-1200 pounds of chlorine per day. The three units at CNS may use 1600-3200 pounds of chlorine per day, as discussed in Subdivision 3.6.1.1 of ER The conceptual design of the intake structure, shown in Figure 3.4 and 3.5 of the DES has been revised per ER Figure 3.4.4-I, ER Figure 3.4.4-2 and ER Figure 3.4.4-3, Amendment 3.Page 3-6 The discharge structure, shown in Figure 3.6 DES. has been redesigned per ER Figure 3.4.1-4, Amendment 3.3.5 RADIOACTIVE WASTE SYSTEMS Page 3-9a Figure 3.7 indicates the presence of four 112,000 gallon holdup tanks, whereas one 450,000 gallon tank will be provided.Page 3-11 The DES states that the Applicant has estimated the normal releases to be 177 Ci/year per reactor of tritium. The Applicant's estimate is 77 Ci/year per reactor.Page 3-114 The DES states that the turbine bypass capacity will be 40 percent. The. turbine bypass capacity is 55 percent, as stated in Subdivision l0.4.1.3, PSAR" CNS-DES 2-2 CNS-DES 3-1 A-18 N 3.6 CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDAL EFFLUENTS Page 3-15 Discharges from the CNS Waste Water Treatment System have been revised.Details are provided in ER Amendment 3.Page 3-17 The DES states that the biocide is added to the suction side of the CCW pumps. The biocide will be added to the cooling tower basin outlets.The DES states.that the Applicant is required to restrict the discharge of total residual chlorine to not more than 2 hr/day. Applicant's contacts with EPA and state water quality people have produced verbal interpretations of chlorination limitations in terms of 2 hr/day/unit.
EPA officials recog-nize that some plants may require chlorination at higher concentrations and for periods of time that exceed 2 hr/day/unit.
Operating experience with cooling towers on Cliffside Unit 5 demonstrates the summer season need for a free chlorine residual of 1.5 ppm maintained for one hour. Time requirements for buildup and for disappearance of a total chlorine residual will exceed a period of 2 hours/day/unlt.
Biocidal requirements for CCW at Cherokee probably will exceed the requirements at Cllffside because Cliffside uses coagulated, clarified water, while Cherokee will use settled water from a more polluted part of Broad River.Since EPA is considering chlorination requirements on a case by case basis, the restrictions on the use and discharge of chlorinated effluents should not be finalized in the language of Section 3.6.1, page 3-17 paragraph 3.Compliance with Section 3.6.1 in the Draft Environmental Statement and Table 5.11 would require. treatment of cooling tower blowdown.3.9 TRANSPORTATION CONNECTIONS Page 3- 20 A comparative study of four alternative rail routes is being made to determine the selected route.3.10 CONSTRUCTION PLAN Page 3-2 The construction plan has been revised. Construction activitiesat the site are now scheduled to begin in November 1976, with the pouring of first permanent concrete foundations starting in September 1978. The revised construction manpower requirement is presented in ER Table 4.1.1-3, Amendment 3.4. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF SITE PREPARATION AND OF STATION AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION 4.1 IMPACTS ON LAND USE Page 4-1 The DES states that the impacts on land use are based on approximations.
Applicant's estimates indicate that the total 1arnd area involved in actual construction of temporary and permanent facilities will be about 1441 acres categorized as follows: Station and Facilities (including three access roads and three ponds)Transmission line right-of-way Railroad spur right-of-way 661 acres 695 acres 85 acres 14141 acres The area within the site boundary fence is 1209 acres, while acreage owned by the Applicant is 1560 acres.The DES states that a total of about 751 acres of possible wildlife habitat will be completely cleared during construction.
Applicant's estimate is 661 acres&#xfd;The DES states that grading and site excavation will involve approximately 9,700,000 yd.3 inothe station yard. Applicant estimates the quantity to be 9,340,000 cubic yards.Page 4m2 Figure 4.1 has been revised. Details are provided in ER, Amendment 3.Page 4-4 The DES states that the total acreage cleared will reduce the total forested acreage within five miles by 3.7 percent.A total of 1296 acrds will be cleared for station construction and operation; transmission lines (550 acres), station site (661 acres), and access railroad (85 acres). This will reduce the forest acreage (36,725)within a five mile radius by 3.5 percent.CNS-DES 3-2 4-1 A-19 4.3 EFFECTS ON ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS page 4-6 The DES recommends the relocation of construction buildings closer to the center of the exclusion area.Due to the facts that the Unit 3 Cooling Tower Yard has been relocated to the east side of the plant and that there will be excess excavation material to spoil (ERSubsection L.l.i), Applicant feels that the selected locations of the cleared areas and construction buildings are suitable to adequately support construction.activities.
Other factors that will prevent Applicant from moving the construction buildings closer to the generation station are: 1. The slopes are laid back during excavation so that much of thi area around the buildings cannot be used until the backfill can be placed against the buildings.
: 2. Applicant is trying to keep'most of the construction bui.ldings on the east side to better isolate Units I and 2 after they are operating from the units that are still under construction.
: 3. Construction buildings located under high' voltage transmission lines will have to be moved before the lines can be energized.
To prevent moving the buildings around, Applicant has not located any under transmission lines.4. Many construction buildings are scheduled to be built before much yard piping is complete.
Applicant has located the buildings so that only a small amount of yard piping interferes with the locations.
Page 4-8-Applicant has developed its right-of-way seeding practices through many years of experimentation with different cover species and feels that the current use of fescue, millet, Sericea lespedeza, etc., is the best mixture for achieving rapid growth over the corridor while keeping erosion at a minimum. Also, this mixture provides suitable food and cover for certain wildlife 'pecies.However, the Applicant does modify its seeding mixture depending on terrain, soil type, climate, etc., and will consider these factors when clearing the Cherokee rights-of-way.
Applicant feels that Bicolor lespedeza, in large amounts; is not parti-cularly suitable right-of-way cover because its tall growth may interfere with the operation of the lines.Page 4-10.Largemouth bass and bluegill are tolerant of turbidity, It is doubtful that much change will occur in species composition because of temporary turbidity increases.
The DES states that all domestic sewage will be pumped to the Waste Water Treatment System dur'ng the construction period. All treated construction sewage will not be pumped to the Waste Water Treatment System because: 1. The WWT System is not scheduled to be complete in time to meet this requirement.
: 2. The cost of running sewer pipe over such a distance would be very high.Applicant feels that the effluent from an extended aeration-type sewage treatment is suitable to discharge into the NSW Pond or the Intake Sedimentation Basin through the yard drainage system.v The effluent will, at all times, meet Cherokee County and South Carolina State Standards.
Page 4-11 The DES states that suspended solids will settle out of the backwaters of the Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir.
Applicant believes that the sedimentation will occur in the west backwaters of the reservoir.
Those to th6 east shodld be little affected.4.4 IMPACT ON PEOPLE Page 4-12*The DES states that the total construction payroll will be over $224-million.
Applicant estimates the payroll at over $4 2 -million.4.5 MEASURES AND CONTROLS TO LIMIT ADVERSE EFFECTS DURING CONSTRUCTION Page 4-14 The DES states that solid construction wastes will either be buried or transported offs'ite.
Solid construction waste will be either burned, buried or transported offsite.CNS-DES 4-2 CNS-DES 4-3 A-20; 8 Aim 5. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF OPERATION OP THE STATION AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES
*5.2 IMPACTS ON WATER USE Page 5-2 The DES states that the maximum consumptive use of l11 cfs of Broad River water will be caused by the operation of CNS. According to the revised estimates of station water use (ER Table 3.3.0-I, Amendment 3 and ER Table 3.3.0-2, Amendment 3), the maximum consumptive use by evaporation and drift is about 1.12 cfs. This amounts to 4.5% of the average flow and 23.8%of the 7010 flow. As stated in comments on paragraph d; Item 3, Page i, DES, when the natural stream flow at Gaffney gage on Broad River is less than the 710 flow, augmentation of the river flow equal to the plant consumptive requirements will be provided.The DES refers to the South Carolina Water Classification Sturh'-rds System and states that the temperature of heated and normal waters siha! not exceed 90 0 F. According to the referenced Standards, Section III, rule ', the temperature of heated and normal water in the portion of Broad -7r above its junction with Kings Creek shall not exceed 84 0 F. monthly ,'" 5.3 PERFORMANCE OF THE HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM Page 5-3 The point of discharge for the blowdown has been changed as shown in Figure 3.4.1-3, Amendment
: 3. The thermal plume analysis has now bten performed by prug flows. (ER Subdivision 5.1.2.1, Amendment 3)5.4 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS Page 5-10 The'X/Q values as well as the locations of the farms, dairies, and goats noted in Table 5.3 have been revised. Details are presented in ER Sub-section 2.6.3.2, Amendment 3.The DES states the duck ingestion dose was calculated to be 2.4 X iO 2 millirads/year.
Duke's estimate is 0.6 millirads/year (ER Table 5.2.3-1).Staff's estimate is too high.Page 5-13 Table 5.5 does not conform to Appendix I. References to proposed Appendix I should be changed throughout the chapter.5.5 NONRADIOLOGICAL EFFECT Oil ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS Page 5-17 The DES recomumends that the Applicant consider selective herbicide treatment.
The Applicant does keep current files on the use of herbicides for controlling undesirable vegetation on rights of way and has used herbicides in the past. Applicant agrees that herbicides are effective' in brush control and may in the future implement the selective uie of herbicides as a right of way maintenance tool.Page 5-18 In the revised design of the make up water intake structure (ER Figure 3.4.4-2, Amendment 3), the training wall and the submerged veir have been eliminated in accord with the comments of the Staff.5.6 IMPACTS ON PEOPLE Page 5-26 The DES states that cooling tower noise levels are in Section &#xfd;. of the ER. Noise levels are presented in Subsection 5.1.6.The DES states that about 200 permanent employees with an annual payroll of about $5.6-million will be required to operate the station. About 250 full-time employees suth an annual payroll of about $8.2-million will be required to operate the station. (Subdivision 8.1.2.3, Amendment 2)CNS-DES 5-1 CNS-DES 5-2 A-21
: 6. ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND MONITORING PROGRAMS 6.1 'PREOPERATIONAL PROGRAMS Page 6-1 The DES states that onsite joint frequency distributions were submitted with wind data from the 1350 ft. level of the onsite tower. The data is from the 135 ft. level.In regard to the terrestrial monitoring program as addressed in the DES, the Applicant has the following comments: Section 6.1.2.1 Paragraph I -Applicant is developing a monitoring program to assess cooling tower drift effects.Paragraph 2 -Data on density, dominance and frequency have been submitted in ER Tables 2.7.1-4, 2.7.1-6, 2.7.1-8, 2.7.1-10, 2.7.1-11, 2.7.1-13, 2.7.1-15, 2.7.1-17 and 2.7.1-19.Placement of plots on a transect is essentially a regularized multiple plot method (Cain and Castro 1970). Orientation along such a transect is prudent in a disturbed or variable area to insure sampling within a single community.
Paragraph 6 -Length of the cruise line in the strip method of bird census (Pettingill 1970) is dictated by uniformity of vegetation and size of stands.Paragraph 8- Birdcharacteristics of the site begin to beeed in late March or early April in the Carolinas (Pearson, Brimley and Brimley 1959; Sprunt and Chamberlain 1970) and continue through June, July or later. Therefore, the dates on which birds, were censused are appropriate.
Paragraph 9 -Mammals presence was estimated on the basis of signs as well as trap data.Page 6-3 in regard to the aquatic sampling program as addressed In the DES, Applicant has the following comments: Section 6.1.1.2 Paragraph I -The DES states that sampling has been completed through April 1974. Applicant's Year I Study, through October 1974, has been completed.
Data previously submitted should te used and referenced.
A Year II program was started prior to ending the Year I study.Paragraph 4 -Ichthyoplankton samples are taken weekly, during the major spawning period, within and below Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir to provide information on the magnitude of potential entrain-.ment of these organisms by CNS operation.
-Paragraph 5 -Monthly sampling of invertebrate drift at two areas within the reservoir (Stations Ii and 12), and two areas in the Broad River below the reservoir (Stations.
15 and 17) is being conducted by the Applicant..
The composition and magnitude of invertebrate drift are being studied.Paragraph 6 -Data on fish'"densities, relative abundances, and seasonal changes in the Broad River and Ninety-Ni.ne Islands Reservoir are being collected on a monthly basis.Paragraph 7 and 8 -The Applicant has reduced the number of stations being sampled. Biological data are being collected at Stations 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16 and two new stations.
The new stations are located at the proposed intake area, and in the Broad River approximately 6-7 km downstream of Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir.
Applicant does not deem it necessary to, collect at 4, 13, 14, 21 and 23. Area 4 is far out of the area of influence.
The new station at the intake is sampled instead of Stations 13 and 14.Page 6-3 In regard to preoperational radiological monitoring program, the Applicant feels that a sensitivity of 0.5 pCi/i for 1131 in milk is no longer ap-propriate based on adoption of IOCFR5O Appendix I by the NRC. A more appropriate number would be 1.5 pCi/I.CNS-DES.6-1 CNS-DES 6-2 A-22
: 7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS 7.1 PLANT ACCIDENTS INVOLVING RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS Applicant believes that the doses presented would be more easily understood If reference was made to the X/Q values used.In Table 7.2,.reference should be made to Appendix I and not proposed Appendix I.Based on assumptions in the Cherokee ER and Regulatory Guide 4.2,.(ER Table 7.0.0-1, Amendment
: 3) the difference in the dose from the large and small LOCA's should be greater than those presented in Table 7.2.7.2 TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENTS INVOLVING RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS Page 7-4 The 'DES states that wastes will be shipped to the nearest disposal site, Morehead, Kentucky.
The nearest disposal siteis Barnwell, South Carolina, (Chem-Nuclear Services), 170 miles distant, not Morehead, Kentucky 8. THE NEED FOR POWER GENERATING CAPACITY 8.1 APPLICANTS SERVICE AREA AND REGIONAL RELATIONSHIPS Page 8-4 The energy forecast shown in the Table 8.1 has been revised in a forecast dated March 17, 1975. The values given In ER Table 1.I.1-I, Amendment 3, are as follows: Year lO 6 KWhr 197T 45,240 Forecast 1975: 47,734 1976: 52,387 1977: 56,851 1978: 61,346 1979: 65,942 1980: 70,637 1981: 75,699 1982: 81,041 1983: 86,719 1984: 92,746 1985: 98,715 1986: 105,239 1987: 112,096 1988: 119,629 Note: The only,change is for the energy. The demand figures are correct as shown.Page 8-5 The last paragraph in Section 8.2.1 should be revised to agree with revised Table 8.1.Pa me,8-9 The DES states that improved air-conditioners
.... could hypothetically save electric utilities almost 58,000 MW in 1980." This statement seems to be in error.8.6
 
==SUMMARY==
AND CONCLUSIONS Page 8-18 Table 8.12 is based on an assumption of no capacity additions after 1988, which Is not realistic.
CNS7DES 8-I 7-I CNS-DES A-23
: 9. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 9.1 ALTERNATIVE BASE-LOAD ENERGY SOURCES AND SITES Page 9-1 The DES states, "Therefore, although postponed retirement of existing units is not an alternative, a delay in the reclassification of some coal-fired units from base-load to intermediate-type operation should be considered." The DES seems to have misconstrued the operation of coal-fired units. There Is no classification progedure whereby a base-loaded unit is officially designated to intermediate-type operation.
All units are dispatched on an economic basis, with the lowest cost unit operated in base. If a new-unit can produce energy at a lower cost than any other unit on the system, then it operates in base, ard pushes higher cost units up in the load curve.Delaying a Cherokee unit would inherently require the existing units to produce a greater amount of energy, or, in effect, keep base-loaded ullits in base.Applicant believes that Section 9.1.1.3 is not completely accurate.
Most of the coal-fired intermediate-type units on the Duke system operated in base during their first few years of operation, but were displaced by units pro-ducing energy at a lower cost. The statement" ...since these units are not designed for nearly continuous base-load operation." is not correct, and should be deleted. Cost is the predominating reason for not operating these units in base. Also, it is not correct to lump conventional hydro capacity with pumped-storage hydro. Conventional hydro capacity is limited by the water supply; pumped storage hydro can operate in a load-cycling mode similar to intermediate steam. Section 9.1.3 of the ER lists peaking capacity as composed of' ...'hydro, combustion turbines, and small, older, conventional steam units." Presumably, the staff interpreted this to include pumped hydro.It does not.Page 9-3 Applicant has evaluated the cost effectiveness of the CNS and Its tossil fueled alternative and agrees with the DES that the lower generating costs associated with the nuclear station warrent its selection.
Applicant's cost estimates have been revised and are presented inTables 9.3.1.1 and 9.3.4.1, Amendment 3.Pane 9-5 The DES states that there is one hydroelectric site in Applicant's service area suitable for base-load service. Applicant's ER has been revised to correctly indicate that there are no hydroelectric sites in the service area suitable for base-load service. (ER page 9.2-4)9.2 ALTERNATIVE PLANT DESIGNS Page 9-13 With regard to the proposed railroad spur location, the Applicant is evaluating four alternative routes. Comparative factors that will be considered for each route include: (1) length of track (2-) earth grading (3) land costs (4) environmental impacts on existing land use.10. CONCLUSIONS 10.1 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Page 10-I (Subsection 10.1)The DES states cooling tower operation will produce visible plumes that may extend as much as 15 miles for 5% of the time during winter months.-The basis for this statement is not indicated.
However, as shown in ER Figure 5.1.5-I, Amendment 2, Dukeestimates that the isopleth of 5% visible plume frequency extends to 5 miles southwest of the cooling tower location.Page 10-2 (Subdivision 10.1.2.2)The DES states that about 50% of the reservoir's backwater areas will be affected with increased turbidity to some extent by runoff from the site during construction, however, the basis for the percentage impact is not given. Applicant believes that the construction operations will cause Insignificant increase in turbidity.
Page 10-2 (Subdivision 10.1.2.2).
In the revised design of the intake structure (ER Figure 3.4.4-2, Amend-ment 3), the training wall has been eliminated in accord with DES recommen-dations.Page 10-2 (Subdivision 10.2.3.1)The DES states that approximately 2340 acres will be required for the CNS site with approximately another 655 acres being required for transmission.
Applicant's comments on page 4-1, DES, show that actual land requirement for CnS is 1441 acres, which includes 695 acres for transmission lines.Page 10-2 (Subdivision 10.2.3.1)'
The DES states that property taxes are estimated to be $38 million annually, however, no basis is given. Applicant estimates that property taxes would be $16.4 million annually (ER Subdivision 8.1.2.2, Amendment 3).Page 10-2 (Subdivision 10.2.3.2)The DES states that CNS will consumptively use 1.7 X 10 gpd of water.Based on average evaporation and drift values noted in ER Table 3.3.0-I, Amendment 3, consumptive water use at CNS will be approximately 53 million gallons per day.Page 10-6 (Subsection 10.3.5)The DES states that a maximum of 1.7 X 1010 gpd of water will be consump-tively used by the station. Applicant estimates, based on ER Table 3.3.0-I, Amendment 3, that maximum consumption will be 72.7 million gallons per.day.CNS-DES 10-1 CNS-DES 9-1 A-24 I Page 10-6 (Subsection 10.3.6)The DES states that about 3000 acres of land would be committed to the construction and operation Of the station. The Staff has previously (Section 4.1) estimated the total land area involved in the actual con-struction of CNS to be 1490 acres. Applicant estimates total land use to be 1441 acres (Comment on DES Page 4-1).Page 10-6 (Subsection 10.4.1)Table 10.2 The total revenues from the station should be reevaluated.
Table 9.3.1-.1 and Table 9.3.4-1., Amendment 3, indicate a revised cost estimate of$613/KW which results in estimated annual fixed chargin of 409 million and annual fuel and operating and maintenance costs of $195 million for the station. The reference to ER Section 1O.4.2.1 for annual fueli-end operating and maintenance costs is in error. Subdivision 10.4.2.1 of the DES refers to the cost of $150 million. The basis for estimating cost for transmission, distribution, and other expenses at an assumed 25 percent of total production expenses is not presented in DES.The Staff has assumed Applicant's rate of return on investment to be.12 percent. Applicant believes that a fair and reasonable rate of return on investment is 14 percent. Applicant estimates that total taxes for the station are about $116 million annually (ER Table 6.1.1-I, Amendment 3).Under the heading "Indirect Benefits" in DES, Table 10.2, Applicant submits the following which summarizes changes made in Amendmcnt 3: ER Reference Page 10-7 (Subdivision 10.4.1.8)ER Amendment 3, Subdivision 8.1.2.3 and Table 8.1.2-3 indicate that an average of 1395 employees over the thirteen year construction period will result in a total construction payroll of over $424 million and that the annual operating payroll for the 250 employees will be $8.2 million.Page 10-7 (Subdivision 10.4.2.1)Applicants revised cost estimates (ER Tables 9.3.1-i and 9.3.4-1, Amend-ment 3). of $613/KI capital cost and $194.8 million fuel and operating and maintenance costs are based on Applicant's construction and operating experience and indicate that the Staff evaluation of costs is somewhat low.Page 10-8 (Subdivision 10.4.2.2)Applicant'.s comments for Table 10.3 are presented in tabular foim below.EFFECT Land Use Land required for-station Land required for transportation lines water Use Evaporative consumptive Chemical discharges to Broad River Radiological Impact Radioiodine and particulate close to thyroid from all pathways Ecological Impacts on aquatic life Construct ion Entrainment APPLICANT'S COMMENT 1209 Acres within site boundary fence 661 Acres to be cleared (ER Section 4.1)695 Acres (ER Section 3.9)82 cfs average (ER Section 3.3)basis for 14%'of low flow is not stated 16.2 ppm. maximum increase (ER Table 3.6.2-I)22 ppm increase (DES Subdivision 5.5.2.2)10 millirems/year (DES Table 5.5)Basis for 50% increase in turbidity is not stated Basis for 21% of river flow is not stated Employment Construction, man-years Construction payroll (total), millions of dollars Operation, number of employees Operation, annual payroll, millions of dollars Taxes Federal, annual, millions of dollars State, annual, millions of dollars County, annual, millions of dollars 3,149 Table 8.1.2-3 424 Subdivision 8.1.2.3 250 Subdivision 8.1.2.3 8.2 Subdivision 8.1.2.3 71.4 Subdivision 8.1.2.2 44.6 Subdivision 8.1.2.2 16.4 Subdivision 8.1.2.2 Page 10- (Subdivision 10.4.1.4)Estimated taxes to Federal, State, and local governnents have been revised and should be 71.4, 44.6, and 16.4 million dollars annually, respectively (ER Subdivision 8.1.2.2, Amendment 3).CNS-DES 10-2 CNS-DES 10-3 A-25
,(T, UNtTEu STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 13 JUN 1975 Mr. Daniel R. -.ibller Assistant Director for Environe.ntal Projects United States iuclear ILNgulatory COmraUission Washington, D.C. 20555
 
==Dear 11r. itdler:==
The Environmental P'rtection Arjency has .reviiea.i the draft environrental statenent for the 0 srokee NLurlear Station Units 1, 2, and 3 prepared by the U.S. Iluclear egulatory (Tr)and issued .April 1975. our detailed corments are enclosed.EPA's indeoendent analysis of the infonnation in the draft statefent and the Aplicant's.
environmsntal receort indicate that 1i3 pr .d .gasus d liquid waste miagelen-systems are capable of limiting radioactive releases to vitthi the "as loi. as practicable" guidance of the recently issued _edi: I to 10 CIP.Part 50. Therefore, we conclude that the3 anticipated radiological izpact of nornal plant operations will Le acceotable.
Cherohee Nuclear Station is expected to beable to be operated in general coapliance with the Federal I.'ater Pollution Control Act Xencbents of 1972 (B&#xb6;1'CA) relative to the dlsctar~ge of therel effluents.
beaver, sufficient data have not ben presented.in t.ie draft. statement.on eical effluonts to detenaline fnether appropriate chemical discharge guidelines will be achieved.
.Also, construction of tie Final UastewTater ifoldup.Basin for the purpose of chemical waste treatr-nt a[ypears to be inconsistent with.le jintent of-Section 301 of'&#xfd;the FICA, that no waters of the United States ba utilized directly for treating Discharges to the Final oWasteatar.
lhldup easin, vdiich would be created by .ipounding waters of the United States, ra.st. zast&#xfd; EPAI s effluent guidelines beforo disc!ihjre.
In light of our review and in accordance with EPA procedure, we have classified the project as MR (Environnmental Rcservations) and rated the draft stateaent Category 2 (Insufficient Information).
If you or your staff have any questions concerning our corarents or classification,, va will be happy to discuss thema with- you.Sincarely yours, Sheldon neyers Director Office of Federal Activities Enclosure A-26 EPA-D-O)iC-A0652-SC A(&#xfd;CY AS] SlIEGTCN, D.C. 204G0 June 1975'El.rn,.0rAL
.2.`--r. STAT=rF CY-?-U,'*4TS Cherokee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3 TABLE OF Ca-ETirS IRiUCTICO AND MIXI, SIaMS rIMMoCTIM AND CONCLSIMQS The Environrental Protection Agency has revieued the draft environmental statement issued in conjunction with the application of Duke Pcoar Caopany for a permit to begin construction of the Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3.This facility is proposed to be situateda on a site adjacent to the Broad river, in Cerokee County, South Carolina.
TIe following are our primary conclusions.
: 1. The proposed radioactive waste managenent systems for Cherokee ,uclear Station are expected to be capduli of limiting nonral releases of radioactive effluents to "as lai as practicable" discharges.
The radiation doses are e:o&#xfd;cted to be maintained to levels within those specified in the recentlv published Aprendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. Tharefore, w2 conclude the radiological impacts of routine operation are ex-pected to he acceptable.
2.'EPA believes that Cherokee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3 can be operated in general ccopliance with Federal Water Pollution Control Act %Iendments of 1972 (F'WCA) as regards therval effluents.
oeewver, sufficient data have not been presented on effluents to deteamnine w'iether appropriate discharge guidelines can he met. In arldition, construction of the Final Wasteawter Holdup Basin for the purpose. of chemical treatment appears to he inconsistent with the intent of Section 301 of the F.-JPCA, that no waters of the United States he utilizre directly for treating wastewaters.
Discharges to the Final Wastawater Holdup Basin, which would he created by irpounding"waters of the United States,":
mist meet LPA's effluent guidelines before discharge.-
RADIOIOGICAL ASPhLr'S Radioactive Waste Managelint Systems Dose' AssessTent Peactor Arcidents Transoortation PdelCycle IUi.h-Level Vaste %Ianaqement M'fl-PADIOLCGICAL ASPECrS General Intake and Nastewater lroundrents Chi&cal .- ffects Construction
.Effects Noise Cams-nts ADDrrITIOAL  2 3 3 4.5 6 7 7 7 11 13 15 A-27 RADIOLOGICAL ASPECTS Radioactive Waste P'anagesent Systes Based on our evaluation of the draft statement and the environmental report, the proposed gaseous and liquid waste managerrent systems appear capable of limiting the radioactive releases and the resulting doses to within the "as low as practicable" guidance of the recently published final version of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. As a consequence, we conclude that the radiological jTnacts of routine plant operation are expected to be acceptable.
bven though we believe the plant radioactive effluent control technology will be capable of limiting discharges to acceptably low levels, several inportant aspects which need clarification are discussed below.According to the draft staterent, vent gases from the boron recycle system and miscellaneous waste system evaporators will be discharged to the atrasphere without treatment.
The contribution of this source relative to radioiodine discharges is uncertain due to lack of detail in the draft statement as to the frequency of venting and the quantities of 1-131 involved.
The final statement should provide these details as well as the basic assumptions used in the development of these source-terms.
According to pages 3.8 and 3.10 of the draft staterent, liquid leakage to the turbine building will be collected in the turbine building floor drain system and will be released without treatment.
However, the schematic diagram, Figure 3.1, indicates that the turbine building drain system is intertied with the'miscellaneous liquid waste management system. dhile it may not always be necessary to provide treatment for these wastes in order to achieve the design basis, objective given in Appendix I, the interties would provide the plant operator koproved waste treatrent flexibility.
Also, Figure 3.7 indicates that the turbine building drains will be released to/the Broad River via the River Discharge Structure without radiation monitoring or control isolation.
The final statement should clarify whether such interties and monitoring and control systems for th-e turbine building liquids will be included in the plant design.We believe the plant design stage is the. best time to ensure that anticipated plant effluent release points will be adequately monitored and that sufficient effluent sar"ling points will be provided to ensure of plant effluent releases.
wae urge .TC to ensure that these provisions are inclu0,e:!
according to the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.21.Dose Assesszent The thyroid dose via the grass-miLk pathway, based on exposure via the nearest pasture currently grazed, is expected to be within the guidance of. Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. The existence of several cow herds within two miles of the site makes it important to closely monitor this potential exposure pathway.V. concur with the NRC staff that the Applicant's milk analyses sensitivity for measuring 1-131 should be 0.5 pCi/l.Furthermore, the Applicant should undertake periodic audits of the lccation of and number of lactating cows and goats so that the critical exposure pathway will be known throughout dte lifeti-re of the plant.EPA expects that the results froa current EPA/,5C and industry cooperative field studies in the environs of operating nuclear posar facilities will greatly increase knowledge of the processes and rechanirss involved in the exposure of man to radiation produced through the use of nuclear .pwr. We believe that, overall, the cuumilative assumptions utilized to estimate various human doses are conservative. -As -more information is developed, the models used to estimate human exposure will be rmoified to reflect the best data and most realistic situations possible.Reactor Accidents EPA has examined the DMC analyses of accidents and their potential risks which the N&#xfd;2 has developed in the course of its engineering evaluation of reactor safety in the design of nuclear plants. Since these issues are common to all nuclear plants of a given tyre, EPA concurs with the "n C approach to evaluate the environmental risk for each accident class on a generic basis.The AEC has in the past and 2NMC cdntinues to devote e>tensive efforts to ensure safety through plant design are accident analyses in the licensing process on a case.-by-case basis.For the past two years,. AEC sonsored an effort to axmiAne reactor safety and the resultant environmental consequences azy!risks on a more quantitative basis. We have strongly encouraged this effort and continue to do so. On August 20, 1974, the A=A-28 4 issued for public coament the'draft Reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400), which is the culmination of the efxtensive effort to quantify the risks associated with light .stear-cooled nuclear poaer plants. EPA is conducting a review of this docurrnt, including in-houas and contractual efforts through June 1975, after which we will issue a final sat of cca,rants.
initial coeuents, issued November 27, 1974, indicate the AEC's efforts represent an innovative step for/ard in concept and mathodolojy in the evaluation of risks asscciated with nuclear powcr plants.The study appears to provide an initial meaningful basis for obtaining useful assessments of accident risks.If future NR efforts in this area indicate un.azrranted risks are being taken at the Cherokee Nuclear Station, weare confident the I= will ensure appropriate corrective action. SirllarLy, if EPA efforts identify any environmentally unacceptable conditions related to reactor safety, we will mak:e our views known. Until our review of the Reactor Safety Study is-ccorpletal, we believe there is sufficient assurance that no undue risks will occur as a result of the continued planning for the Cherokee Nuclear Station.Transportation EPA, in its earlier reviews of the environmental irpacts of transportation of radioactive material, agreed with the AM. that many aspects of this program could best he treated on a generic basis. The NR has codified this generic approach (40 F.R. 1005)by adding a table to their regulations (10 CFR Part 51) which summarizes the environmental invacts resulting fral the transportation of radioactive materials to and from light-water reactors.
This regulation permits -the use of the. impact values listed in the table in. lieu 'of.assessing the transportation impact for individual reactor licensing actions if certain conditions are met. Since -this: nuclear power plant appears to meat these conditions.eand' EPA" has agreed that the transportation impact values in the table are reasonable, this approach appears adequate for this action.Mule the inpact resulting from the. routine t,,-portat.-,, of radioactive materials was :chosen at that level within which the inpact of-90%0of the reactors currently operating or. under cnStruction fell, the basis for the impact, or-risk, of transportation accidents is not as clearly defined. There are current efforts by both EPA and ERA (the Energy Research and Develogrent Adrinistration) (and/or NRC) to more fully assess the radiological impact of transportation accidents.
As the quantitative results of these analyses hecame available, EPA intends to conduct reviews to ascertain the acceptability of the potential transportation risks. If EPA efforts identify any envirorffentally unacceptable conditions related to transoortation, we will make our views known. Until our reviews of the transportation accident analyses are completed, we believe there is sufficient assurance that no undue ri-ks will occur as a result of transportation accidents for this nuclear power plant.Fuel Cvcle The NPI's predecessor, the AEC, issued a document titled, "Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle" in conjunction with a regulation (10 CMR 50, Appaendi-D) for application in completing the cost-benefit analyses for individual light-water reactor environmental reviews (39 FR 14138). The information therein is employed in ZIT draft statements to assess the incremental environmental impacts- that can be -attributed to fuel cycle caoponents which support nuclear*power plants. In our opinion, this approach appears adequate for plants currently under consideration, and such estimates of the incremental irpacts for the Cherokee Nuclear Plant are reasonable.
&#xfd;akaever, as suggested in our carnents on the proposed rulemaking (January 19, 1973), if this is to continue for future plants, it is important for the NPC to periodically review and update the information and assessment techniques used.EPA intends to monitor developments in the fuel cycle area closely and will bring to the 1,W 's attention any factor or concerns we-believe relevant to continued improvement in assessing environmental impacts.The concept of. environrmental dose commitment is a recent develcoment which %w believe should be included in the assess-ent of'theenvironmental impact of the fuel cycle. The ihformation presented.
in the draft staterrent:
indicates the "t-laxinim Effect" in. terms of annual person-ren-s (man-reams) within a 50-iaile radius. As many of the radionuclides involved persist in the environment over extremely long periods, their impact is not adequately represented by an annual dose.. Instead, we 'recommend effect, for. fuel.cycle.
releases be indicated by an environmrental dose. cenimmrent, that is,: by the projected person-reas which will be accumulated over several half-lives of the-radioisotopes released annually from these facilities. (This would involve decades for very long-lived isotopes.)
Also, such evaluations should be done for the total U.S. population exposure.
Radionuclides of importance in this approach include Kr-85, 1-129, tritium, radium, C-14, and the actinides.
A-29 r 6 High-Level Waste Management Environmental inpacts will arise as a consequence of the techniques and procedures utilized to nzanage high-level radioactive wastes. These inpacts have scre relevance to the environmental considerations regarding each nuclear power plant in that the reprocessing of spent fuel from each will make sane contribution to the total waste, ETA concurs, haoever, with the NIC's approach of handling waste management impacts on a generic basis rather than by including a specific, in-depth analysis in each nuclear poier plant's environmental statement.
As part of this effort the AM, on Septerber 10, 1974, issued for corment a, draft statement titled "The Management of Commercial lHig]h-Level and Transuranium-Contaminated Radioactive Waste" 6,9SII1-1539).
Though a coiprehensive long-range plan for managing radioactive wastes has not yet been fully demonstrated, acceptance of the continued development of nuclear power is based on the belief that the technology to safely manage such wastes can be devised..
EPA is available to assist the IM'C and ERDA in their efforts to assure that an envirormentally acceptable waste management program.is developeOd to meet this critical-need.
In this -gard, EPA provided extensive coatsents on t-ASH-1539 on November 21, 1974. Oar major point of criticism was that the draft statenent lacked a progran for arriving at a satisfactory method of "ultimate" high-level waste disposal.
We believe this is a problem which should be resolved in a timely manner, since the country ii committing an increasingly significant portion of its resources to nuclear power and wastes from operating plants are already accumlating.
ERDA now intends to prepare a new draft statement which will more broadly discuss waste management and emrphasize ultimate disposal.
EPA concurs with this decision and w- will review the new draft statement when it.is issued and will.pp~roide public caomments.
NaN-RADIOLOGICAL ASPECTS General EPA will be responsible for issuance of a discharge pennit for Units 1, 2, and 3 under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination QPPDES)-Section 402 of the FLderal Water Pollution Control Act Acoendrents of 1972 (rFNPCA).
Isguance of the permit will be based upon review and analysis of all relovant information supplied by the Applicant.
Consideration will be given to requirements of Section 301, of 316 (b), and all other provisions of the FnWCA and the final permit will.be conditioned accordingly.
Section 301 of the F%4PCA stipulates that effluent liLmits for various point souro discharges to navigable waters shall reqaire the ajplication of "Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available" no later than July 1, 1977, and "Best Available Technology Economically Achievable" no later than July 1, 1983.The levels corresponding to these terms were defined in EPA's'"Steam Electric Pour Generating Point Source Category Effluent Guidelines and Standards," Federal Register, of October 8, 1974.Cherokee Units 1, 2, and 3, ersploying nine circular, mechanical-draft, wet cooling towrs for the dissipation of waste heat frcm the closed-cycle condenser cooling system, can operate in conformance with these guidelines and standards and, in most instances, in carpliance with Federally approved State water quality standards in regards to therral effluents.
llaever, there remains some question concerning compliance with clhnical effluent standards.
Intake and astewater Impoour&ents.
Duke Power Ccmnany proposes the construction of twe earth-fill dams to form a sedimentation basin and a Final Wastewater Holdup Basin. These impounded waters will be considerej as"waters of the United. States," since they were so considered prior to damrning.Altehgn neither the- sedirentation basin nor t.p riuclela&#xfd;Service-lzater Pond directly conflict with requiraments of the.FWCA, the construction of these impoundraents, as well as the Final Wastewater Holdup Basin, will destroy and/or remove approximately 20 percent of the aquatic resources of the ey-isring reservoir.
The final statement should provicle an assessvent of A-30..4 8 this action and of the removal of the two feeder streams on the remaining fishery resources, including breeding areas.Consideration should be directed at ipacts on rare or endangered species, in particular darters.Hxoever, use of "waters of the United States" for the purposes of final wastewater treatment is inconsistent with t!he FB5'CA. Consideration must be given to providing treatment equivalent to that provided by the Final Wastewater IHol-.up Dasin, if required to mset effluent limitations, prior to discharge to any "waters of the United States." In reviewing the draft statement's sections dealing with these proposed site impoundments, it appears that there are several conflicting estimates of the land/reservoir areas to be included in the three irpoundrents.
Specifically, page 4-11 under "Construction Activities," page 4-1, paragraph 4.1.1; and page 4-3, paragraph 4.1.2 provide acreage data on one or more of the inpoundments. it is not possible to ex&tract a clear estimate of the actual ibpounded areas for each case. Therefore, the final statement should provide clarification of the information, possibly via a table, which characterizes each propose''nsite impoundrent and the existing and mrodified
'inietv-nine Islands Reservoir for acreage, extreme water level and volume conditions.
Chemical Effects The regulations in EPA's effluent guidelines for steam electric power generating point sources include effluent limitations for such waste streams as low volume, metal cleaning, boiler (steam generator) blcwdawn and cooling tower blowdown which are applicable to the Cherokee Nuclear Station. Pollutants frcui thesea discharges..wlichare.
spacifically limaited include total suspended solids" oil and graase, pH, free available and total residual chlorine, total iron and/or total coper. The draft statement, hoever, failed to discuss and/or evaluate these paraimacrs, tlhe proposed waste treatment facilities and their ,oceration,-end the expected effluent concentrations to be discharged.
Since DWke Paer Copany has not yet submitted its application for an NPDES permit, EPA has not been provided ad t ilration.to allow -idepaendeht detefra..Ation:
as to eda-th-ropones.
Tiestef discharges willnadostiy with appnicablhu Federal regulations.
Therefore, the final statamn-.i:should provide adequate information, evaluation and discussion of these waste streams.LwO volume wastes, as defined in the effluent guidelines, are generally equivalent to the normal waste discharged to the wastewater treatinmnt system. Such wastes are subject to limitations on total suspended solids, oil and grease, and pH, Data presented in Table 3,6 and elsewhere-in the draft statement do not include expected discharge concentrations for these-Farameters.
Consideration should be given to providing oil traps in floor drains which may be subject to oil leakage an-d at other points where oil couldnexist in high concentrations. "ilTis would allow significantly greater oil rseoval than the proposed wastewater treatment system.cleaning wastes are not discussed in the draft statement and are subject to li-mitations on total suspended solids, oil and grease, pH, total cop)er, and total iron. (Iron and copper are included as indicator parameters.)
Treatment of these wastes is subject to requirements for two-state coagulation, precipitation,.
pH adjustment and sedinentation, or equivalent as indicated in the effluent guidelines.
This will be a requirement of the 1PDES permit.The proposed treatment of pre-operational cleaning wastes does not appear adequate in that significant and unacceptable quantities of phosphorus will be released to Ninety-nine Islands Reservoir.
About 850 gallons of liquid detergent will be used for degreasing and spray cleaning of pipe and will be discharged to the temporary sewage system for treatment.
Phosphorus removal by this system will be minimal. Additionally, 36,000 pounds of trisodium phosphate and 138 gallons of liquRid detergent will be used. for-condenser degreasing and cleaning of each of the three units. The proposed treatment includes dilution and.neutralization over a 14-day release period. Again, this treatment will be inadequate for phosphorus re-oval.However, if facilities (as indicated above) for chemical waste treatment are provided, treatment with lime to an initial oH of 1i to 11.5, followed by subsequent coagulation, p;i a'ijustaent and sedimentation would result in phosphate .rerovals to as low as 1.0 pgp/l, or lss. Such treacteent .is recnresnded to 1.ucu.:e releases-of phosphorus to the reservoir.
Steam generator blowdown is subject to limitations on total iron, total copper, and total susneanded solids in w ith A-31 11.10 the "boiler blwdcimn" limitations of the effluenL ,juidelines.
Although pollutant concentrations from this plant could be anticipated to be significantly below effluent cjuideline limitations, no estimate of effluent iron and copper concentration is presented.
The cooling tower design generally appears to rset the requirements of the effluent guidelines as to cold side blowalown and minimization of bloidown.
lb}okaver, it is to he noted that conditions of 760r wet-bulb and 930F dry-bulb teizzerature (to.er design 76/92) are exceeded 2-1/2 percent of tie time during the sunmer months in the Spartanburg, South Carolina, area and that a wet-bulb temperature of 77AiF is ea=eeded 1 percent of the time. Therefore, the blowdewn teeperature ray he e.iesccted, in such circumstances, to exceed calculated values. Even though instantaneous temperatures greater than those evaluated in the draft statement may occur, we concur that the discharge can be expected to meet the therrel requirements of the South Carolina Water Quality Standards.
Chemical discharges in the cooling tower blocarm are of concern. EPA's effluent guidelines limit the discharge of free available chlorine to a 0.5 mg/l maxiimu and 0.2 Mg/l average concentration during a maxinun of two hours per day p2r unit and do not allow free available or total residual chlorine to be discharged fron more than one unit at a time. Less stringent limitations may be imposed if the Applicant can demonstrate that the units in a particular location cannot operate at or below this level of chlorination, and if such higher concentration limits will meet applicable requirements of water quality standards., ll}knver, more stringent lim-itations can be required for water quality protection.
Since free residual chlorine concentrations of up to 0.3 nn/l and chlorine reaction products ofu to 19 mg/l (some of which may be highly toxic) can be anticipated, unacceptable concentrations of total residual chlorine can be expected under low-flcw conditions in the Broad River.. EPA recralends that all practicable meltods be instituted to miminize chlorine discharges, including discontinuation of cooling.taer bloakdwn during chlorination and subsequent periods of high chlorine concentration.
LA further recceivends that total chlorine residual be limited to 0.20 eg/1 for a period not tekedtwo hours perday. .at:1the edge of a limited mixing zone, orz-such higher concentrations which will protect aquatic organisms if present for more than ho hours per day.Effluent guideline limitations for cooling towr bleudown also i nclude 24-hour average concentrations of 1.0, 0.2, and 5.0 rrrg/l for zinc, chromium, and phosphorus, respectively.
Although it appears that no zinc or chromium containing chumicals will be added to the cooling tower water, phosphorus concentrations may exceed alloc ble linmitations (see Table 3.7). Availahle data on toxicity to aquatic organisais of the proposed corrosion-deposit inhibitor, ainomethylene phosphonate, and the proposed alternate biocide, dodecylguanidine hydrochlorize is inadequate.
A-iditional toxicity data, especially on indigenous fish species which might he attracted to the heated dischaige in winter, is necessary before final; definitive conclusions can be reachd as to-the toxic effects. Prior to approval of use of these cheiaicals, adequate 96-hour median tolerance limit (T711 96) data for indigenous aquatic organisms at various levels of the food webbe provided to assure that releases are within acceptable limits.Construction Effects Effluent guideline limitations for point sources of construction runoff are defined in Subpart D of EPA's "Steam Electric Poesr Generating Point Source Category Effluent Guidelines and Standards," Federal Register, of October 8, 1974, as 50 mij/l of total suspand-L ids c pi values in the range of 6.0 to 9.0. These limitations are app.icable to all flows up to that resulting from a 10-year, 24-hour rainfall.
Duke Power Corpany apparently has not provided a detailed erosion control plan to the Niuclear Regulatory Commission but has proposed to minimuize erosion by providing detention pcnds and berms. Any point sources of construction runoff from the vicinity of the poAer plant site are subject to the foregoing limitations.
Assurances by Duke Power Cammany that such limitations will be met should ho provided in the final statement.
Although the Broad River has not been cozsidered to be within the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers, they have recently published new determinations regarding definition of navigability of streams whLich may result in a need for a Section-404 permit for ChrkStation. (See CM Vol. 40 !Io. 88 Pert 3 ITne.Apnlicant, therefdre, should recuest fu r clarificaticn-from ti Corps ar to wether a "dredlge or fill" pernit will be required.
PRegardless of whther such a permit is required, all available precautions, techniques and equ4--nent should he utilized to minimize any further siltation of A-32 13 i2 Ninety-nine Islands Reservoir due to plant and facility construction.
Further siltation will. have sarious effects on the aquatic populations of the reservoir.
Specific and detailed plans should be provided in the final statement to alla-interested Federal and State agencies to ccr.,nt on t/he erosion control plan.Noise Imoacts The potential noise inpact from this project was inadequately discussed in the draft statement.
Noise problems are generally associated with the construction and operation of this typo of project. In both instances, concern focuses on occupational noise hazards as well as the noise which propagates fran the project into the surrounding cacrrrnity.
There are insufficient details in Figure 2.4 to enable identification of the is-pact of environmental noise on the surrounding land uses. Ths site plan should show the location of major noise generators on the site;and the map of the surrounding area should show standard land-use categories (e.g., residential, comrercial, industrial, etc.), population densities, and the location of specific sensitive receptors, such as hospitals.
A rap shoing. th-e location of all major roadways should also be included.
The noise analysis should then indicate the extent the noise levels Ln Table 1 are exceeded for specific land uses. NI-ile levels indicated in Table 1 do not constitute a standard, they should he used as a benchmark or reference for describing the magnitude of the noise iract.Noise generated by traffic resulting from the project can be significant sometimes.
With respect to this project, it sop&#xfd;ears that the only potential problem which might result would he during construction.
Truck traffic generation during construction should be indicated and the potential noise problems addressed.
Construction workers and plant operating personnel should not be exposed to noise levels in excess of those s"Necified in Table 2.The final statement should demonstrate that such, noise levels will not be exceeded, and that plans exist to reduce hurrn exposure in high noise level areas. to levels bealav those indicated.
In addition, impulse noise from equirnaent such as jackhammers and pile drivers should not eyceed tim limits established in Figure 1. During plant operation potential noise sources will be associated with transformers, turbines, ventilating systems,.
and circulating water pumps. Anticipated noise emission levels from each of these sources should be included in the final statement.
For. yo& convenience, Table 3 lists basid inforration on sound levels associated with various types of construction equipment.
Since these levels are averages, actual noise levels will vary scewhat from those indicated.
In particular, noise A-33 14 15 levels will generally be higher than those in Table 3 for products within each category having a higher than average capacity.
Level 1 indicates current, quiet products, and Level 2 lists equipment which can he quieted by the use of best demonstrated technology.
ADDITIaNAL U-M-'RTS 1. The final staterrent should provide the cumulative population and annual cenzulative population doses (porson-rem) for the period of plant operation (1982-2022)
: 2. The final statement should provide an estimate of the cumulative population doses to persons within 50 miles of Cherokee from radioactive effluents predicted to be discharged from the Cherokee, FlcGuire, and Catawba nuclear plants in order to consider the cau, lative regional impacts.3. The final statement should reflect pertinent dose evaluwtions based on atmospheric dispersion data representing a ca-plete year of on-site meteorological data, as given in the envircnmental report.4. The liquid release source-term for all subsystems should be given as has been presented for the turbine building sources.5. The final statement should clearly indicate the normal treatment to be provided the containment cooler conlensate liquid. The text of the draft statement indicates it will be filtered and discharged, while Figure 3.7 indicates the normal flow path will include evaporation.
: 6. The final statement should clarify the Appicant's estinate of gaseous 1-131 discharges.
For exanple, page 3-14 of the draft statement (paragraph
: 1) indicates the Applicant has estimated 0.007 Ci/yr/unit of 1-131 from the turbine building only, but subsequenTtly in paragraph 4 the total estimated release is given as 0.004 Ci/yr/unit.
: 7. The final statement should indicate the bases for utilizing 700 ml/day goat's milk consumption as contrasted to the 1000 ml/day cow's milk intake in calculating potential thyroid doses for children.8. The draft statement (p. 5-12) indicates the radioactive liquid waste dispersion models are discussed in Section 2.5. IDoeve-r, no such discussion was. found. The for tde river disperion calculations should he prescnted in the final statement.
: 9. The draft statement (page 3-18) concludes that the gaseous A-34 emissions from the diesel generator would bee within the limits set il State regulations.
ZVen though the impact on air Cuality nay be minimal, emissions of air pollutants from the diesel generators should be calculated and presented in the final state,-ent.
Also, t-he final statement should include thu fuel use rate so that independent assessrents can be made.10. A map indicating the locations of the pre-operational anld peerntnent rreteorological-instrhnnent rwosr (s) toeytJier with the proposed site buildings should be includlud!
in thu final statement so that possible terrain or buildi-ig effccts Tay be independently evaluated.
U. A windrose for the 135-ft. level should be included to evaluate the site ireteorology and potential impact of elevated source emissions including those frol the cooling towers.12. The meteorological data used as input to the ORFAD program and referenced as being Section 5.3.2 was not located in the draft statement and should be provided.13. The joint distribution of wind soped and wind direction for the various stability categories needs to be either incluced in the final statement or referenced from the environmental report.-14. The calculational procedures used to conpute the annual average X/Q estimates presented in Table 5.3 should he indicated in the final statement.
In addition, the probability distribution of X/Q for appropriate tirme periods following an release should be presented.
15.' No discussion is presented on the effects to fish eggs and larvae from the intermittent use of -150 cfs of water for dilution of radwastes..
Recent data indicate significant damage to these life stages due to the machanical
'effects of purming. This should be evaluated and discussed in the final statement.
TAKIE 1 YEARLY AVERAGVEVOUVALENT SOUND LEVELS IDENTIFlll OAS p.CQLIsITE TO 3'n'OTILCT Tlt Ul;?L[IC IIE.ALTiI A'NL)\ELI:ARIE E Ti!AN ADIEQUATE.
MARGPIN OF SAFETY Indoor T old Outdoor To P'rinet c Actily , Loi To01i c Z'&#xfd;[ .1-I.- Al-s I k Meosre ila Co:,iau-In Ier: CotIJ-j A3 I letenice I300 fles Nh P rriicot -1:1 (eu Rrirlrll011 Oil* Lil 45 45 55 55 Ri,ldennrts 70 70 woNo Ld, It 45 45 7 I~70 Comm"'M ~ ~ ~ 7 0 o 700 () 11C inside Trolpilol-10 0),Zl -+/- -_____1____
njn~ustnixl.l 0 j 70(c) 1.13 7c0 0 Eduolitioxnl Lc,;,d4, 45 45 &#xfd;5 55 L~(4!j70 70 RerontioneI Awlfl Le6 1 1'4p I) 7 701e1 (xl 70)0 F. rm Uld ond U,, 5 1'4 3  (a) 70 70Md Georil ___ ____ 1~.Siriier dilerrrIt n Ir.' 0ri C If O~i ijIitl 3'PC~ P110 !71 2 i 10,l!d 1 i1t I ti ifuirrillee idofli st o i o fa;s -x i i~ rrioi i: .%ve I 01Sr I&#xfd; el I y iiu: , rI` Irt:,ie mio I u t dddcIul t-, g reo C i. ti jelle rjr0JoiJIt
~ or (e leO~ulCiili ri~li ii Se Fire 0 for floilc I-eiO 0 i < a 0 of dilitx~ C nie ull ow 3oinsiciJ~o!
coiflhivtluioiloi.
3 b. hood o' z,: I., lo 1.C. SdOl i O,.i Ol d. An L 0 4 1 , SIof 75 .ib ri.,, t idenjfifwd in iari sittitlins -o Ins as the espnoarove0r the I~ Iut U1 fro s r,,l Sal i, lo, ri to'i1 reitihin ie oi l;&#xfd;ibl eo,ncriluiioi t0 the 241-tout i i00 .e.. i10 ,reler11- -i.; L, 0cq or S BS.Note: EIloi, ion r den-Wied kwo for Iiarfelows Th:c e po~iire period %which reouli iii Itailein, I- it e idomiili-1%v L ii .teriod 01 403 ~i*Reler, to celleyy tuiter 1 lr i OilII1liCI 1c i ~races..Source: EPA DCoctment S50/9-74-0l4&#xfd; (MarIch 1974) "Levels I --- --- T,1n , i lo A-35 170 TABLE 2 NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS, STEADY STATE Duration (per day)in hours 8 4 2 1/2 1/4 or less EPA Max. Sound Level (d3A)85 88 91 94 97 100 E.Source: EPA's Recommended Occupational Noise Fxnosure Federal Peqister dated Dece ber 18, 1974 0.025 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 200 SCO I  B- DU R.T I O rN ms)Fig,' 1 Set or .odifi.d CHABA Li.ts for u2, C.,v ,C LU Jmpul.se Noiscs Havinrv B-Dur1aions in the Raan','c 25 Microiccoaids to i Sc&#xfd;o-=d. (Wra-nieter: number (N) of im tfisp.- !.r d:iil" exposure.
Critciion: ,NIPTS not to excecd 5 d It at :; kIz in more thaln l 6, or pople.)Source: EPA Document 550/9-74-004 (March 1974) "Levels Documeont" --Figure 4 A-36 FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 ABLE 3 BASIC INFORMATIO' Oil CONISTRUCTION EQUIPMIENT (1972).TyOe: .;r~ z.&#xfd;~Loader&5 paver pile Dr1*.0r_e~natic 7003 17S.Dr~ll Rziler OSerapr Slave1 Pres t. .P U i est o T-h-l7gy P-eaL:,, I j L e Ie 2 I500 33 25,331 75 27,533 0? 53,010 30 5,0,53 75 55,203 75 2,100 70 g,133 00 2,303 53 51,313 33 51,t01 76 53,030 07 21o33 032,033 73 30,323 10 1,23 ! e 1,3:0 (5 0 55 22,2320 3 22,530 70 26,200 02 03 0o 5o539 75 550 25 0,033 30 20,530 75 02,100 09 2,C0O 33 03,333 75 01,203 I 53 00e a01 33,013 70 33,5 6o 37-,o00 S5 330 75 325 05 2 03 70 630 -71 050. 05 580 95 35,000 90 36,035 083 3T,003 20 01I,020 75 13,333 70 02,103 16 1OO TO 105 3 5 " 15o 8B 70I000 83 71,500 73 7, Co3 82 71,0o30 0 72,00 70 73,000 81 33 ,0o0 93 30,25. 75 19,500 Proauce -Per Yei.r (5)12,0 3 15,T33 7,1:03 5.0 0 ,C33 2,202 2,230 7 ,000 C2Z^3.32(0) l 30,0100 Soo 350 (100,031)50,000 (1,330)6,03-(5.0,1-01 5,3003 75,Oo2 JUL 2 2 1975 Mr. William H.- Regan 'Chief, Environmental Projects Branch No. 4 -. 'Division of Reactor Licensing
$,, h1 " U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
/" -j-.7 -7"'Washington, D. C. 20555 -
 
==Dear Mr. Regan:==
S0 ,..-This is in response to your letter dated Api&#xfd;ri' 1, 1975,4 requesting comments on the NRC Draft Environmental Statement related' to the pro-posed issuance of a construction permit to the Duke Power Company (Applicant) for the construction of the Cherokee Nuclear Plant Units 1, 2, and 3 (Docket Nos. STN 50-491, STN 50-492, and STN 50-493), located in Cherokee County, South Carolina.
The proposed Cherokee Units 1, 2, and 3 are scheduled for commercial operation in January 1984, January 1986, and January 1988, respectively.
These comments by the Federal Power Commission's Bureau of Power staff are made in compliance with the National Environmental 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 proposed units and matters related thereto and effects on hydroelectric projects licensed by FPC.'In preparing these comments, the Bureau of Power staff has con-sidered the Draft Environmental Statement; the Applicant's Environ-mental Report; related reports made in accordance with the Commission's Statement of Policy on Reliability and Adequacy of Electric Service (Docket No. R-362); and the staff!s analysis of these documents together with information from other FPCreports.
The staff generally bases its evaluation of the need for a specific bulk power facility upon long-term considerations as well as upon the load-supply situation for the peak load period immediately following the availability of the new facility.Each proposed unit is expected to have a useful life of 30 years or more; during that period, each unit will contribute significantly to the reliability and adequacy of electric power supply in the Applicant's service area.The Applicant is one of several utility systems located in the Virginia-Carolinas (VACAR) area of the Southeastern Electric Relia-bility Council (SERC). The Applicant's system is interconnected with a. 5.nd1 5 'e eiCerer to~ a,era 6 , lece da'~r3 C; 0r31Cn " 4.13 it 50 rt.b. Zs &#xfd;ct r ,:re- c. 0...trce qu-115!.ed data snd lrduscrY sosArcti (sales 'as c. p-1 1 s en~lase ;rellmInrsy estlmate."M..tinj ?ad.y', Ch,.M2."..
~ P-aiding fa, T--oesa., 0-e." 5011h ANNIVERSARY 1970 1920 A-37  the utility systems in the SERC area. SERC coordinates the planning of the members' generation and transmission facilities to assure relia-bility of the members' bulk power supply.*The Federal Power Commission has found that many power systems plan for reserve generating capacity margins between 15 and 25 percent of annual peak load. The actual planned reserve margin for a particular system depends on such factors as the number, size, and types of units, and interconnections with adjacent utility systems.The following tabulations show the Applicant's and VACAR's pro-Jected capabilities, peak loads, and reserve margins for the 1984, 1986, and 1988 sumser peak periods, and the effect of the capacity of the Cherokee Units 1, 2, and 3 on the reserve margins.-3-1984 Summer Peak Load-Supply Situation With Cherokee Unit 1 Applicant I/(1,280 Megawatts)
Total Peak Capability
-Megawatts 19,785 Peak Load- Megawatts 17,226 Reserve Margin -Megawatts 2,559 Reserve Margin -Percent of Peak Load 14.9 Minimum Reserve Margin (Based on 15 Percent of Peak Load) -Megawatts 2,584 Reserve Deficiency-Megawatts 25 Without Cherokee Unit I Reserve Margin -Megawatts 1,279 Reserve Margin -Percent of Peak Load 7.4 Minimum Reserve Margin (Based on 15 Percent of Peak Load) -Megawatts 2,584 Reserve Deficiency
-Megawatts 1,305 VACAR 57,472 50,398 7,074 14.0 7,560 486 5,794 11.5 7,560 1,766 1/ Data Source: NRC Draft Environmental Statement, Tables 8.1 and 8.4.2/ Data Source: SERC's response to FPC Docket No. R-362 (Order 383-3)dated April 1, 1975.A-38 1986 Summer Peak Load-Supply Situation With Cherokee Units 1 and 2 Applicant 1/(2,560 Megawatts)
Total Peak Capability
-Megawatts 22,491 Peak Load -Megawatts 19,598 Reserve Margin -Megawatts 2,893 Reserve Margin -Percent of Peak Load 14.8 Minimum Reserve Margin (Based on 15 Percent of Peak Load) -Megawatts 2,940 Reserve Deficiency
-Megawatts 47 With Only Cherokee Unit 1 (1,280 Megawatts)
Reserve Margin -Megawatts 1,613 Reserve Margin -Percent of Peak Load 8.2 Minimum Reserve Margin (Based on 15 Percent of Peak Load) -Megawatts 2,940 Reserve Deficiency
-Megawatts 1,327 Without Cherokee Units 1 and 2 Reserve Margin -Megawatts 380 Reserve Margin -Percent of Peak Load 1.9 Minimum Reserve Margin (Based on 15 Percent of Peak Load) -Megawatts 2,940 Reserve Deficiency
-Megawatts 2,560 VACAR 2/66,649 58,300 8,349 14.3 8,745.396 7,069 12.1 8,745 1,676 5,789 9.9 8,745 2,956-5-1988 Summer Peak Load-Supply Situation With Cherokee Units 1, 2, and 3 Applicant I/(3,840 Megawatts)
Total Peak Capability
-Megawatts 25,051 Peak Load -Megawatts 22,217 Reserve Margin -Megawatts 2,834 Reserve Margin -Percent of Peak Load 12.8 Minimum Reserve Margin (Based on 15 Percent of Peak Load) -Megawatts 3,333 Reserve Deficiency
-Megawatts 499 With Only Cherokee Units 1 and 2 (2.560 Megawatts)
Reserve Margin -Megawatts 1,554 Reserve Margin -Percent of Peak Load 7.0 Minimum Reserve Margin (Based on 15 Percent of Peak Load) -Megawatts 3,333 Reserve Deficiency
-Megawatts 1,779 With Only Cherokee Unit 1 (1,280 Megawatts)
Reserve Margin -Megawatts 274 Reserve Margin -Percent of Peak Load 1.2 Minimum Reserve Margin (Based on 15 Percent of Peak Load) -Megawatts 3,333 Reserve Deficiency
-Megawatts 3,059 Without Cherokee Units 1. 2 and Reserve Margin -Megawatts
-507 Reserve Margin -Percent of Peak Load -2,3 Minimum Reserve Margin (Based on 15 Percent of Peak Load) -Megawatts 3,333 Reserve Deficiency
-Megawatts 3,840 VACAR 77,379 66,991 10,388.15.5 10,049 9,108 13.6 10,049 941 7,828 11.7 10,049 2,221 6,548 9.8 10,049 3,501 1/ Data Source: NRC Draft Environmental Statement, Tables 8.1 and 8.4.2/ Data Source: SERC's response to FPC Docket No. R-362 (Order 383-3)dated April 1, 1975.1/ Data Source: NRC Draft Environmental Statement, Tables 8.1 and 8.4.2/ Data Source: SERC's response to FPC Docket No. R-362 (Order 383-3)dated April 1. 1975.A-39  If the Cherokee Units 1, 2, and 3 are available as planned, the Applicant's reserve margins for the 1984, 1986, and 1988 summer peaks will be 14.9 percent, 14.8 percent and 12.8 percent, respectively.
VACAR's reserve margins for 1984, 1986, and 1988 will be 14.0 percent, 14.3 percent and 15.5 percent, respectively..
In every instance except one, the projected reserve margins would not lie in the range of reserve margin values (15 to 25 percent) the Federal Power Commission has found to exist for most systems in the United States.Without the Cherokee units, the Applicant's projected reserve margins for 1984, 1986, and 1988 sumsmer peaks would be 7.4 percent, 1.9 percentand negative 2.3 percent, respectively.
VACAR's reserve margins for 1984, 1986, and 1988 will be 11.5 percent, 9.9 percent and 9.8 percent, respectively.
In every instance, the projected reserve margins would not lie in the 15 to 25 percent reserve margin range. Although the tabulations use 15 percent as a minimum reserve margin for the Applicant and VACAR systems, a reserve margin of about 20 percent is considered to be more appropriate for systems inthe Southeast Region. Part I of the FPC's 1970 National Power Survey pro-jected the reserve margin for the Southeast Region to be 20 percent and 21 percent for 1980 and 1990, respectively.
In Table 8.4 of the Draft Environmental Statement, the number corresponding to the "Total Capacity for Summer Peak -MW," for 1983 should read 18,153 megawatts and not 18,233 megawatts.
-The Cherokee Nuclear Station would be located adjacent to and would affect Applicant's Ninety-Nine Islands Hydroelectric Project (PPC No. 2331) located on thu Broad River, a navigable water of the United States, in South Carolina.
The Federal Power Commission issued a license for Project No. 2331 on July 15, 1964. The FPC granted the Applicant's request for rehearing on September 9, 1964.According to the Draft Environmental Statement, Project No. 2331 would be affected by: 1. Construction of dams creating subimpoundments (NSWP, Sedimen-tation Basin, and Holding Pond) within the limits of the project reservoir.
: 2. Withdrawal of reservoir water.3. Construction of intake structure (including training wall and weir).4. Construction of transmission lines across project lands and waters.5. Dredging and filling within the project boundary.-7-NRC did not, however, discuss the effect of the proposed Cherokee Plant on the operation and maintenance of Project No. 2331, particularly any loss of energy and dependable capacity which may result from evapo-rative losses.Modification and use of project lands and waters, as indicated above, require prior FPC approval.
The Applicant is required to file an application requesting approval from the Commission.
Such appli-cation would include, inter alia: revised Exhibits, as appropriate, pursuant to FPC Regulations (18CFR4.41);
an assessment of the safety and adequacy of the existing hydroelectric facilities and subimpound-ment dams, taking into consideration the additional storage created by the subimpoundments; changes in project operation and generation; and an environmental assessment of all proposed changes affecting the project. Such changes and effects on Project No. 2331 should be specifically addressed in the Final Environmental Statement.
In addition, the Final Environmental Statement should consider any effects on downstream hydroelectric projects that may result from the projected evaporation loss of 110 cfs of water. Such effects should include possible loss of generation and dependable capacity, and the value thereof, at the following plants: Name Lockhart Neal Shoals Parr Columbia Santee-Cooper PFPC Project No.2620 2315 1894 1895 199 Owner Lockhart Power Company South Carolina Electric and Gae' Company South Carolina Electric and Gas Company South Carolina Electric and Gas Company South Carolina Public Service Authority It would appear that any permit or subsequent license issued for the Cherokee Nuclear Station should require the Applicant to adequately compensate Lockhart Power Company, South Carolina Electric and Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service Authority for any loss of energy and capacity.The Bureau of Power staff concludes that additional capacity equivalent to that represented by the Cherokee Units 1, 2, and 3 is needed to maintain the adequacy and reliability of the Applicant's and VACAR's bulk power system.Very truly yours, Chief, Bureau of Power A-40 (North Carolina Department IN DO0 of Administration JAMES E. HOLSHOUSER, JR., GOVERNOR e BRUCE A. LENTZ, SECRETARY June 4, 1,975 Hr. William H. Regan, Jr., Chief Environmental Projects Branch 4 Division of Reactor Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Re: H. B. Robinson Unit No. 2 Docket No. 50-261; North Carolina SCH File No. 039-75 OFFICE OF TERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS EDWIN DECKARD DIRECTOR STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMiENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 325 NORTH SALISBURY STREET RALEIGH 27611 April 23, 1975 t:AES E. HOLSHOUSER, JR.DAVID T FLAHERTY i--'-O.ANO, '4 9'5/9.452.E 7~TO: Jacob Koomen ATTENT-);:
Ho&#xfd;;ard Ellis Health Services
 
==Dear Mr. Regan:==
Enclosed you will find comments on the above reference, for your use and file.Sincerely yours, JaneaPettuse ( uiss)Clearinghouse Supervisor FRO:, LO 4SG. Cnhit Grants Managenent Section Division of Plans and Prcceams Draft Environmental Statement, H.B. Robinson Nuclear Steam-Electric Plant Unit 2, Carolina Power & Licht Co.Docket No. 50-261; SCH File no. 039-75
 
==SUBJECT:==
JP:mw Enclosure Draft Environrental Statement, Cherokee Nuclear Steen Units 1, 2, and 3, D,2 Power Coypany, Docket Nos. 5TN 50-431, 50-42, arzd 50-4jt; N.C. SCHI File Cc i3;-,: Please re-.iew, the above relera-nzed document(s) and fu=njish this off; -e 4i your cztments by May 9, 1975 Our engineers have reviewed the referenced document in relation to its impact on the environment with respect to those matters for which our agency has responsibility.
In our cpinion, the referenced document is satisfmctorv; and lae no cmrments to offer with regard to inclusion of additional irformatiDon revision of _t' information presented.
aac/.en L dI;1OODALL 5/7/75 PLANNING OFFICER.2-; .( -I / 'T-116 WEST JONES STREET RALEIGH 27603 1919l 829S.A-41 DuuE PoWE.R GomPATN-Y POIV7R BUTLDINO, 13OX 2178, GELA-LOTTE, N. C3. 002.52-August 8, 1975 Mr. Daniel R. Muller Assistant Director for Environmental Projects Division of Reactor Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.Re: Project 81 Application of IOCFR5O, Appendix I APPENDIX B Duke File: P81-1412.06 APPLICANT's COMMITMENT LETTER
 
==Dear Mr. luiler:==
This is in response to your letter of July 30, 1975 requesting RELATING TO THE STAFF'S "UPPER BOUND" confirmation of our intent to.satisfy the requirements of Title 10, RADIOLOGICAL DOSE ANALYSIS Chapter 1, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, Appendix I.The proposed design for which we seek a construction permit includes the radwaste equipment presently described in the Project 81 PSAR Section 11.0. We do not intend, in connection with our construction permit application, to remove any presently proposed equipment or systems.In conrection with the hearings, to consider the radiological safety aspects of :he facilities, we will provide such additional equip-ment determined to be necessary to meet the requirements of IOCFR5O, Appendix I. Wie understand that the determination will be a realistic and detailed assessment based on best available data. Furthermore; the upper bound estimates of radiological impact referred to in your letter of July 30, 1975 have no bearing on the assessment required by I0CFRSO, Appendix I, but will be used with respect to the radiological environmental impact assessment.
required by NEPA which is discussed in your Environmental Statement.
Very truly yours, RW H. Owen RIIW/ bjg B-i Appendix C DESCRIPTION OF THE UPPER-BOUND PROCEDURE FOR CALCULATING POPULATION DOSES This appendix describes the models and assumptions used to make upper-bound estimates of popula-tion dose for interim assessment of the potential radiological impact from normal operation of nuclear power stations in the United States.DOSE DEFINITIONS Individual doses from specific radionuclides were estimated using standard internal dosimetric techniques in accordance with the recommendations of the ICRP., 3  All internal dose conversion calculations have been made using the maximum permissible concentrations listed in ICRP Publica-tions 2 and 6. Data on breathing rates, organ masses, and other physiological parameters are those implied by the standard man of ICRP 2.The isotopic concentration levels in the environment used in the dose calculations were conser-vatively 'assumed to be those which would exist during the final year of plant life. A 30-year plant operational lifetime was assumed for calculating buildup of long-lived radioactivity in the environment.
Calculated doses represent a 50-year dose commitment which would be received by the population during 1year of exposure to radioactive releases from the facility at the levels described; that is, the calculated doses reflect the dose that a person would receive over 50 years from radioactive materials to which that person was exposed for 1 year. For iso-topes with a short effective half-life, essentially all the exposure occurs in the year of the intake. For isotopes with a longer effective half-life, the dose resulting from intake in any one year may be spread over a long period. The 50-year dose commitment method computes the dose associated with any given year's intake, even if that dose is due to a long-lived isotope and is spread out over the lifetime of the person exposed.RECEIVING WATER The liquid effluent population doses previously used by the staff were conservative.
For example, fish were assumed to have come to equilibrium with the radioactivity content of the water in which they were caught. Thus, the man-rem developed previously has been accepted for this evaluation and incorporated into the sum. In any case, the liquid effluents contribute only small fractions of the total impact of the station.ATMOSPHERIC EFFLUENTS For a uniform population density the population dose may be written as population dose = K T P where T is the spatially averaged concentration time integral appropriate for a population of P individuals.
ATMOSPHERIC EFFLUENTS THAT DEPOSIT (RADIOIODINE AND PARTICULATES)
At any point, the concentration time integral, T, will be related to the ground concentration, w, and the deposition velocity, Vg, by V w/'W Thus the population dose can be expressed as population dose = K W P/Vg , C-l C-2 where W is the average ground concentration appropriate for the population P. In the above equation, only the average ground concentration, W, is needed. Noting that whatever is released will eventually settle, we can define the average W over a large arbitrary area as=Q/A, where Q is the total source released.
This gives population dose = (K Q P)/(A V , where P/A is the average population density (people/m 2), Q is the total source released (Ci), V is the deposition velocity (m/sec), and K is the dose conversion factor (rem/Ci-sec/m 3). The agove equation was used to determine upper-bound population doses for the generic case.The doses resulting from ground-plane irradiation of the population were primarily based on the Oak Ridge EXREM III Code.4 Data on certain other-isotopes were based on Batelle studies.5 Basically, the method used consists of determining the gamma energy at 100 cm above an assumed infinite ground plane. Buildup of long-lived radioactivity on the ground from 30 years of con-tinuous deposition includes ingrowth of radioactive daughter products.
No beta doses from ground-plane irradiation were treated because vegetation on the ground, clothing, and the travel distance in air all combine to make this dose contribution very small. In any case, the contribution to the total' U.S. population dose from ground-plane radiation is negligible.
FOOD UPTAKE Population exposure from airborne radioisotopes resulting from food uptake is determined, not by the density of people in the area of the food crop, but by the number of persons that can be fed by the affected crop. We have considered the exposure associated with three principal pathways: direct ingestion of affected vegetation, consumption of meat from animals fed on affected vegeta-tion, and consumption of milk from animals fed on affected vegetation.
For our interim estimates, ground deposition was computed as described above. Vegetation density used was 2300 g of vegetation per square meter and 440 g of grass per square meter of pasture, 6 which is typical of average agricultural and pasture land.Concentrations of isotopes on the soil assumed buildup of the isotope from continuous deposition over the facility lifetime (30 years). Also included was ingrowth of radioactive daughter pro-ducts. Isotopes were assumed to be deposited directly on vegetation as well as on soil and to be taken up by plant roots. No loss of radioisotopes from soil by weathering or other removal mechanisms is included; so the calculated results tend to be conservative.-
Concentrations of isotopes deposited directly on vegetation
'assumed an effective 13-day weathering-removal half-life from plant leaves in addition to the radiological half-life.
Since both soil deposition and vegetation deposition are treated assuming the-full original airborne concentration (i.e., deposition of isotopes on the soil was not depleted to account for the isotopes deposited on vegetation before they reach the soil), material weathered from the plants to the soil has already been accounted for. Thus, the doses do not need to be treated separately.
Of the amount directly deposited on vegetation, 30% was assumed to be absorbed by the plant.This results*in a computed concentration of radioisotopes in agricultural vegetation in the affected area. For that portion of the vegetation that is assumed to go directly to human-con-sumption, a decay time of 7 days was assumed in the transfer of foodstuffs from the field to ultimate consumption.
In addition to the portion going directly to human consumption, vegetation containing radio-isotopes as computed above is assumed to be fed to meat and milk animals. Cattle were assumed to have ingested at a rate equivalent to 200 kg "grass" per day.7 Assuming a grass dry matter content of 25%, the above rate corresponds to 50 kg dry "grass" per day. This ingestion rate is not to be considered as the daily mass intake of feed, but only the "grass equivalent" intake.The development of this estimate is outlined below.To maintain a high productivity, animals are generally offered feeds, such as grains and harvested forages, to supplement or to totally replace their pasture intake.7-9 The U.S. Department of Agriculture 9 has estimated that one-fifth of the diet of milk cattle is obtained from pasturing.
This percentage is based ,on the energy requirements of milking animals.
C-5 REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX C 1. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP Publication 2, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1959.2. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP Publication 6, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1962.3. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP Publication 10, Report of Committee IV, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1968.4. D. K. Trubey and S. U. Kaye, The EXREM III Computer Code for Estimating External Radiation Doses to Populations from Environmental Releases, ORNL-TM-4322, Oak Ridge National Labora-tory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., December 11, 1973.5. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, FES-ALAP-LWR Effluents, WASH-1258, July 1973.6. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 93rd Edition, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, 1972.7. J. T. Reid, "Forages for Dairy Cattle," in Forages, 3rd ed., M. F. Heath, D. S. Metcalfe, and R. F. Barnes, Eds., Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 1973.8. W. K. Kennedy, J. T. Reid, and M. J. Anderson, "Evaluation of Animal Production Under Different Systems of Grazing," J. Dairy Sci. 42: 679 (1959).9. G. C. Allen, E. F. Hodges, and M. Devers, National and State Livestock-Feed Relationships, ERS-USDA Stat. Bull. 446, Suppl. (1972).10. J. J. Koranda, Agricultural Factors Affecting the Daily Intake of Fresh Fallout by Dairy Cows, UCRL-21479, University of California Radiation Laboratory, Livermore, Calif., 1965.11. P. M. Bryant, "Derivation of Working Limits of Continuous Release Ratios of Iodine-131 to the Atmosphere in a Milk Producing Area," Health Phys. 10(4): 249-258 (1964).12. C. L. Comar, "Radioactivity in Animals -Entry and Metabolism," in Radioactivity and Human Diet, R. Scott Russell, Ed., Pergamon Press, 1966.13. C. Ng et al., "Prediction of the Maximum Dosage to Man from the Fallout of Nuclear Devices," in Handbook for Estimating the Maximum Internal Dose from Radionuclides Released to the Biosphere, UCRL-50163, Part IV, University of California Radiation Laboratory, Livermore, Calif., 1968.14. California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, California Dairy Industry Statistics, 1973, Sacramento, Calif. 95806.15. California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, California Livestock Statistics, 1974, Sacramento, Calif. 95806.16. L. Machta, Carbon in the Biosphere, G. W. Woodwell and G. V. Pecan, Eds., Technical Information Center, USAEC, 1973.17. J. C. Houtermans, H. G. Seuss, and H. Oescher, J. Geophys. Res. 78: 1897 (1973).18. C. E. Junge, J. Geophys. Res. 68: 3849 (1963).
C-3 In evaluating the transport of radioiodine (1-131) in the milk pathway, it is generally accepted that a pasture intake of 10 kg dry grass per day is applicable.10-1 2 Assuming that the energy content of various feeds is equivalent to that of grass, the above statement implies a total daily intake rate of 50 kg dry "grass" or 200 kg wet "grass." Beef animals were assumed to be subject to the same feeding practices as milk cattle.For the animal feed coming from stored feeds, a two-month delay was assumed, which results in decay of short-lvied isotopes.
For the portion coming directly from pastureland uptake, no decay was assumed between-deposition and animal uptake.Transfer factors from animal uptake to milk and meat were taken from UCRL-50163.1 3 For popula-tion dose estimates, a 1-day milk supply delay factor was used, and a 7-day meat supply delay factor was used between consumption of vegetation by the animal and ultimate consumption of meat or milk from that animal by persons in the population.
This gives a concentration of radioiso-topes in meat and milk from agricultural lands in the affected area.To convert from concentration of radioactivity in foodstuffs to population dose, it has been assumed that the affected land has an average agricultural productivity equivalent to assuming that the entire U.S. population was fed from that portion of the land area of the U.S. east of the Mississippi River. Assuming an average daily diet for an adult of 400 g of vegetation, 250 g of meat, and 350 g of milk would result in an average daily land productivity of 100 kg of vegetation per square mile, 65 kg of meat per square mile, and 90 kg of milk per square mile.This compares fairly conservatively with the daily agricultural land productivity for the United States of about 50 kg per square mile for milk 1 4 and 10 kg per square mile for meat.1 5 ATMOSPHERIC RELEASES THAT DO NOT DEPOSIT (NOBLE GASES, C-14, AND TRITIUM)Short-lived noble gases were assumed to disperse to the atmosphere without deposition, but radio-active decay that limits spread of the gas was explicitly treated. The population dose, assuming an infinite integration along the plume pathlength, is given by population dose = (K Q P)(AL A)which is the same form as used for particulate deposition, except that the deposition velocity is replaced by XL, where X is the radioactive decay constant (sec-') and L is the height of the)assumed vertical air mixing. An L value of 1000 m was used in the calculations.
The long-lived gaseous radioisotopes, K-85 and C-14, were assumed to be distributed by dilution in the earth's atmosphere.
Both were considered to build up over 30 years of plant life. Carbon-14 was assumed to be released in oxide form, which maximizes its availability to the population via food chains. Other chemical forms such as methane would not be as readily available.
The C-14 was considered to be completely mixed in the troposphere with no removal mechanisms operating; that is, the absorption of carbon by the ocean and by long-lived biota not strongly coupled to man were neglected.
In actuality, the atmospheric residence time of carbon is about 4 to 6 years,16,17 with the ocean being the major sink. The neglect of carbon sinks yields an overestimate of the steady-state or end-of-plant-life (30-year plant, life) atmospheric concen-tration by a factor of about 6.Unlike radioactivity ejected into the stratosphere and then appearing in the high-latitude troposphere, as in weapon testing, the emission of concern here is directly introduced into the mid-latitudes of the troposphere.
Transfer of tropospheric air between the two hemispheres, although inhibited by wind patterns in the equatorial region, is considered to yield a hemisphere average tropospheric residence time of about two years with respect to hemispheric mixing.4 This time constant is quite short with respect to the expected plant lifetime, and mixing in both hemispheres can be assumed for end-of-plant-life evaluations.
Doses were calculated assuming that all carbon in the body reaches the same equilibrium ratio of C-14 to natural carbon as exists in the air.TRITIUM Tritium was assumed to mix uniformly in the world's hydrosphere.
The hydrosphere was assumed to include all the atmospheric water and the upper 70 m of the oceans. Having determined this equilibrium concentration of tritium in the world, doses to man were calculated by assuming that all the hydrogen in the body reaches the same equilibrium ratio of tritium to hydrogen as exists in the air and water of the environment.
C-4 POPULATION DENSITY AND CHANGES -LOCAL IMPACT The doses calculated for shine dose from radioactive materials deposited on the ground and for short-lived noble gases were based on a population density of 160-persons per square mile, which is characteristic of the U.S. population east of the Mississippi River. These components of dose would be increased if the close-in populations (the populations principally exposed) exceeded this value substantially.
However, as noted, these components do not significantly affect the total and would be reviewed on an individual-case basis for the Appendix I cost-benefit analysis.Local food uptake exposures are not based on population density but rather on agricultural pro-ductivity and consequently are not directly affected by population-growth, but more by changes.in land use. Similarly, the principal future impact on estimates from liquid effluents would result from changes in water use patterns in the nearby areas, for example, if a drinking-water intake for a large city were constructed near the plant discharge.
Such future changes are difficult to predict.To assure adequate control of releases while allowing for future changes in water or land use, the operating license Technical Specifications will provide for periodic reassessment of changes in land and water use patterns.
This will provide a periodic reassessment of the adequacy of facility performance in order to maintain exposures to the public within the Appendix I guides.CONCLUSIONS The main contributions to the population dose to the United States is from C-14 and 1-131. The generic estimates are about 2 man-rems/year for C-14 and about 300 man-rems/year for 1-131 per curie released Per year of plant operation for 30 years. All other releases and pathways are minor contributors.
I!
Appendix D COST ESTIMATES FOR ALTERNATIVE BASE-LOAD GENERATION SYSTEMS A computer program was used to rough check the applicant's capital cost estimate for the proposed nuclear power station and to estimate the costs for fossil-fired alternative generation systems.This computer program, called CONCEPT'-3 was developed as part of the program analysis activities of the AEC Division of Reactor Research and Development, and the work wa's performed in the Studies and Evaluations Program at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
The code was designed primarily for use in examining average trends in costs, identifying important elements in the cost structure, determining sensitivity to technical and economic factors, and providing reasonable long-range projections of costs. Although cost estimates produced by the CONCEPT code are not intended as substitutes for detailed engineering cost estimates for specific projects, the code has been organized to facilitate modifications to the cost models so that costs may be tailored to a particular project. Use of the computer provides a rapid means of calculating future capital costs of a project with various assumed sets of economic and technical ground rules.DESCRIPTION OF THE CONCEPT CODE The procedures used in the CONCEPT code are based on the premise that any central station power plant involves approximately the same major cost compo-nents regardless of location or date of initial operation.
Therefore, if the trends of these major cost components can be established as a function of plant type and size, location, and interest and escalation rates, then a cost estimate for a reference case can be adjusted to fit the case of interest.The application of this approach requires a detailed "cost model" for each plant type at a reference condition and the determination of the cost trend'relationships.
The generation of these data has comprised a large effort in the development of the CONCEPT code. Detailed investment cost studies by an architect-engineering firm have provided basic cost model'data for light water rea.ptor nuclear plants,4-5 and fossil-fired plants.6-7  These cost data have been revised to reflect plant design changes'since the 1971 reference date of the initial estimates.
The cost model is based on a detailed cost estimate for a reference plant at a designated location and a specified date. This estimate includes a detailed breakdown of each cost account into costs for factory equipment, site materials, and site labor. A typical cost model consists of over a hundred individual cost accounts, each of which can be altered by input at the user's option.The AEC system of cost accounts 8 is used in CONCEPT.To generate a cost estimate under specific conditions, the user specifies the following input: plant type and location, net capacity, beginning date for design and construction, date of commercial operation, length of construction workweek, and rate of interest during construction.
If the specified plant size is different from the reference plant size, the direct cost for each two-digit account is adjusted by using scaling functions which define the cost as a function of plant size. This initial step gives an estimate of the direct costs for a plant of the specified type and size at the base date and location.The code has access to cost index data files for 20 key cities in the United States. These files contain data on cost of materials and wage rates for 16 construction crafts as reported by trade publications over the past fifteCn years. These data are used to determine historical trends of site labor and material costs, providing a basis for projecting future costs of site labor and materials.
These cost data may be overridden by user input if data for.the particular project are available.
D-1 D-2 This technique of separating the plant cost into individual components, applying appropriate scaling functions and location-dependent cost adjustments, and escalating to different dates is the heart of the computerized approach used in CONCEPT. The procedure is illustrated schematically in Fig. 1.ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS The assuniptions used in the CONCEPT calculations are listed in Table 1. Table 2 summarizes the total plant capital investment estimates for the proposed nuclear station with mechanical draft cooling towers.Estimated costs for alternative fossil-fired plants are presented in Table 3.The estimated costs for SO 2 removal equipment are based on a study performed by Oak Ridgt National Laboratory.
9 ns stated previously, the above cost estimates produced by the CONCEPT code are not intended as substitutes for detailed engineering cost estimates, but were prepared as a check on the applicant's estimate and to provide consistent estimates for the nuclear plant and fossil-fired alternatives.
ORML-DWG 72-225SR PUT DATA OTFINNG 7 CALCULATE
: 3. 4 AND S-DIGIT NRJC AND COS/ F r EDIRECT COSTS. DIVIDED INTO OPTIONAL ASSUMPTIONS FACTORY ESUIPRENT.
SITE OUTPUT PtMATERIALS AND SITE LABOR ASE PLANT COST COS INDEX DATA OR EL SELECTED FROM SELECTED SITE OBTAINED DAT FLES FROM HISTORICAL DATA FILES CALCULATE CONTINGENCIES AND SPARE PARTS 5 TO PECIFE CUON ALL DIRECT COSTS.PLS 4T SIZE EXCEPT LAND RED LOUPCANT.
SITE RIALSED S TE LABORC ULT INDIRECT COSTS DOST CA'TEGORIES O EXCEPT INTEREST &#xfd;DURING CONSTRUCTION IRE0 LOCAITIO:N.UDTE, SUM ALL COSTS EXCEPT OVERTI ME., ETC. LAND COST Fig. 1. Use of the CONCEPT program for estimating capital costs.
D-3 Table 1. Assumptions Used in CONCEPT Calculations (Revised 5, 1975)Plant name Plant type Alternate plant types Unit size Plant location Actual CONCEPT calculations Interest during construction Escalation during construction Site labor Site materials Purchased equipment Sitl labor requirements Length of workweek Start of design and construction NSS ordered Fossil alternatives Commercial operation dates Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Cherokee Nuclear Station Three-unit PWR with mechanical draft cooling towers Three-unit coal 1280 MW(e)-net, each unit Cherokee County, South Carolina Atlanta, Georgia 8%/year, compound 8.5%/year 7.5%/year 7.5%/year 9.76 manhours/kW(e) 40 hours date April 1973 January 1978 January 1984 January 1986 January 1988 D-4 Table 2. Plant Capital Investment Summary for 3840 MWe Pressurized-Water-Reactor Nuclear Power Plant Utilizing Mechanical Draft Evaporative Cooling Towers (Revised September 5, 1975)(Duke Power Company, Cherokee Nuclear Station)Unit I Unit 2 Unit 3 Net capability, MW(e)Direct Costs (Millions of Dollars Land and land rights Physical plant Structures and site facilities Reactor plant equipment Turbine plant equipment Electric plant equipment
-Miscellaneous plant equipment Subtotal (physical plant).Spare parts allowance
\Contingency allowance Subtotal (total pjysical plant)Indirect Costs (Millions of Dollars)Construction facilities, equipment and services Engineering and construction manage-ment services Other costs Interest during construction Total Costs Plant capital cost at start of project Millions of dollars Dollars per kilowatt Escalation during construction Plant capital cost at commercial operation Millions of dollars Dollars per kilowatt 1280 1280 1280 3 48 88 90 28 5 259 2 17 278 0 40 87 88 25 3 243 2 15 260 0 40 87 88 25 3 243 2 15 260 Total 3840 3 128 262 266 78 11 745 6 47 798, I 18 12' 12 42 44 33 33 110 14 167'524 409 271 795 621 10 179 494 386 339 833 651 10 218 533 416 444 977 763 34 564 1551 404 1054 2605 678 1-'
Table 3. Total Plant Capital Investment Cost Estimated for a Three-Unit 3840-MW(e)
Coal-Fired Plant with Mechanical Draft Evaporative Cooling Towers as an Alternative to the Cherokee Nuclear Station (Revised September 5, 1975)Without SO 2 Abatement System With SO2 Abatement System Direct Costs (Millions of Dollars)Land and land rights 3 3 Physical plant Structures and site facilities 98 117 Boiler plant equipment 320 414 Turbine plant equipment 285 291 ,Electric plant equipment 54 77 Miscellaneous plant equipment 11 11 Subtotal (physical plant) 768 910 Spare parts allowance 6 7 Contingency allowance 49 58 Subtotal (total physical plant) 823 975 Indirect Costs (Millions of Dollars)Construction facilities, equipment 38 69 and services Engineering and construction manage- 64 75 ment services Other costs 24 32 Interest during construction 361 447 Total Costs Plant capital cost at start of project Millions of dollars 1313 1601 Dollars per kilowatt 342 417 Escalation during construction 424 511 Plant capital cost at commercial operat ion Millions of dollars 1737 2112 Dollars per kilowatt 452 550 D-6 REFERENCES
: 1. CONCEPT: A Computer Code for Conceptual Cost Estimates of Steam-Electric Power Plants -Status Report, USAEC Report WASH-1180 (April 1971).2. R. C. DeLozier, L. D. Reynolds, and H. I. Bowers, CONCEPT: Computerized Conceptual Cost Estimates for Steam-Electric Power Plants -Phase I User's Manual, USAEC Report ORNL-TM-3276, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, October 1971.3. H. I. Bowers, R. C. DeLozier, L. D. Reynolds, and B. E. Srite, CONCEPT.II:
A Computer.
Code for Conceptual Cost Estimates of Steam-Electric Power Plants -Phase II User's Manual, USAEC Report ORNL-4809, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, April 1973.4. 1000-MWE Central Station Power Plant Investment Cost Study, Volume I, Pressurized Water Reactor Plant, USAEC Report WASH-1230 (Vol. I), United Engineers and Constructors, Inc., Philadelphia, Pa., June 1972.5. 1000-MWE Central Station Power Plant Investment Cost Study, Volume II, Boiling Water Reactor Plant, USAEC Report WASH-1230 (Vol. II), United Engineers and Constructors, Inc., Philadelphia, Pa'., June 1972.6. 1000-MWE Central Station Power Plant Investment Cost Study, Volume III, Coal-Fired Fossil Plant, USAEC Report WASH-1230 (Vol. III), United Engineers and Constructors, Inc., Philadelphia, Pa., June 1972.7. IQOO-MWE Central Station Power Plant Investment Cost Study, Volume IV, Oil-Fired Fossil Plant, USAEC Report WASH-1230 (Vol. IV), United Engineers and Constructors, Inc., Philadelphia, Pa., June 1972.8. Guide for Economic Evaluation of Nuclear Reactor Plant Designs, USAEC Report NUS-531, NUS Corporation, January 1969.9. M. L. Myers, Cost Estimate for the Limestone-Wet Scrubbing Sulfur Oxide Control Process, USAEC Report ORNL-TM-4142, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, July 1973.#,}}

Latest revision as of 19:56, 14 January 2025

Final Environmental Statement Related to Construction of Cherokee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3
ML073201240
Person / Time
Site: Cherokee  Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 10/31/1975
From:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
References
NUREG-75/089
Download: ML073201240 (215)
v • d • e


Text

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML073201240&oldid=5338120"