ML17209A862

Eia Supporting Amend 39 to License DPR-67

ML17209A862
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	03/10/1981
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML17209A863	List: ML17209A862 ML17209A864 ML19343C813
References
NUDOCS 8103250339
Download: ML17209A862 (8)

Text

VNITEO STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHING"iON, D. C. 20555 ENVIRONIIENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL.

BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMEHT NO.

39 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE HO.

DPR-67 FLORIDA POWER 8t LIGHT COMPANY ST.

LUCIE PLANT, UNIT NO.

1 DOCKET NO. 50-335

~tl l Pi~I'.

d A

By letter dated April 12, 1979, supplemented by letters dated September 10, 1979 and February 26, 1980, Florida Power and Light Company (FP8L or the licensee) requested an amendment to the Appendix B Environmental Technical Sp:;ci fications (ETS) for St. Lucie Pl ant, Unit No. 1.

The licensee proposed to delete certain water quality requirements from the ETS.

'The licensee's justifica'tion for deleting these requirements is that they are contained in'he National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued

,by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Water Act

-,and are not within the jurisdiction of the NRC.

On September 12, 1979, Region fV of EPA requested HRC review of changes to the St. Lucie HPDES permit proposed by FPEL.

The proposed permit changes were for the same parameters proposed to be deleted from the ETS.

The licensee proVided EPA with an extensive environmental assessment of making the proposed changes In responding to EPA's request, we reviewed the assessment which FPSL sent to EPA.

At the same time, we reviewed the portions of the NPDES permit which contain restrictions similar to those in the ETS.

We found that we had no objections to the proposed changes to the permit.

We found that we could rely on the, NPDFS permit for limiting those parameters which the licensee requested to be deleted from the ETS.

On December 4, 1979, we sent a letter to the Chief, Water Enforcement Branch"of Region IV-EPA, informing him ;hat we did not abject to the permit modifications and that we could rely on the NPDES permit conditions

. 'for limiting those parameters proposed,to be delet.d from the ETS.

On March 4,

1980, EPA-Region IV informed us that the proposal io rely on the NPDES permit'or regulation of the, water quality parameters to be deleted from the ETS was acceptable.

8l 0 3 2 5 0+Q

Specifically, the licensee proposed to delete limiting conditions for operation in Section 2.1.1, "Maximum Discharge Temperature,:

2.1.2, Maximum Condenser Temperature Rise," 2.2.1; "Biocides," and 2.2.2, "pH"; surveillance programs in Section 3.1.A.1, "Biocides," 2.1.A.2, "Heavy Metals," 3.1.A.3, "pH," 3.1.A.4, "Dissolved Oxygen" and 3.1.A.5, "Temperature,"

and the requirements of Section 4.2, "iinimum Effective Chlorine Usage."

Definitions in Section 1.0 and the condition specifi.d in paragraph 2.F.(3) of the operating license, associated with the sections to l

removed, would be deleted.

In addition, the portion of license condition 2.F.(2) pertaining to fish impingement would be deleted per Amendment No.

29 issued on January 24, 1980.

This appraisal reviews the results of', and provides a basis for, deleting the specifications described above and for relying on the NPDES permit for protection of the aquatic environment in the vicinity of the St.

Lucie site.

Environmental Im acts of Pro osed Action Temperature Limits Spec'ification 2.1.1 requires that the maximum discharge temperature'nto the Atlantic Ocean shall not exceed ill'F.

The surface temperature within the zone of mixing is not to exceed' rise of 5,5'F nor a maximum temperature of 93"F as an instantaneous maximum at any point.

In addition, thermal defouling of the intake is allowed subject to a.maximum release temperature of 120'F, and under conditions. of circulating water system outage, the discharge temperatures are limited to 115'F.

Specification 2.1.2 limits the temperature rise across the condenser under full power op<

.~tion to 26'F.

During maintenance or outage of the circulating water

system, the temperature rise shall not exceed 35'F for greater than a 72-'hour pel lod

~

The FES for operation of Unit No.

1 (June 1973) summarized the projected impact related to the thermal discharge as follows (p. i):

Planktonic organisms wil1 be eventually killed by thermal shock as they pass through the condenser.

However, there appears to be very little marine life in. the vicinity of the intake, 'so the impact on the eco-system is expected to be minor.

The maximum ocean surface

',:mperature rise at the Atlantic Ocean discharge will be about 6'F.

The 3'F isotherm should cover about 35 acres and the 1;,F isotherm about 2860 acres.

These temperatures may have some unknos(n effects on the mating habits of turtles in the plume zone and on the activity of turtle hatchlings as they leave their beach nests.

Effects on other marine life are expected to be minimal.

~

3 The thermal limitations in the permit, as modified on February 18, 1980, are:

a. maximum discharge temperature for normal operation of 113'F and 117'C during mainterianoe of the circulating water system (CWS);

a maximum condenser temperature rise of 30'F except during maintenance of the CWS when the temperature

.can be 32'F;

and, ambi'ent ocean surface-temperature not to exceed

, an instantaneous maximum of 97'F.

The licensee's consultant provided an assessment to EPA,of the impacts which might occur at the higher discharge limits allowed by tlIe NPDES permit.

This comprehensive report considered the "worst case",situation of discharging the heated water during the month of September, which is the hottest",month for ambient water temperatures and coincides with the highest animal densities in the s ite vicinity.

The impact of i'hermal discharge was evaluated

.with the receiving water under static and dytamic=conditions.

Thermal effects were evaluated on-phytoplankton, zooplankton, ichthyoplankton, benthic invertebrates, fish and turtles.

R duction in phytoplankton due to increased, temperature is estimated to be less than 2.5X of the total phytdplankton in tlie region of potential impact.

Rapid turnover rates in the'ommuni ty would easily compensate for this reduction.

Zooplankton mortality will increase at the higher discharge temperatures but will largely be offset by a decreased mortality from lower volumes of water pumped through the plant.

A maximum effect of a deere'ase of less than lX in number of zooplankters i~'as predicted.

llortality of ichthyoplankton entrained through the plant would decrease at reduced pumping rates while 'higher discharge temperatures would increase the impact on org'anisms entrained into the plume.

It was projected that impacts of hi ghet temperatures would be offset by'educed impacts at lower flows.

Benthic invertebrates would not be directly influenced by the discharge water as it is directed towards the surface and does not impinge on the bottom near the discharge.

The adult fishes will be primarily affected by the thermal plume by being excluded from an offshore area where they would encounter increased temperatui es.

Within the thermal plume,'otal exclusion of the adult fishes due to thermal avoidance will probably occur from the point of discharge to the 95 F isotherm, and no exclusion from temperatures less than 90'F.

The total volume of water which may limit adult fishes offshore of the plant was calculated by the licensee to be about 65 acre-ft.

,This volume of heated water is less than 1! of that available as habitat for fishes in the site vicinity.

1

4 I

Marine turtles us.

the offshore for breeding and the beach for nesting.

The adult turtles are mobile and can easily avoid the heated plume.

Accord' to the licensee, turtle hatchlings have demonstrated reduced swimming speeds at water temperatures over 86'F

. If turtle hatchlings encounter heated

areas, they would resume normal swimming after sinking below the heated areas.

No adverse effects are anticipated.

In summary, we conclude that the impacts from deleting the current ETS thermal limits and relying on the thermal requirements of the NPDES permit are acceptable for the following reasons:

(1) the St. Lucie FES conservatively assumed that all entrained organisms would be killed, (2) the thermal impact of the entrainment of phytoplankton, zooplankton, and ichthyoplankton was not predicted to be significant, (3) in general, low concentrations of ichthyoplankton were recorded in the intake canal thereby confirming the FES prediction that small numbers would be entrained, and (4) as discussed

above, the increase in hT will permit less water to be drawn into the plant, and thereby fewer organisms would be exposed to the higher hT.

Biocides Specification 2.2.1 limits the concentration of total residual chlorine at the end of the discharge canal to 0.1 mg/1.

Chlorine is also not to be added for more than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> per day.

The NPDES permit requirements on the discharge of chlorine are identical to those in ETS 2.2.1.

We conclude. that no environmental impact will result from reliance on the NPDFS permit values as the chlorine discharges allowed by the permit are the same as those allowed by the ETS.

II Specification 2.2.2 limits the pH of the cooling water in the discharge canal not to be less than 6.0 nor greater than 9.0 standard units.

The NPDES permit restricts the pH of the neutralization basin discharge to the intake canal to not less than 6.0 standard units.

No upper limit is provided.

l4onitoring in the discharge canal since 1976'has shown thatzg)e pH of the circulating water ranges from a low of 8.00 to a high of 8.4.

These data show that the pH is quite stable which is to be expected for a. sea water system which is naturally well buffered.

Normal sea water has a

pH of approximately 8.0, but can range from 7.5.to 8.4".

At a pH of 8.0, the vast amount of the C02 present in sea water occurs in bound forms, with most of it occurring as bicarbonate ion.

Sea water containing weak acids, such as carbonic acid and to a lesser extent boric acid, has a strong buffering action compared with pure water.

Thus the addition of acid to the system:

C02

+ H2 H2C03 (

H

+ HC03 (

2H

+ C03-shifts the equilibrium to the left and the resulting carbonic acid ionizes to a small extent so the pH re~vins relatively stable.

C

Me conclude that Specification 2.2.2 limiting the pH of the cooling water in t'".,e discharge canal can be deleted, as acids or bases released into. the CPS;,ould be diluted many times by the flow of the CMS, and because the bu=fering action of the sea water will help to neutralize releases of acid or bases.

The c"~ination of dilution and the buffering action of sea water will assure that releases of acids or bases will not affect the biotic cu~"anity in tne site vicinity.

En.ii onmental Surveillance I

I S~-.ecification 3.1.A'.1 requires monitoring of total residual chlorine in the, disc'large canal on a 'weekly schedul e.

Section

2. 2. 1 requires monitor ing of to'al residual chlorine at the discharge canal

terminus, however, Specification 3.1.A.1 rcluires monitoring in the discharge canal to determine the decay of chlorine in the canal.

The licensee has measured residual chlorine in the canal since Narch 1976 Levels measured have ranged from 0.01 to 0.08 mg/1.

All measurements have been below the O.l limit of Specification 2.2.').

The

.'PDFS permit requires'onitoring of total residual chlorine in the discharge canal prior to discharge to the Atlantic Ocean.

Compliance with the NPDES permit level of O.l mg/1 and monitoring wil'l assure that impacts to organisms from the discharge of chlorine'are within those discussed in the St.'ucie FES.

Sp=-c-ification 3.1.A.Z requires monthly monitoring of the heavy metals,

Hercury, A~see'c, Chromium, Copper, Iron, Lead, Nickel and Zinc, in the intake and disc;;a> ge canals to detect any measurable increase in these. metals.

Sampling conducted by the licensee during 1977 and 1978 has shown levels at o'r below the lev~:1 of detectability with no measurable increase due to plant operation The

.'lPDES permit does not require routine monitoring for heavy metals.

However, based on the results of the licensee's monitoring, we conclude that heavy me-.al monitoring is no longer necessary and can be deleted from the ETS.

Sp=cification 3.1.A.3 requi res monitoring for pH.

This specification is not required because of the deletion of the Limiting Condition for Operation 2.2. 2, "pH".

Specification 3.1.A.4 requires surveillance of the dissolved oxygen (DO) in the intake and discharge canals to determine whether the cooling water being returned to the ocean has

)eon depleted of oxygen.

Dissolved oxygen has been monitored since early 1976 'nd found to be normally within the range of 6,00 and 8.00 ppm.

DO levels in the two canals have been found to be very similar throughout the year.

The NPDES permit does not require DO monitoring.

'We find, however, that the DO, surveillance program can be deleted as plant operation has not significantly affected the concentrations in the canals

~ - 6 Specification 3.1.A.5 requires temperature monitoring in the intake and discharge canals and in the offshore thermal plume by continuous self-contained thermographs.

In <<ddition, the licensee was to conduct a study using aerial infrared

!photog> aphy to demonstrate compliance with the temperature ri'se limitations outside the. zone of mixing.

lhe licensee conducted the aerial infrared photography study in 1977.

Four infrared flights were performed approxi..ately three months apart to reflect seasonal conditions.

Each quarter's flight was scheduled to occur during low and high tide c.: ditions.

The results of three of the quarters showed compliance with the ETS limit of 4'F temperature rise outside the 400-acre mixing one.

The flight during the surfer months she(dd that the ETS limit of 1.5'F temperature rise outside the 400-acre mixing zone was complied with during the months June through September.

The licensee's study satisfied the requl i ements of the overflight study and demonstrated that compliance with the limitations on temperature rise outside the mixing zone could be met.

We conclude that this section of Specification 3.1.A.5 is complete and can be deleted.

The HPGES permit requires monitoring at the intake and discharge canals f'r compliance with the permit temperature limitations, but does not require continuous monitoring of the ocean surface temperature.

The permit, however, contains a limit of 36.1'C for the instantaneous surface maximum at any point in t!.e thermal plume.

The permit does not indicate how compliance with the surface limitation can be met.

We find that the FTS requirements can be deleted and the HPDES permit relied on for monitoring of the discharge temperature.

Ho (ever, for monitoring of the surface thermal

plume, we consider that the

<<erial overflights have demonstrated complianc'. with the requirements of Specification 2.1.'1, and may be deleted on that basis.

l!inimum Effective Chlorine Usable Specification 4.2 requires that the licensee study ways to minimize the amount of chlorine needed to maintain condenser cleanliness while avoiding unnecessary discharge of chlorine to the environment.

Starting in 1977, the licensee began testing different injection rates of chlorine and generally has found that lower injection rates result in fouling in circulating water'ystem parts other than the condenser.

The fouling of components of the circulating water system has been found to be unacceptable and rates had to be returned to normal.

In the licensee's submittal of September 10, 1979, it was stated that Specification 4.2 could be deleted because the HPDES permit "... contains provisions dealing with this subject..."

The HPDES permit states on page 2 of Part I that in the event that the station cannot be operated at or below 0.1 mj/1, the licensee can submit a demonstration that discharges of higher levels of chlorine are consistent with requirements of the Florida Water, guality Standards.

Evidently the HPDES permit does not require a chlorine minimization study, but blather provides for studies for the use of higher chlorine concentrations.

We find that because the chlorihe discharge concentration in the permit is the same as that in the ETS and that initial attempts by the licensee have not shown effective defouli ng of the CWS at lower injection rates, the chlorine minimization program can be deleted from the ETS.

However, as discussed below, we have added to the ETS a requi.rement'hat when changes are proposed to be made to the NPOES permit, the NRC be notified and the supporting justification for the proposed limitations required by EpA be submitted to us.

In this way, we can update the chl~. ine environmental impact analyses made in the St.

Lucie FES.

Repo( tina "Requi

( e(11ents

\\

Although we are deleting I(;any of the 'non-radiological environmental requirements

', we desi> e to be l;ept informed of environmental

events, the exceeding, of, e(ivi(0>>(lip(ital,l'9((its and'tie cha(ige of 'any associ'ated lii((its.

Therefore, we have added

('equire(((ents for such reporting as discussed with and agreed to

- by the licensee.

Conclusion and Basis for Ne ative Declaration On the basis of the foregoing analysis, it is concluded that there will be no environmental impact attributable to the proposed action other than has already been predicted and described in the Commission's FES for St.

Lucie Plant, Unit No.

1.

Having made this determination, the Commission has further concluded that no environ'mental impact statement for the proposed action need be prepared and that a negative declaration to this effect is appropriate.

((ate.'iarch 10, 1981

REFERENCES Effects of Increased llater Tempera'tu~e on the Harine Biota of the St.

Lucie Plant A~ea.

Applied Biology, Inc.,

1G6 pp.

February 1979.

4

'I Annual Environmental Report Ho.

2 For lhe Year 1977.

Florida Power 5

Light Company.

St.

Luc'ie Plant, Unit No. 1; 3.

Annual lion-Radiological l1oni toring Report 1978.

Volume 1 Abiotic Monitor"ing.

Florida Power 8 Light Company.