ML17209A904
| ML17209A904 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1981 |
| From: | FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17209A903 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104060241 | |
| Download: ML17209A904 (60) | |
Text
Florida Power 8 Light Company ST. LUCIE PLANT ANNUALNOiX-RADIOLOGICAL:
- MONITORING REPORT ISBN Volume 1
Dockgy ~ -S3~
Contrail g 8c'o~g
>ale ~-3i-gg RFCggyggy
~ Dacgzppi.
+CD fgf 8>oe060R>
I =
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
'xecutive Summary A.
INTRODUCTION A-I B.
THERMAL(ETS 2.1)
Introduction Maximum Discharge Canal Nater Temperature (ETS 2.1.1)
Maximum Condenser Temperature Rise (sT) (ETS 2.1.2)
Maximum Temperature within the Zone of Mixing (ETS 2.1.1)
B-1 B-1 B-1 B-2 B-3 Maximum Surface Temperature Rise-Zone of Mixing (aT) (ETS 2.1.1)
B-3 C-CHEMICAL(ETS 3.1.A.1 through 3.1.A.4)
Introduction Total Residual Chlorine Heavy Metals pH Dissolved Oxygen C-1 C-1 C-1
.C-2 C-3 D-MINIMUMEFFECTIVE CHLORINE USAGE STUDY PROGRESS REPORT (ETS 4.2)
E.
ADDITIONALBIOTIC RESULTS Sea Turtle Entrapment E-1 F.
CHANGES TO THE ENVIRONMENTALTECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS F-1 G.
REPORTABLE OCCURRENCES
EXECUTIVESUh!MARY VOLUMEI Introduction This document is the fourth consecutive annual report on abiotic monitoring at the Florida Power R Light Company, St. Lucie Plant.
It is Volume I of three volumes submitted in accordance with the St. Lucie Unit No.
1 Environmental Technical Specifications, Appendix B, Section 5.6.l.a.
The report covers the period from January 1, 1980, through December 31, 1980.
Thermal Four thermal limitations are required by the Environmental Technical Speci-fications (ETS):
- 1) discharge canal maximum release temperature (111 F or 44 C);
0 0
2) maximum temperature rise across the condenser (26 F or 14.3 C);
0 0
3) maximum temperature within the zone of mixing (93 F or 34 C);
0 0
4) maximum surface temperature rise over ambient within the zone of mixing (5.5 F or 3.1 C).
Analysis of the thermal data as specified in the preceding paragraph showed that the only ETS violation which occurred during 1980 was for maximum surface temperature rise over ambient within the zone of mixing.
The Out-of-Specifica-tion duration was brief and only slightly in excess of the limit.
An assessment of the thermal effects on the nearshore marine environment caused by the operation of the St. Lucie Plant is presented in Volumes II and III of the Annual Report.
No significant adverse environmental impact could be attributed to plant operations during 1980.
Chemical Chemical monitoring was conducted during 1980 in the discharge canal at the St. Lucie Plant for dissolved oxygen, pH, heavy metals were also monitored in the intake canal.
Dissolved oxygen was not significantly depleted in the condenser cooling water during plant passage.
Total residual chlorine values were well below ETS limitations for the entire year.
Heavy metals concentrations were generally within the expected ranges with only a few random instances of concentrations above minimum detection limits of the instruments used in analyses.
Additionally, no adverse environmental impacts are believed to have,.occurred from the presence of the noted chemicals.
The pH values were within the normal ranges of nearshore oceanic water.
A. INTRODUCTION In 1970, Florida Power 2 Light Company {FPL) was issued a construction permit by the United States Atomic Energy Commission (now Nuclear Regulatory Commission) for the construction of Unit No. I of the St. Lucie Plant, and 810-megawatt nuclear-powered electric generating station on Hutchinson Island in St.
Lucie County, Flor ida.
Unit No. 1 was placed on-line in 1976.
The plant was base loaded throughout 1977, 1978, 1979, and 1980 except for repair and refueling outages.
The condenser cooling water is provided by a once-through circulating water system which consists of intake and discharge pipes in the ocean linked by canals to the plant.
1 Cooling water is drawn from the Atlantic Ocean through an intake structure located 365 m (1,200 ft) offshore.
The intake structure is covered with a concrete velocity cap, the 'top of which is approximately 2.4 m. (8 ft) below the water
~
surface.
From the intake point, water is drawn into the intake canal through a pipe buried under the dunes and ocean bottom.
The 90 m (300 ft) wide canal carries the cooling water about 1,500 m (5,000 ft) to the plant intake structure where pumps provide a design flow of 33,400 liters/sec (530,000 gpm).
The cooling water then moves through the intake screens, passes through the plant, and is released into the discharge canal.
The temperature rise of the water passing through the condensers is limited by the ETS to 26 F (14.3 C).
After leaving the plant, the heated water passes through a 60m (200 ft.) wide discharge canal before entering a pipe buried under the dune and the ocean floor. The water is carried about 365m (1,200 ft) offshore and discharged through a Y-port nozzle located approximately 9 m {30ft.) below
the water surface.
The discharge pipe is located 730m (2,400 ft.) north of the intake pipe.
The purpose of chemical and thermal limitations and monitoring is to provide a reasonable assurance that the aquatic ecosystem in the immediate area of the thermal plume willnot be subjected to any unacceptable environmental impact. It is also desirable to maintain the quality of the receiving body of water so that human uses of the water are protected, and so that local aquatic biota do not suffer adversely from exposure to any plant discharges (chemical and thermal).
This document provides a report of the abiotic monitoring programs for the period from January 1, 1980, through December 31, 1980.
Also included herein are discussions of various reports and studies (Sections D, E, and G) prepared or performed during 1980 which are required by the ETS.
Submitted simultaneously with this volume (Non-Radiological Environmental iXIonitoring Report, Volume I, 1980) are two other volumes (Non-Radiological Environmental iVonitoring Report, Volumes II and III) which describe the biotic monitoring carried out during 1980.
- Together, these three volumes satisfy the requirements of St. Lucie Unit No.
1 Environmental Technical Specifications, Appendix B, Section 5.6.1.a.
A-2
B. THERMAL(ETS 2.1)
Introduction Four thermal limitations are prescribed by the St. Lucie Unit 1 Environ-mental Technical Specifications (ETS):
- 1) discharge canal maximum release temperature (111 F or 44 C);
o 0
2) maximum temperature rise across the condenser (26 F or 14.3 C);
3) maximum temperature within the zone of mixing (93 F or 34 C);
4)'aximum surface temperature rise over ambient within the zone of mixing (5.5 F,or 3.1 C).
Data was collected for item (1) using a temperature sensor located near the discharge canal terminus.
The output from the sensor is recorded continuously on a strip chart located in a structure near the sensor.
Data for item (2) is obtained from a series of RTD sensors located in the intake and discharge water lines.
Output is transmitted to the reactor control room where it is logged hourly.
Items (3) and (4) are monitored using self-contained continous recording thermographs located near the ocean intake and at the predicted location of the discharge suface plume maximum temperature.
Maximum Dischar e Canal Water Tem erature (ETS 2.1.1)
The maximum discharge canal water temperature was determined and tabulated (Table B-1) for each day that the plant was opeating during 1980.
As can be seen in the tabulation, no single canal temperature was dominant for the entire reporting period.
B-1
The variation in ambient inlet water temperature coupled with fluctuations in power plant thermal output are responsible for the relatively wide fluctuations of discharge canal temperature.
Figure B-1 graphically illustrates the varied maximum discharge canal temperatures obser ved during 1980 and compares them with observed values during 1979.
The maximum discharge canal release temperature limit of 111 F was not exceeded during 1980.
Maximum Condenser Tem erature Rise (Condenser eT)
(ETS 2.1.2)
The specification states:
"Under normal fuQ-power operation, the temperature rise across the conden-ser shall not exceed 26 F or 14.3 C.
Under the following conditions, the condenser temperature rise shall not exceed 35 F or 20 C for greater than a 72-hour period:
1) condenser and/or circulating water pump maintenance;
- 2) throttling circulating water pumps to minimize use of chlorine; 3) fouling of circulating water system."
Table B-2 shows a tabulation of condenser sT values for 1980.
Figure B-2 is a comparison of 1979 and 1980 data.
Review of Figure B-2 shows that the plant operated near the design temperature rise the majority of the time.
The two (2) reported values which exceeded the 26 F limitations were the result of plant maintenance operations.
Maximum Tem erature Within the Zone of Mixin (ETS 2.1-1)
Table B-3 summarizes the maximum daily surface temperatures reported within the ocean discharge zone of mixing during 1980.
The maximum temperature B-2
I
observed in the zone of mixing during 1980 was 31 C, thus, all temperature measured in the ocean mixing zone were within the 34 C ETS limitation.
As in previous years, 100% retrieval of surface plume temperature data was not achieved due to exposure to an extremely harsh environment.
These factors resulted in loss of data as reported in Section G., Reportable Occurrences, of this report.
Figure B-3 shows a comparison of ocean mixing zone maximum temperatures for 1979 and 1980. It can be seen that temperature ranges and frequencies for the two years are similar.
Maximum Surface Tem erature Rise Zone of Mixin
( aT)
(ETS 2.1.1)
Daily surface temperature rises above ambient in the ocean zone of mixing are summarized in Table B-4.
As has been the case with other data obtained from the thermographs, 10096 data retrieval was not possible for the 1980 reporting period.
These factors resulted in the loss of data as reported in Section G.,
Reportable Occurrences, of this report.
Some time periods were observed when the discharge zone of mixing temperature was less than the ocean intake area temperature resulting in negative
<T values.
This was believed to be caused by time delay in passage of water through the plant, variations in ocean surface temperatures and surface currents.
The only out of specification temperature value which occurred during 1980 is addressed in Section G. (Reportable Occurances) page C:-1 of this report.
This
I I
I
temperature excursion is believed to be due to instrumental malfunctions rather than an actual thermal state.
Figure B-4 compares 1979 and 1980 data and illustrates the variations which occurred in measuring temperatures under the stated conditions.
B-4
I I
TABLEB-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT MAXIMUMDISCHARGE CANALTEMPERATURE TEMPERATURE DURATION CURVE NUMBER OF DAYS 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
7 10 26 21 28 21 19 14 6
8 14 14 13 13 16 13 8
3 10 5
9 8
9 4
7 0
9 5
14 10 17 1
2 1
1 0
MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE( F) 111 110 109 108 107-106 105 104 103 102 101 100 99 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 91 90 89 88 87 86 85 84 83 82 81 80 79 78 77 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69
% OF TOTAL DAYS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 2.7 7.1 5.7 7.7 5.7 5.2 3.8 1.6 2.2 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.6 4.4 3 '
2.2 0.8'.7 1.4 2.5 2.2 2.5 1.1 1.9 0.0 2.5 1.4 3.8 2.7 4.6 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.0 CUMULATIVE%
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 4.6 11.7 17.5 25.1 30.9 36.1 39.9 41.5 43.7 47.5 51.4 54.9 58.5 62.8 66.4 68.6 69.4 72.1 73.5 76.0 78.1 80.6 81.7 83.6 83.6 86.1 87.4 91.3 94.0 98.6 98.9 99.5 99.7 100.0 100.0 B-5
TABLEB-2 ST. LUCIE PLANT MAXIMUMCONDENSER DELTAT TEMPERATURE DURATION CURVE NUMBER OF DAYS 2
0 3
14 144 115 2
2 1
1 0
0 1
1 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
MAXIMUM
<T(FO) 27+
26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9
8 7
6 5
4 3
2 1
% OF TOTALDAYS 0.7 0.0 1.0 4,9 50.0 39.9 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 CUMULATIVE%
0.7 0.7 1.7 6.6 56.6 96.5 97.2 97.9 98.3 98.6 98.6 98.6 99.0 99.3 99.3 99.
3'9.3 99.3 99.3 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 APPARENT OUT-OF-SPECIFICATION VALUE DUE TO PLANT MAINTENANCE OPERATION ON 12-29-80 AND 12-30-80 FOR APPROXIMATELY ONE HOUR EACH DAY AS ALLO$4'ED BY ETS 2.1.2.
B-6
TABLE B-3 ST. LUCIE PLANT ZONE OP MIXINGMAXIMUMTEMPERATURE TEMPERATURE DURATION CURVE NUMBER OF DAYS 0
0 0
6 13 37 53 19 20 26 21 29 24 13 11 16 6
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 69 2
MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE( C) 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9
8 7
6 5
4 3
2 1
DNRD DODM
% OF TOTAL DAYS 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 3.6 10.1 14.5 5.2 5.5 V.l 5.7 7.9 6.6 3.6 3.0 4.4 1.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.9 0.5 CUMULATIVE%
0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 5.2 15.3 29.8 35.0 40.4 47.5 53.3 61.2 67.8 71.3 74.3 78.V 80.3 80.6 80.6 80.6 80.6 80.6 80.6 80.6 80.6 80.6 80.6 80.6 80.6 80.6 80.6 80.6 80.6 80.6 99.5 100.0 DNRD-DATANOT REQUIRED DAYS ( PLANT SHUT DOWN) ETC.)
DODM-DAYSOF DATA MISSING (DUE TO INSTRUMENT MALFUNCTION,LOSS OF BUOYS, ETC.)
REFER TO SECTION G. OF THIS REPORT.
B-7
TABLEB-4 ST. LUCIE PLANT ZONE OF MIXINGMAXIMUMSURFACE TEMPERATURE RISE TEMPERATURE DURATION CURVE NUMBER OF DAYS 13 12 9
5 1
14 18 7
23 3
17 11 21 7
6 4
5 2
4 2
6 4
3 3
0 35 69 41 MAXIMUM
~T(C')
3.2+
3.1 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
DNRD DODM
% OF TOTAL DAYS 0.3 0.0 0.3 1.4 1.9 1.6 0.3 3.6 3.3 2.5 1.4 0.3 3.8 4.9 1.9 6.3 0.8 4.6 3.0 5.7 1.9 1.6 1.1 1.4 0.5 1.1 0.5 1.6 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.0 9.6 18.9 11.2 CUMULATIVE%
0.3 0.3 0.5 1.9 3.8 5.5 5.7 9.3 12.6 15.0 16.4 16.7 20.5 25.4 27.3 33.6 34.4 39.1 42.1 47.8 49.7 51.4 52.5 53.8 54.4 55.5 56.0 57.7
- 58. 7 59.6 60.4 60.4 69.9 88.8 100.0 OUT-OF-SPECIFICATION DT VALUE REPORTED IN 1980. REFER TO SECTION G. OF THIS REPORT.
DNRD-DATA NOT REQUIRED DAYS
{PLANT SHUT DOWN, ETC.)
DODM-DAYS OF DATA MISSING {DUE TO INSTRUMENT MALFUNCTION, LOSS OF
- BUOYS, ETC.)
REFER TO SECTION G. OF THIS REPORT.
B-8
FIGURE B-1 30 20 0
fg
~
~
~
B 1
10
~
0 I
I I
I I
I I
~
~
~
~
~
I
~
I
~ >>
~
1 I
I e
I
~
~
~ >>
Q
~
I )\\Il
~
\\
1\\
~ /
ST.
LUCZE UNIT NO.. 1
= ?UIIXZMUiaf DISCHARGE CANAL TEMPERATURE'IGURE B-1
~
I I
I'979 I
1
~ J I
I I
~
1
~
~
~
t 1
~
~
~
I I
l (g
I.(I: II I I I
I'I I
I (I I
~
1
~
4 Gl
~ !=I
~
I g
J
~
~
~
~ ~
~
~
!I 11 J>>
I ll I '
I
~ I
~
I
~
P II
[
I
~ I
>>11!I
~, I I:
I 1
~ I I ~ I I
11 J,i I!I I
I I
~
I ~,
I II I
I
~
I I
~
~
! I I I I
! I I
I I
I
~
(
~
~
~
~
I
~
I
~
~
i~i j
I I
I
~
I
~
I I
~
~
~
~
~
I/
i
~
I
~
~
II 1
I I
~
~
~
I
~
(
~
~
I I
70
~
I I
~
80 '",,! ',
90 1
TEMPERATURE ZN MAXIMUMCANAL'ISCHARGE!
~
~
[ 100 Op I
I TEMPERATURE
'I I
~
, 110.
I I
I B-9
FIGURE B-2
~ - - - 200 ST,.
LUCIE UNIT, NO.. 1, l
'RXIHUH CONDENSER TEHPERATURE RISE
~ --"~
~
~-FIGURE B-2
~
~
~
~
~
I l
aea+
1979 A
-o ~ - 100
- 50 0
1
~
~
l M l
~ 'l III I
II I
III I
I II t'I I
(IIIIlIl I I
.II I
IIII-I II I
II I
III' I,
I IIII IIIIII
, 10,...15l.... 20 25 1
I DIFFERENTIAL TEHPERATURE
~gT~
Fo HAXIHIUH CONDENSER TEHPERATURE RISE.
30,...
35
I I
I I
I
38AZVuaaW3'lANZXV>e ONZXZW 3O 3l,OZ OV NZ 3uAZVu38W3Z, OC OZ 5
OT 0
0' I
I I
~ il I
fI I
~
I I
II I
I
~
I
~
=
q
~
I
~
~
I H
~
I
~
~
~
I 9
~
I 8.
OT I
ZT lIT
~
~
~
9T
~
BT
~
~
OZ
~
I ZZ tZ I
9Z 6i 0
e
~g K
Ul
~
~
~
~
8Z
~
~
OC
~
ZC
= ~
~
II
~
~
9C 9C 8C
'i l
00 Zl' II II
~
~
086T 6L6T l0 ~ --'---
~
I
~
~
=
'I9l-C-a 3uAOZZ 38AZVJ3IAlM HAWZ)Ail ONZXDl IlO 3NOZ T
'ON JINA 3IDA'1 'XS I
5'
'I Z5 l'5
1 I
I I
I I
1 E
FIGURE B-4 30 I
t
~
~
~
ST.
LUCIE UNIT NO.
1 28 26'
~
~
i t
~
I
" ZONE OF MIXING HAXIPUt( SUPDACE
~
~
TEt".PERATURE RISE t
I t
'l Q
'O ggt ftl
~ ~l
- R I
24 22 20 18 16'4 12' 10
.8 c 6
~
~
~
I t
t a=
I I
t I
I
~
~
I
~
~
~
t tt l
I I
i t
t I
~
t
~
I
~
~
I I
~
t I
I I
(Pl Jt(I FIGUP=" B-4 1979
~
1980
~ 0 0
.5 1.0
.5 2.0
.5 3.0
.5 DIFFERENTIAL TENPEPATURE IN Co ZONE OF, t"IXING ttAXItIUlt TEtttPERATURE RISE B-12
Introduction C. CHEMICAL(ETS 3.1.A.1 through 3.1.A.4)
Tables C-1 and C-2 summarize the chemical monitoring program for 1980 associated with the operations of the cooling water system at the St. Lucie Plant.
Dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, heavy metals, and total residual chlorine (TRC) were monitored in the discharge canal.
Dissolved oxygen and heavy metals were also measured in the intake canal.
Total Residual Chlorine (ETS 3.1.A.1)
During 1980, total residual chlorine levels ranged from below the instrument manufacturer's specified analytical detection limit of 0.01 ppm to a high of 0.02 E
ppm.
All reported values were well below the ETS limit of 0.1 mg/L at the terminus of the discharge canal.
Due to the very low residual chlorine values, it is believed that no adverse environmental impact occurred as a result of chlorination at the St. Lucie Plant.
Section D of this report updates the St. Lucie Plant's Minimum Effective Chlorine Usage Program as required by the ETS 4.2.
The purpose of heavy metals monitoring was to detect any measurable concentrations above ambient seawater levels which could be attributed to cooling water passage through the plant.
Table C-2 shows the intake and discharge canal heavy metals concentrations measured during 1980.
Values for arsenic, chromium, lead, mercury, and nickel show no measurable increase in concentration after plant cooling system passage.
I l
I 7
Values obtained for copper showed an increase in copper concentration of 0.04 mg/L for the sample il4 and an increase of 0.01 mg/L for sample 88.
No specific conclusions could be drawn from this data since these were the only times that copper was observed above detectable levels in intake or discharge canal water for 1979 and 1980.
Relatively small amounts of zinc were detected in some intake and discharge water samples during 1980.
Table C-2 illustrates a rather random occurrence of zinc during the sampling.
All values are near minimum detection limit except for the discharge sample Ol, for which no explanation was apparent.
Iron was routinely found in all intake and discharge canal samples in relatively low concentrations except for intake sample
- 812, which was below detectable.
None of the heavy metal concentrations observed during 1980 are believed to have resulted in any adverse environmental impact to the nearshore ecosystem at the St. Lucie Plant site.
pH (ETS 3.1.A.3)
The purpose of pH monitoring in the discharge canal was to insure that the pH of once-through cooling system water was not being altered by plant passage when compared to the generally accepted pH levels for nearshore marine waters.
The pH for the 1980 samples ranged from 8.1 to 8.3, thus the pH is stable and within the normal range of these waters.
C-2
l l
I
~
1 l
Dissolved oxygen was monitored in the intake and dischar ge canals to determine the effect of plant cooling water system passage.
As can be seen in Figure C-1, dissolved oxygen concentrations are generally unaffected by plant passage.
The very slight depletion occurring between intake and discharge waters is not unexpected due to the heating of water during passage through the plant condensers.
No adverse environmental impact was believed to have occurred from the minimal dissolved oxygen depletion observed during 1980.
C-3
ST. LUCIE PLANT UNIT NO.
1 CIRCULATING WATER CHEMICAL PARAMETERS TABLE C-1 Month
& Year Januar
'980'"'AY 10 11
~
12 13
~
16:
17.
18 19 20 21 22:
23 24
.'5-27 28 29 30'1.
INTAKE D.O.
6.7 6.8 6.7 6.8 6.6:
8.2 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 DISCHARGE D.O.
5.7 7 '
6.6 6.4 6.3 T.R.C. 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 NOTES: Dissolved Oxygen in ppm.
2Total Residual Chlorine in ppm.
C-4
l
ST.
LUCIE PLANT UNIT NO.
1 CIRCULATING WATER CHEMICAL PARAMETERS TABLE C-1 Month a Year February 1980.
DAY 10 11.
12 13
~
14:
15
~
16 18 19 20 21.
22:
23 24 25 26; 27'8 29.
30 31.
INTAKE D.O.
7.5 7.1 7.2 6.0 H
8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 8.2'.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 DISCHARGE D.O.
7.1 7.2 7.2 6.0 T.R.C. 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 NOTES: Dissolved Oxygen in ppm.
2Total Residual Chlorine in ppm.
C-5
ST.
LUCIE PLANT UNIT NO.
1 CIRCULATING WATER CHEMICAL PARAMETERS TABLE C-1 Month
& Year 'arch 1'98'0 DAY 10 12 13 14 15
~
16 17-18:
19.
20'1
~
22 23.
24.'5 26 27-28 29 30 31 INTAKE D.O.
6.9 6.2 5.6 7.9
~
H 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 DISCHARGE D.O.
7.1 5.6 5.8 7.5 T.R.C. 2 0.01 0.01 PLANT SHUTDOWN-REFUELING NO CHLORINATION" NOTES: Dissolved Oxygen in ppm.
2Total Residual Chlorine in ppm.
ST.
LUCIE PLANT UNIT NO-1 CIRCULATING WATER CHEMICAL PARAMETERS TABLE C-1 Month g Year
. April 1980 DAY 10
'2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23.
24 25.
26 27 28 29.
30 31 INTAKE D.O.
6.5'.4 6.3 6.6' 7.1 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8'. 2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 DISCHARGE D.O.
4.6 6.3 6.5 6.7 6.2 T.R.C. 2 PLANT SHUTDOWN-REFUELiNG NO CHLORINATION NOTES: Dissolved Oxygen in ppm.
2Total Residual Chlorine in ppm.
C-7
I I
ST-LUCIE PLANT UNIT NO.
1 CIRCULATING WATER CHEMICAL PARAMETERS TABLE C-1 Month
& Year May.1980 DAY 10 12 13
~
14 15 16 18 19.
20:
21 22 23.
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 INTAKE D.O.
- 7. 7.
5.8 5.7 5.7 H
8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8."2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.2 DISCHARGE D.O.
6.6 6.6 5.3 5.7 T.R.C. 2 0.01
- 0. 01 PLANT. SHUTDOWN-REFUELING NO CHLORINATION NOTES: Dissolved Oxygen in ppm.
2Total Residual Chlorine in ppm.
C-8
ST.
LUCIE PLANT UNIT NO.
1 CIRCULATING WATER CHEMICAL PARAMETERS TABLE C-1 Month 6 Year June 1980 DAY 10 12 13 14 15 16 17
~
18 19 20 21 22:
23 24 25 26',
27 28 29 30 31 INTAKE D.O.
5.4 6.2 5.8 6.0 H
8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.2 DISCHARGE D.O.
5.4 6.3 6.1 6.0 T.R.C. 2 0.01 PLANT S/D:
NO CHLORINATION NOTES: Dissolved Oxygen in ppm.
2Total Residual Chlorine in ppm.
C-9
ST. LUCIE PLANT UNIT NO.
1 CIRCULATING WATER CHEMICAL PARAMETERS TABLE C-1 Month
& Year 'ulY'980" DAY ll ~
12 13
~
14:
15
~
16
.'8 19.
20 22 23 24 25 26:
27 28 29.
30 31.
INTAKE D.O.
5..2 6.0 5.6 6.0 6.4 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 DISCHARGE D.O.
5.4 6.2 5.8 6.4 6.6 T.R.C. 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.0 NOTES
Dissolved Oxygen in ppm.
2Total Residual Chlorine in ppm.
C-10
ST.
LUCIE PLANT UNIT NO.
1 CIRCULATING WATER CHEMICAL PARAMETERS TABLE C-1 Month
& Year August '1980.
DAY 10 12 13 14 15
~
16 17.
18 19.
20 21 22 23.
24 25 27.
28 29.
30 31 INTAKE D.O.
6.4 6.7 8.0 6.5 H
8.3 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8..2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 DISCHARGE D.O 6.3 6.8 8.5 6.1 T.R.C. 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 NOTES: Dissolved Oxygen in ppm.
2 Total Residual Chloxine in ppm.
C-11
ST.
LUCIE PLANT UNIT NO.
1 CIRCULATING WATER CHEMICAL PARAMETERS TABLE C-1 Month
& Year Se tember 1980 DAY INTAKE D.O.
DISCHARGE D.O.
T.R.C. 2 10 12 13 14 15
~
16 17 18 19 20 21.
22:
23.
24 25 26 27 28.
29 30 31 6.2 6.7 4.7 5.3 5.4 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.2 6.4 6.8 5.2 5.6 5.4 0.01 0.01 O.QZ NOTES: Dissolved Oxygen in ppm.
2Total Residual Chlorine in ppm.
C-12
)
l
~
l 5
ST.
LUCIE PLANT UNIT NO.
1 CIRCULATING WATER CHEMICAL PARAMETERS'ABLE C-1 Month
& Year 'ctober 1980'AY 9
10 12
.'4 15
~
16 17.
18 19 20 21
~
22:
23 24 25 26
.'7 28 29 30 31 INTAKE D.O.
6.2 5.8 5.9 5.7 H
8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.3 8.3 DISCHARGE D.O.
5.5 5.6 5.7 T.R.C. 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 NOTES: Dissolved Oxygen in ppm.
2Total Residual Chlorine in ppm.
C-13
ST.
LUCIE PLANT UNlT NO.
1 CIRCULATING NATER CHEMICAL.PARAMETERS TABLE C-1 Month 6 Year ovember 1980
'AY 9
10 12:
13-14 15
~
16 18 20 21.
22:
23 24 25 26, 27 28 29.
30 31" INTAKE D.O.
6.3 6.1 6.1 6.4 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 DISCHARGE D.O.
6.2 6.4 6.1 6.2 T.R.C. 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 REMARKS NOTES:
Dissolved Oxygen in ppm.
2Total Residual Chlorine in ppm.
l
ST.
LUCIE PLANT UNIT NO.
1 CIRCULATING WATER CHEMICAL PARAMETERS TABLE C-1 Month
& Year Decembe'r
'1980 DAY 7
10 12 13.
14 15
~
16 17.
18:
19
~
20; 21.
22 23.
24.
25 26.
27 28 29 30 31 INTAKE D.O.
6.2 6.3 6.6 5.6 '
6.8;
'.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.2 8 ~ 2 8.3 8 '
8.3 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 DISCHARGE D.O.
6.2 6.4 6.3 7.3 7.0 T.R.C. 2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01 NOTES: Dissolved Oxygen in ppm.
2Total Residual Chlorine in ppm.
C-15
TABLE C-2 ST.
LUCIE PLANT UNIT NO.
1 CIRCULATING WATER HEAVY IKTALS DETERMINATIONS YEAR 1980 A.
ZNTAKE SAMPLE SAMPLE ARSENIC CHROHZUM COPPER IRON LEAD MERCURY NICKEL ZINC 80
<0.0002 80
<0.001 80 (0.001 80
<0.001
<0 ~ 02 (0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02 0.43
- 0. 23 0.18 0.24
<0 F 05
<0 ~ 05
<0. 05
<0.05 0.0002
<0'2 0.0002
<0.02 0.0009
<0.02 0.0002
<0.02
<0.02
- 0. 03
<0. 02 0.02 80
<0.001
<0.02 (0.02 0.75
<0.05 0.0002
<0.02 0.08 80 (0 F 001 80
<0.001 80
<0.001
<0. 02 (0. 02
<0.02 (0.02
<0.02 (0.02 Oo24 0.35 0.05
<0.05
<0'5
<0.05 0.0003
<0.02 0.0002
<0'2 0.0002
<0'2 0.05 0.04
<0.02 0-1-80
<0.001
<0. 02 (0.02 0.12
<0.05 0.0002
<0.02 0.03 10 12 1-3-80 (0.001 2-1-80 <0.001 81
<0. 01
<0. 02
<0. 02
~
<0. 02 (0. 02
'0.02 (0.02 0,27
- 0. 15
<0. 1
<0. 05
<0. 05
<0. 1 0.0002
<0.02 0.0002
<0.02 0.0002
<0'2
- 0. 03
<0. 02
<0.02 B ~
DISCHARGE SAMPLE 1 n t'0 SAHPLE n mw ARSENIC CHROMIUM COPPER IRON LEAD MERCURY NZCKEL ZINC 80 <0.0002 80 <0.001 80
<0.001
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02 0.14 0.86 0.04
<0. 05
<0.05
<0.05 0.0002
<0.02 0.0002
<0.02 0.0006
<0. 02
- 0. 43 0.03
<0.02 80
<0.001
<0.02 0.06 0.18
<0.05 0 '002
<0.02 0.06 10 12 6-2-80
<0.001 80
<0.001 8-4-80
<0 ~ 001 80
<0.001 0-3.-80 <0.001 1-3-80 <0.001 2-1-80 <0.001
-2"81 (0.01
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02 0.03
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02 (0'2
<0'2
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02 0.48 0.25
.0. 35 0.06 0.14 0'7 0.10 0.2
<0. 05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.1 0.0002
<0.02 0.0003
<0.02 0.0002
<0.02 0.0002
<0..02 0.0002
<0.02 0.0002
<0.02 0.0002
<0.02 0.0002
<0.02
- 0. 05 0,04 0.04
<0.02 0.06
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02 NOTE:
Results Reported in PPH Results Reported in mg/L
- See Page C-17
The absence of report data for the month of April 1980, is within Environ-mental Technical Specification reporting requirements, defined in Appendix "B", ETS 1.5, Frequency Definitions "Nonthl -not less than 12 times er annum-interval may var b
15 days,"
referenced in R.J.
Frechette's memorandum of interpretation of Nay 19, 1980, as follows:
"Monthly-Not less than 12 times per annum-inter val may vary by 15 days.
Monthly denotes analyses done at 30-day intervals not necessarily corresponding to the calendar month with an allowable variance of not more than 15 days on either side of the 30 day period.
This is to say 45 days may elapse between analyses without missing a
T.S.
surveillance; therefore, a
calendar month may be skipped without missing any analyses or violating any T.S."
The logical extension of this interpretation is that a fifteen (15) day time "window" exists on either end of the calendar year of concern, and that if twelve (12) samples are collected within this 380-day period, the specifica-tion sampling frequency is satisfied.
Accordingly, the sample taken on 1/2/81 is included as the twelfth sample for the 1980 report period.
Since the first sample was taken on 1/29/80, the total time span between the twelve samples is 340 days including the sampled-date days.
The St. Lucie Facility Review Group concurs with this report of St. Lucie Plant Unit No.
1 Circulating Water Heavy Metals Determinations Data, and will ensure that this departure from the usual practice willnot result in any future failure to perform required sampling within the applicable report per iod.
C-17
UT ItttOTQ 4l ~
\\ ~ Gt I
-I
. r-l lIIl I
l I
l I
I
~
I I
I I
Vl -.
~ 0
~
Ht010 Ittn I 0 UI4tt I t I
~
H
~
4
~ "I!:
It I
f.
I i
l
.-I I
T Uf i 4 tVH
~
4
~AGN
- I
- :
i it!
',I!
I:I'Ii 0
I"
"~
"!t
~I 44 I.-
- .'I I:4
~ li
~
f~
VC Ul
~
4f44
~ OOUt 4
CUH C Vt CC 0 ilf I
~4 fi.',
!'r,'I 1
'll';I
'll'I',
,l..!j'!I" t
~'
1-!
- I; I
I
.l I
.I
..I
~,I 4 Ur
~ CV
~ tCC I tN UN I
~t ~
Tl 0 NtT
~ ttI'.
- l. I-
, ~
I' I
I
I CC ttl I~
CUlit
~
f Ntr I\\At t,C Ol I'I tl
~i
~ 4ht
~ tt sl
!!I
- li!
j
- !I:
!!!j Ii.
tl,
- l',
ill j!It ii',
jjj'j:;
'll:
f t':i:
I,'I!
1!!'!ij
'.;I'!!
i!:I
~jj':
I"!
tlf'l
~
- !Il
.'!.l il!!.
I,"
.!1
- ift l
I C
~ I 0 nf 0
CH UN I
~
~t I
I!'ll j
ll:
li
,.I i:
I!
'.ij
,Il if,;
'!.ll
- L":
!;:I I,'fl'I:.
- j!'ll
't't
~t I U CV I
C 1!
I I!
'll' 4
I 0
,'l!'
l!I t,'i!1.
'1 1l I III l l,!Il J
i
!I!li sf!
ill'.
I"..
- !ii
- Iilii, 1!'.
i!l!
- I!
i!
lilj 11 i! i i!Ill I;-'il:
'.j'I;:
i'lj
.,I!1
- I
!jlf!
,il.!
!Ii:!
ii!
llij l
!!!l t
I I I!
1!
I!i!
I, I
- l.!)
~it!
'ijl 11.'.
',:u!
lf1I!
- I j!';j."
- !!!'.ill I:li l,f!
Iij!I
!l:
ijli t!if~
- !i'..
ij 1.
I'I:
l!.i 1
.'iij 1!I!
- I!i
- !1:
t
!4 C ttl ~ t tt AVtt li';
jl~ii
'!I
'!I 11! I ill I,l; I:i, tjil:
s" chili
- ,'I'11.
.'jlj iii;!
'tl4 I I
~I
~t
":::I
.:Ij i"
ii'!i t:.:
Il}l
+I' ll'III
- I" jj:;:!
jhi i:ri l!ii
'.I!.
- 1
- I flit
- !I';
'ili f+t 1!
'I I
jfj!
I" II:.':I'l 1
t
~
",I!
l!!i
!!!j I l.
'i'i Il,:
!ill j'I" II
ilj 1!il li.';
jl!'!LI
- j I!
jilt
- li:
I!.':
iji:
C,I
- 1 I'.ll
!i I!
!I'!
lj'j
- if!
- I I
!'!I
!I:!
t lj.!'
UN t
Gf
~V I tf
'1l4 ft,li:
I
',, I jFI
.!1!
tl!'ti
'I!
I!I; I
~t t4 Tie
~I
~ I 4C tt
!S!,
'll!
- f1!,
fli': I:1 1's il !lt iri
,j.!
I l"
.l.
~lnl Ct Gf H04 T N CHVttUU~
vl
~ '
i t'
C
~ fit Itt
' tttl4II I
I Vt'lt l.
= I I
I,
~
I I
I l
'r l
'I
- I TC Ul C
C4TII tt NTI l
L CHTAN
~
~
Vt O
O CmQ Mn O
C m
n 4
~
g'ff
5
D-MINIMUMEFFECTIVE CHLORINE USAGE STUDY PROGRESS REPORT (ETS Chlorine injection rates for 1980 were relatively consistent at approximately 146 pounds per hour.
Observations conducted at the St. Lucie Plant during 1980, as well as in the previous three years, have indicated that chlorine injection rates of less that 146 pounds per hour do not prevent cooling system macrobiofouling. The chlorine injection rates used in 1980 did not result in any total residual chlorine concentrations at the terminus of the discharge canal to exceed the ETS limitation 0.1 milligrams per liter.
TABLED-1 ST. LUCIE UNIT NO. 1 CHLORINE INJECTION RATES 1980 Months January Pebruary March April May June July August September October November December C12 Injection Rate Obslnr) 146 146 146 0 {Refueling) 146 146 146 146 146 146 146 146 Total Number of Days/Month Chlorination Occurred 28 24 15 0
17 9
30 31 27 26 28 25 NOTE:
Chlorination was performed on one waterbox once per day for 1.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> at the above listed injection rates.
D-2
E. ADDITIONALBIOTIC RESULTS SEA TURTLE ENTRAPMENT Sea turtle entrapment in the intake canal has occurred during the monitoring period from January 1, 1980 through December 31, 1980.
A large mesh turtle net placed in the intake canal is used to capture the entrapped turtles.
A total of 107 turtles were caught, tagged and released unharmed to the ocean.
Loggerhead turtles accounted for 101 of the number and siv green turtles comprised the balance.
In addition to the number of turtles noted
- above, some mortality of sea turtles has been noted in the intake canal with five loggerheads and two greens being recovered.
Four turtle deaths (two loggerheads and two greens) were directly associated with netting and we assume drowning to be the cause.
The cause of death for the remaining three turtles was unknown.
F. CHANGES TO THE ENVIRONMENTALTECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS During 1980, several minor changes were made to the Environmental Proce-dures.
AQ changes were properly documented and approved by the Company Environmental Review Group (CERG) and thus are fully established as quality documents.
There were no changes to the Environmental Technical Specifications of a non-radiological nature.
G. REPORTABLE OCCURRENCES The following Reportable Occurrence Reports were filed with NRC's Region II Office of Inspection and Enforcement during 1980.
R.O. NUMBER 335-B-80-01 335-B-8D-D2*
DATE OF R.O.
02-13-80 10-30-80 TITLE Zone of Mixing-surface temperature r'ise Non-transmittal of record documentation for Reportable Occurrence No.
335-B-77-01 335-B-80-03 12-02-80 St. Lucie Plant Unit N1, Ocean Intake Area, recording thermograph loss 335-B-81-03 03-05-81 Temporary Loss of Ocean Ther mal Monitoring Capability R.O.
335-B-77-01, dated 1-10-77,
- entitled, "Discharge Zone of iMixing-Recording Thermographs" was prepared and executed with exception of the non-transmittal of the document to NRC.
R.O. 335-B-77-01 was referenced in the Florida Power 4 Li ht Com an St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 1, Annual Non-Radiolo ical Environmental Monitorin Re ort No.
2 for
- 1977, Page 13,Section VII, Re ortable Occurrences.
l I
I l