ML19093B340
| ML19093B340 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1978 |
| From: | Stallings C Virginia Electric & Power Co (VEPCO) |
| To: | Case E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 278 | |
| Download: ML19093B340 (4) | |
Text
e e
RIOHMOND,VIRGINIA 23261 May 18, 1978 CJ
(_*)
r..::*
~?J~
J"* Cl *.,.
- .;.t
- :=:.:-::~
~(./)~")
--n,
- 0 Mr. Edson G. Case, Acttng Director Office of Nuc 1 ear Reactor. Regu 1 at ion Attn:
Mr.*A. Schwencer, Chief Serial No8 278 LQA/ JEE: jrl Operating Reactor Branch 1 Divisi6n of Operating Reactors U.S., Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC*
20555 Docket Nos.
50-280
Dear Mr.,
Case:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 50-281 License Nos.
DPR-32 DPR-37
. SURRY TECHNICAL:SPECIFICATIQN:CHANGE N0~-49*
On May 16, 1977, Vepco filed Surry Technical Specification Change Request Number 49 where relief from certain non-radiological mo~itoring of the James River was sought.
During a recent t~lecon between our Dr. Brehmer and Dr. Wilson of the NRG Staff, a request for additional information was again made concerning this Technical Speci-fication change.
Our response to that request is attached~
We feel this will p~ovide a basis for the Staff to reach a favorable conclusion and issue the requested relief without any further delay.
Enclosure:
Very truly yours,
~. "}r)/l. ~at0Ay
- c. M. Sta 11 i ngs Vice President-Power Supply and Production Operations Response to request for additional information of May 9, 1978 C:I
~u;,
t?J.:*
- ,r*
'1;\\*
QUESTION:
RESPONSE
REQ-T FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION e May 9, 1978 How will sampling only fish at the low,level Circulating Water intake screen be indicative of the general health of the ecosystem in the James River near the Surry Power Station?
Studies by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science since 1969 have shown that lower trophic levels in the James River around Hog Point have not been adversely influenced by the operation of Surry Power Statiorr.
These studies have also concluded that continued operation of the station is not likely to result in an adverse impact in the future.
Likewise, studies of the fishes in the area have resulted fn the same conclusion.
These findings have been concurred with by both the Virginia State Water Control Board and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Since no detrimental impact has occurred or is likely to occur, Vepco has requested relief from certain monitoring requirements as set forth in the Surry Technical Specifications.
Specifically, total relief has been requested from the requirements that lower trophic levels be monitored.
In addition, certain changes in the monitoring requirements for fishes have been sought.
Fishes, consisting of carnivores, herbivores, and omnivores, are dependent on all trophic levels for their survival.
Food chains may be short, one-step processes (algae grazed on by gizzard shad);
Enclosure:
Vepco Letter Serial No. 278
c>
e two-step (~lgae grazed on by grizzard shad which are fed on by,~riped bass); or m8lti-step complex webs (phytoplankters fed on by zooplankters fed on by anchovies fed on by striped bass).
A breakdown in a lower part of the food web would manifest itself in the fishes w~ether the fiih were carniverous, herbiverous, or omniverous.
For this reason, Vepco contends that a study of fishes in the James River would reflect the overall 11health 11 of the ecosystem.
Breal<downs in phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthos, or benthis macroinvertebrates would show up in one or several species of fish since usually more than one species depends on the next lower trophic level.
Vepco has sampled fish populations in the James Ri~er near Surry since 1970.
Populations during that time have remained constant within natural vartation.
With installation of the Ristroph travelling fish screens in 1974, a new, more efficient biological sampling gear evolved.
Comparisons with sei.ne and trawl catches showed the screens, which return about 95% of all impinged fish to the water alive, to capture more species and proved that the James River fishes were more diverse than was previously believed.
Acceptance of travelling screens as a valid biological sampling gear was proposed to the American Fisheries Society in 1975 at Las Vegas, Nevada.
Comparisons between months, seasons, numbers of species, and divers~ty were made for screen, seine, and trawl catches as well as pooled data for seine and trawl.
Results showed
~-..
- ~**.*:-~-, __ _,. -. -
,,..........,. *. *:;~**"*",-,:, *- **:;<i!'*
I*
e e
that the scr~en catches w~re almost always equal to or greater than catches from the other gear types indicating that the Surry travelling screens a~e a *1ess selective biological
~ampling ge~r.
Further comparis6ns in Vepco's analysis of Surry fishes also prove the efficiency of the screens as a valid gear.
No adverse criticism or comments were heard from the biologists present in Las Vegas.
It has been shown that fish are adequate.representatives and indicators of the ' 1health" of the ecosystem of the James River around Surry Power Station.
Also, it has been shown that the Surry travelling fish screens are a valid biological sampling
~ear, equal to or better than a convention~] seine or trawl.
For.theie reasons, tr~velling fish screens sampled periodically should provide the information necessary to assess the "heal th 11 of the aquatic environment of the.James River at Surry.
...,, -. --~---****.. *~*. ~-*- -,*--*- -..,,,.~--.,* ~-~ -..,-.,~*~*r-~.--