ML19093B415

Response to Request for Additional Information Re Technical Specification Change Request No. 49 Surry Power Station

ML19093B415
Person / Time
Site:	Surry
Issue date:	08/18/1978
From:	Stallings C Virginia Electric & Power Co (VEPCO)
To:	Harold Denton, Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML19093B415 (5)

Text

e VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND PowBR COMPANY RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23261 f.J August 18, 1978 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Serial No. 4~

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation LQA/JEE:jal [;; c, Attn: Mr. Albert Schwencer, Chief Operating Reactors Branch. 1 Docket Nos. *50-280 Division of Operating Reactors 50-28]*

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wash i:ngton, DC

• 20555 License Nos. DPR~32 DPR-37

Dear Mr. Denton:

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION.CHANGE REQUEST NO. 49 SU~RY POWER.STATION .

By.letter dated May 16, 1977,*vepco.requested a change to the Technical Specifications concerning the non-radiological environmental monitoring of the James River in *the vicinity of s*urry Power Station.

• Vepco ha*s since received a request: for. additional in format ion (telecon, August-14, 1978)from Messrs. Neighbors,.Wilson and Cane of the Staff.

o*ur response is attached..

• We fee 1 that fifteen months is an excessive amount of ti me for a license change request to be.under review *. Your approval is needed:'.

within 45 days to,avoid additional, and unnecessary cost~.

Very truly yours, C. M. Sta 11 i ngs Vice President-Power Supply and Production Operations Attachment

---'\

I I

, 782350028

\

I I

INQUIRY: The Licensee has not provided assurance~ that the Ristroph screens will continue to serve as the most non-selective fish sampling device available or that they will continue to provide data which indi-cates the relative abundance of populations in the river.

A means of verification of the screen data should be provided through a river sampling program or a demonstration that data are avail-able from other sources.

RESPONSE: The James River is one of the major tributaries of the Chesa-peake Bay and, as such, is used extensively by aquatic lif6 as well as m~n. Because of its importance to the Bay ecosystem, the James has been the object of numerous studies over the years, studies conducted by a myriad of investigators for a myriad of rea~ons.

The Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) has conducted structured fish studies in the James River since the early 1960 1 s.

These studies, financed by both federal and state funds (e.g. P.L.89-304),

consist of monthly trawl surveys, winter trawl surveys, and semi-monthly beach seine surveys. Blue crab surveys in the river also collect fish data. The prospects for continuation of these studies are excellent.

These studies were augmented in 1970 through monthly seine and trawl sur-veys by Vepco around the Surry Power Station (Anon., 1976). The data were recently combined in the form of a (316(a)) demonstration that proved con-clusively that the Surry Power Station thermal effluent and hence Station operations were not having an impact on fish populations in the James River.

The demonstration findings received concurrence and approval of both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Virginia State Water Control Board on January, 1978.

As has been stated previously, the James River* has been utilized by man for many purposes ranging from recreation to a waste repository.

The latter use has presumably resulted in numerous fish kills and the temporary demise of certain indigenous species (St. ~ierre and Hoag-man, 1975). The ecosystem is resilient, however, and data for 1977 and 1978 (both V[MS and Vepco) show that white perch, hogchoker, and striped bass, for example, have rebounded in th~ James River with apparently extremely strong year classes. These year-classes were successful despit~

relatively heavy body burdens of the pesti~ide Kepone.

Nature functions in this manner. For example, a suspected epizootic ln the Potomac River in 1963 killed hundreds of millions of white perch (St. Pl_erre and Ho_agman, 1975). It was estimated that 50-60% of the population was destroyed (Sinderman, 1970 ~St.Pierre and Hoagman, 1975).

Today, white perch are among the most numerous of all species inhabiting that river.

All of these data point to several inescapable conclusions: (1) the fishes of the tldal James River were being studied prior to operation of the Surry Power Station, have been studied for six years during operation, and will be studied for years to come with or without*Vepco involvement; (2) natural and catastrophic fluctuations in abundance are and can be detected us i_ng non-Vepco programs presently underway; (3) except for sub-stantiating and otherwise confirming lon~-term trends in relative abun-dance or catastrophic declines in certain populatio~s residing in the Surry area, additional sampling programs are not warranted. To date the

• o_ngoi.ng nori-Vepco 'programs have adequately shown the increase, decline, and stability of fish populations in the tidal James River.

e e LITERATURE CITED Anonymous, 1976. The effects of Surry Power Station operations on fishes of the oligohaline zone, James River, Virginia. Virginia Electric and Power* Company manuscript, v + 37 pp.

St. Pierre, R. A. and W. J. Hoagman, 1975. Drastic reduction of the white perch, M~~ic'an~, population in the James River~ Vi_rginia.

Chesapeak~_Science 16(3): 192-197.

' ' . e

• INQUIRY: The Licensee should describe the field .studies that will be initiated if the screen studies yield atypical data.

Provide information on the studies that will be initiated.

RESPONSE: With the installation of the Ristroph traveling fish screens at Surry Power Station, fish impingement problems became non-existent.

Data indicated an overall average survival rate in excess of 93%

(White and Brehmer, 1976), a figure that has been upgraded to 95% in recent years. Experience has shown through the years that when survival percentages fall below about 75%, the cause can be traced to a sudden influx of the very young late postlarvae or early juveniles of one or two species. The reduced survival is usually of short duration, lasting only a few days, at most.

When such a reduced survival occurs (survival of all species<

75% for the day sampled) a special.sampling program will be instituted.

Along with daily screen samples, duplicate beach seine samples will be taken on either side of the intake ~nd trawl transects wi 11 be made using the intakes as a focus (10 minute tows 45°, 90°, 1350, out from the intakes). Program duration will be governed by the duration of the reduced survival. By determining the relative volume of water strained by the nets, a figure can be derived that gfves the relative number of any species per unit volume. This number can then be compared with fish killed per unit volume of water pumped to determine the relative impact.

LITERATURE CI TED White, J. C., Jr. and M. L. Brehmer, 1976. Ei9hteen-month evaluation of the Ristroph traveling fish screens. Third National Workshop on Entfain-ment and Impingement. L. D. Jensen, editor. pp. 367-380~

- - - - --- - -