ML19290A442
| ML19290A442 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/23/1976 |
| From: | Regan W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Beverly Smith ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911070624 | |
| Download: ML19290A442 (2) | |
Text
d m'
n,; s -
n JISTRIBUTION:
( Docket File (ENVIRON) imrt Reading EP-3 Reading MErnst FEB 3 31975 RVollmer WGammill Docket No. 50-289 RBallard NRC PDR Local PDR Mr. Bruce P. Smith WRegan/RBevan U. S. Environnetal Protection MDuncan Agency, Region III 6th and Walnut Streets Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Dear Mr. Smith:
This is in response to your letters dated November 21, 1975 and January 13, 1976, inquiring about the rationale used by NRC in fannulating the temperature requirements contained in the technical specifications for operation of the Three Mile Island Unit 1 Station.
We have reviewed the material you sent to us, as well as having recon-sidered our position as set forth in the technical specifications, and offer the following coments for your consideration.
The general goal in establishing the specification under consideration was to minimize the difference between effluent temperature and ambient temperature (taken as intake temperature)..It was recognized that ambient temperatures rose above the 87* that state regulations per-mitted. The -3 degrees permitted by the NRC specification was to pemit flexibility in operating the mechanical draft cooling towers which are not " fine tunable."
We can see no benefit to biota or to water quality by cooling the Susquehanna to below ambient at the point of discharge.
It is possible that some harm could occur, since organisms exposed to the cooled plume would be acclimated to the wamer ambient temperatures. For example, the material you sent to us indicates that en August 3,1975 and August 4,1975 ambient temperatures were in the vicinity of 95* The AT of some 8' resulting from a forced 87* upper limit would seem to poten-tially cause unnecessary and undesirable stress on aquatic biota ir, the
//
vicinity of the discharge.
/' '
From a different perspective, the benefits are absent or slightly negative.
while costs both in terms of dollars and lost energy to cool the water to 1557 309 omc s
- eueN AWE W nata w Form AIC.)ts t Rev. 9 93) AECM 0240 W u. s. eovsanusm? Paintine oprics io74.sae-t es 7911070 Q y [
.s.
u _,.
Bruce P. Smith 2
FEB 2 31976 more than 3' below ambient are quite real. From the cost / benefit stand-point, a rigid 87' standard which does not recognize the occurrence of higher ambient temperatures seems undesirable.
We hope that this infomation is responsive to your request and invite any further cocnents on the matter should you believe it desirable.
Sincerely.
Original signed by W. H. Resan, Jr.
Mn. H. Regan. Jr., Chief Environmental Projects Branch 3 Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis i
1557 310 DSE:EP-3 DS E: EP-3..,,...
o, i e..-
i.- s '
RBevan:a3,;
WRegane '
..~...
2/20/76 5 2/ il76.
o...
Form AIC-318 (Rev. 9 33) AICM 0240
- .. s. oov.nuw.wv paintino orric.: t o va. ea s.: se