ML19290C104

Forwards Documentation of EPA Acceptance of Demonstration Document 316 in Response to NRC 791214 & 17 Requests

ML19290C104
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	01/02/1980
From:	Rich Smith VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP.
To:	Lear G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
WVY-80-3, NUDOCS 8001090450
Download: ML19290C104 (8)

Text

.

b VERMONT Y AN KME NUCLEAR POWER COR POR ATION d

.J SEVENTY SEVEN GROVE STREET B.3.4.1 RUTI.AND, VERS 10NT 05701 WVY 80-3 REPLY TO:

ENGINEERING OFFICE T UR NPIK E RO A D WESTBORO, M ASS ACHUSETTS 01581 TELEPHONE 617-306 9011 January 2, 1980 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Mr. George L. Lear, Chief Environmental Specialists Branch

References:

(1) License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271)

(2) Telecon, R. A. Marcello to J. Wilson, December 14, 1979 (3) Telecon, R. A. Marcello to J. Wilson, December 17, 1979 (4) Supplement One to Proposed Change No. 74, Appendix B Technical Specification Change, dated February 23, 1979.

Enclosures:

(A) Letter, B. Whittaker to E. Gaines, dated October 16, 1978 (B) Letter, E. J. Conley to B. J. Whittaker, dated October 10, 1978

Subject:

Documentation of US Environmental Protection Agency Acceptance of Ve rmont Yankee's 316 Demonstration Document In References (2) and (3), Mr. Wilson of your office requested documentation on the status of Vermont Yankee's 316(a) and 316(b) demonstration. This documentation is supplied in Enclosures (A) and (B). We hope that the submittal of this documentation will help in your review of our Proposed Change, Reference (4), and enable you to approve it as it was originally submitted.

Very truly yours, VERMONT YANKEE NOCLEAR POWER CORPORATION R. L. Smith Licensing Engineer

"'*^"'

1728 172 3001090 450

ZGNO

• • Enclosure A l gh

f. OCT 16 078 wn.1ani v"dEE TXR"R g,,-d37 -se, n State of Vermont c.

eoqE;, case,3:1 ten _

Y$7.5$

, .5% ' AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION MARTIN L. JOHNSON, Secretary Department of Fish and Game Department of Forests and Parks Montpelier, Vermont 05602

$rn ntj brd OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Division of Environmental Protection Division of Recreation Division of Planning -

Natural P.csources Conservation Council October 16, 1978 .

Mr. Edmund Gaines, Jr.

Manager, Technical Services .

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation 123 West Street Rutland, VT 05701

Dear Mr. Gaines:

We have received the attached letter and enclosure from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency relative to the revisef Ve'mont Yankee NPDES Permit which I signed on September 12, 1978. E.P.A. has concurred with the permit modifications and the E.P.A. review requirements associated with the 316 process are now complete.

Accordingly, the revised permit as signed on September 12, 1978 may be considered fully operative.

If you have any further questions in this matter please let us know.

S_1 cerely,

, N< /

BRENDAN WHITTAKE'R f

Secretary, hvi'ronmental Conservati /

BW/DLC/vb encl.

172b173

,r ' *%

(' e.

) Enclosure B t'.

i N

• -  ? NN.1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROlECllON AGENCY RKilON I E

'*' N'E J.F. KENNEDY F EDER AL BUILDING, DOSTON, M ASSACHUSETTS 02203 1

}

,f October 10, 1978 ,.

)Y c .t S

Mr. Brendan J. Whittaker, Secretary Agency of Environmental Conservation h State of Vemont ,

j Montpelier, VT 05602 q

.a Re: Amended Discharge Pemit j' Vemont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation '

j VT0000264 3-1053 13-17-002 I;f

Dear Mr. Whittaker:

3 Your letter dated September 11, 1978, transmitting the modified NPDES f a

permit referenced above has been reviewed and the pemit modification ((;

~

has been evaluated. 6 4

5 This office finds no objections to the modifications as presented in  ;

the pemit you signed on September 12, 1978. ,{

1!

However, as a cautionary note, consideration should be given to 3 imposing more stringent effluent limitations (Part I, Paragraph 1(b)(3)(3)) 7 if the river flow is continuously less than 1200 cfs for long periods i of time. The 316 Demonstration Document was developed using a h i

minimum river flow rate of 1200 cfs; therefore, the biological impact q 1 of the plant discharge during river flow rates below 1200 cfs was not 3

presented. The comments of our biologist, R. Leger, are enclosed for (i

your infomation. 7 I

Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing the permit modification and for the close coordination of your technical staff with this office j.,

3 during the long pemit modification procedure. [

Sincerely yours, j 4

1 I h j J< <

• i dward J. ' nley Chief, Permitn Branch ]

1728 174  :

Enclosure 1

' i l

) k k

1 4

'I e

.Wa92858Et?R@}M4fMt? REM %?ifMM I&M iMMEMER@

- - U!itT ED ST AT ES Ei4Vil:OttME!4T AL PROTECTIOt4 AGEt4CY D A T E:

l

. SUD>CCT: Vernont Yankee 316 Demonstration Docue.cnt and Propo;cd Permit l

i F rom. Bob Leger T o. Ed Conley I have revic wed the 316, Demonstration Document and Proposed Permit for the Vernont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. In general, I thi'nk the Demonstratic.n Document has shown that the applicant can operate the plant in the hybrid and/or open-cycle moda from October 15 through May 15 with little if any measurabic deleterious effect upon the aquatic bi~ot.a inhabiting the Vernon Pool. This presupposes that the Company meet.s the conditions set forth on Page 1 of the proposed permit which deals with maximum allowabic temperatures at Monitor 3 (95'F),

restrictions on rate of temperature change per hour ( 5'F ), and taximum allovabic temperature above ambient (13.4*F).

In essence, what we are allowing is for the station to go open cycle from October through May 15 for the next two years since the permit Attached to the permit is an extensive monitor-

~

expires in June, 1980.

ing program which should adequately detect any obvious icpacts from open-cycle operation.

The plant has operated in the hybrid and/or o, pen-cycle mode of operation for 625 days over the past four years. The Demonstration Document shoes that the number and kinds of planktonic organisms inhabiting that section I 1728 175 EPAF .m 1370 c tRc. 3 761 e

44  % m 64

, Page Tuo of the river, prior to the start up ofethe plant, did rot substantially change after the plant went on line.

~

The same holis true for benthic organisms, i.e. the predominate kinds of benthic organisms collected during the plant open-cycle operational periods were not found to differ from the dominate types fo,und in pre-operational years.

A study of the possible entrainment of fish larvae was undertaken during the Phase IV operational period, i.e. March - May, 1977. No larvae

'wcre found during the months of March or April. During the first two vecks of May, only 3 larval fishes were found in entiai:. ment sampics.

Evidently, cost of the resident fishes spawn after May 15 or the early spring spawners do not spawn in that section of the river.

A special study was conducted to determ,ine if finfish are attracted to the thernal plume during open-cycle operation. Results of'the study showed that "per' unit effort, greater number of fish were captured out of the plumc than in the plume" (p. 11-73).

A study of the general finfish community both before and after the plant went on line as well as a comparison of fish community betucen open and closed cycl ( operation did not reveal any dramatic changes that could be related to plant operation. Although thin statement may not say much, it is well-known that fish will avoid lethal temperatures if given an escape route. In this case, there is no dischar:;c canal which would tend to

' inhibit thei.r escape. Fcwcr fish have been found in the discharge arcs which would indicate that the plume is ca2 sing their displacceent from 1728 176

• W

Page Threc one place tc another. The area encompassing the thermal plume is relatively small when the Vernon Dam is operating. However, when the Dam is not operating, the thermal plume tends to build up in the pool. This happens during week-nights and especially throughout the entire day and night on weekends. In any case...the theoretical displacement of fish does not result in a demonstrable change in the percentage by number of finfish observed during pre & post operational yccrs or during open/ closed cycla operation.

The two species of fish that are of major concern are the shad and Atlantic Salmon. Adult Shad are not normally present in this stretch of the river when the plant will be operating in'the open-cycle mode. However, the juveni,les could be susceptible to impingement during their downstream migration. It is anticipated that the majorit; of outmigrating shad will have passed the Vernon Dam prior to October 15. The proposed permit contains sufficient safeguards to protect these fish and even requires closed cycle operation if certain numbers are found impinged.

Salmon will be present in the river when Verment Yankee is operating open cycle. Again, I think the permit contains sufficient safeguards

~

to protect this species and also contains provisions for closed cycle operation if certain numbers are impinged.

1728 177

. . q, g Page Four a

$ I have personally talked with Angelo Incerpi, Fisheries Biologist with the Vermont Departm2nt of Fish 6 Game concerning his letter (dated May 19, 1978) i to David Clough, Director of Water Quality Division in which he expressed i several concerns about the Vernon Plant operating in the open-cycle code.

JE Af ter this letter was written, he met with the Company and th'cy agreed

~

to certain condf.tions which are now incorporated'into the permit. In 3 essence, he is natisfied with the proposed permit as it is now written.

e j -

2 1

i 1

'l 1728 178 7 *

'l 1

4

)

1

.s E

y i

1 1

1 i