ML19317H206
| ML19317H206 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 01/21/1977 |
| From: | Reuter D ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Ziemann D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 773, NUDOCS 8004290546 | |
| Download: ML19317H206 (8) | |
Text
. - - _ - _
NRh FonM 195 UA NUCLE AR REGULATony ca" MISSION DOCKET NUMBE 0 So - 3/3
- a. n >
I N!lC DISTRIBUTION FoR PART 50 DOCKET MATERIAL 7 rom m FROM CATE OF OCCUMENT TO: Mr Ziemann Arkansas Pwr &! Light C 1-21-77 Little Rock, Ark
/
QATE RECEIVED D A Rueter
/
l-24-77 h ETTER O N OTO RIZ E D PROP INPUT FORM NUMBER OF COPIES RECEIVE D 80RIGIN AL
$ UNCLASSIFIED Ocorv one signed oEScRirTicN LETTER TRANS THE FOLLOWING:
ENCLOSU R E j
Corrections with regard to " abnormalities" found in their 8/30/76 submittal entitled
" Semi-Annual Environmental Monitoring Rpt" 2 CYS F & W & 1 CY F & D
..... submitted in response to cur 12-14-76 SENT TO 8AFETY LIC. ASST.
ler.......(20 cy's e$cl' rec'd)
TOTAL CYS SENT (7) i.
//y,,- K
~
7
..,y.--,
y...- s
~-
... ~
_ _.. v 't 1
' ' ~
PLANT NAME:
Arkansas #1
~"
SAFETY FOR ACTION /INFORMATION ENVIRO l-24-77 ehf BRANCH CHIEF :
7#emeao r r:c" "t'!En W/l CY L'fi ;7 ros Am cort LIC ASST. :
O rgq q
(' g h sc, m,.
(Lr i'f " +~mm )
p,..,,,,, n e my)
- SEE NOTE I
INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION l
u.
ny g1i q, NRC PDR I & E (2)
J. COLLINS BALLAPW KREGER GRIMES (OPR. PLA! TIS) l EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION CONTROL NUMBE R LPDR: Ev35eI/vil/s. Af-- -
" _f.
' f,-
cfg N C FORM 195(2 76) 8QQ
Q H EL PIN G BUILO ARKANSAS ARK ANS AS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY STM & LOUISIAN A STAEETS. LITTLE ACCK, A AK ANGAS 72203*(501)372-4311 January 21, 1977 9 I co//
zs \\
g-N/A 1-017-7 p
9,
),
c
~ 'f8 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
-i L
ATIN:
Mr. Dennis L. Ziemann, Chief D
y[p _ '1#p Operating Reactors Branch #2 Q
j.
,J U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9 x\\
Nj/s (ND s.
Washington, D. C.
20555 p,Is
Subject:
Arkansas Nuclear One-Unit 1 Docket No. 50-313 License No. DPR-51 August 30, 1976, Semi-Annual Environmental Monitoring Report (File: 0900)
Gentlemen:
Your December 14, 1976, letter identified 3 so called " abnormalities" pointed out in the subject report and requested additional information on each.
In addition Jim Wilson of Mr. B. K. Grimes staff has verbally requested detailed discharge temperatures for startups and shutdowns during the Spring 1976 period in relation to the same topic. Attached find the requested information.
Very truly yours,
/
Donald A. Rueter Manage.r, Licensing e
DAR:DHW:ay
_v.N I "'
W i; W ^ 7~,
., S V. *
- '; cA Q)
Attachment
,, / 'f.W 3
\\. v' j.
'v 3
/-
%stc 7+g i
f-
- w.., g3Tl ',. = t.
sm
~
.5 f c
g 4b ;.
a,,/
.s
'N_'>
TA X P AYING. INVES TC A OWN E O MEMBE A MlOOLE SOUTH UTILITIES SYSTEM
,a
^
m ATTACHMENT 1 RESPONSE TO " QUESTIONS CONCERNING ABNORMALITIES REPORTED IN ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE-UNIT 1 SEMI-ANNUAL ENVIRO'01 ENTAL REPORT" 1.
On page 47 it is stated that "Large hydra were found feeding on larval fish in Area C (Discharge Cove) during May 1976."
A.
Is this unusual for Southern reservoirs?
RESPONSE
This is not common in Southern reservoirs but it is certainly not unheard of and it is not, peculiar to Southern reservoirs.
" Occasionally hydras become a [ Fish] hatchery nuisance by killing fish fry."1 Hydra have been observed in the nest of black basses attaching to eggs and to hatching fry in two northern Arkansas reservoirs.2 Zooplankton have been observed feeding on hatchery fish larvae.3 Hydra have been observed in large numbers on a transient basis in an Iowa nursery lake.4 This is far from an exhaustive list of such observations.
B.
If it is, could the fish populations of the reservoir be affected?
RESPONSE
Not applicable.
C.
Is it because of plant operations?
RESPONSE
When this observation was made the plant had been shutdown contin-uously for about 2 months. The discharge bay is a natural hydra habitat. Connection to plant operation is improbable.
2.
On page 47 it is stated that "The June 1976 meter not samples from all areas of the reservoir produced 30 percent to 60 percent larval fish with raised areas or growths over the body or spinal curvature".
A.
Is this abnormality likely to be due to plant operation and if so, what plant-related factors have caused it? If not, what other factors have caused it?
' RESPONSE
'The 30 to 60 percent figure was an estimate based on visual observa-tion. Actual numbers developed later by inspection revealed that only
rs s
6.9% of-all' fish sampled had raised areas or growths over the body or. spinal curvature. Approximately 1/4% of the sampled fish had spinal curvature, all restricted to the discharge canal. No individuals were affected by both abnormalities. Therefore the two abnormalities are considered to be completely independent.
There is a possibility that the spinal curvature is associated with plant operation since it appears to be a phenomenom unique to the discharge embayment.
However, we have been unable to identify any connection.
It is very unlikely that the growths or raised areas are caused by plant operation. The first specimen collected with this feature was taken from the control area upstream of the plant in a recessed cove.
Jim Wilson of the NRC staff has suggested the possibility of toxaphene effects. causing both these abnormalities.
The symptoms identified with toxaphene poisonings do not coincide with the abnormalities we have identified, i.e. the raised areas or growths cannot be characteri:ed
.as hemorrhaging and the " broken back syndrome" does not appear to cor-respond to lordosis as identified in our report.
In addition, as pre-viously stated, no individuals exhibited both features.
We offer no explanation for the identified abnormalities. We simply have not been able to identify any causes.
B.
Is this abnormality likely to significantly affect the popula-tions of the reservoir?
RESPONFE No..As indicated earlier the frequency of occurrence is much lower than previous visual estimates indicated.
C.
Does this observation invalidate previous analyses made by you concerning the impact of Unit 1 on the reservoir?
RESPONSE
No.
3.
On page 50.it is stated that "On almost every collection trip from mid-May through June, dead but not deteriorated mussels were observed floating in every area of the reservoir".
A.
Is this abnormality likely to be due to plant operation, and if so, what plant-related factors have caused it? If not, what other factors have caused it?
RESPONSE
During the period in which the dead mussels were identified the plant had been shut down for 2 months or more and some floating mussels were observed upstream of the plant. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that plant operation could have affected the mussels in the manner identified.
x
No cause has been identified. The only possibility theorized thus far has been suffocation due to shifting sand, silt and debris in the wake of high water. As indicated in the August 30, 1976, Semi-Annual Operating Report (page 31) flood level conditions with much trash existed immediately preceding the first observations of the dead mussels.
B.
Is this abnormality likely to significantly affect the mussel populations of the reservoir?
RESPONSE
This question cannot be answered because the extent of the dicoff is not known, the population is indeterminate and whether the mussels died in the reservoir or in tributaries is unknown.
C.
Is this related to the larval fish abnormality?
-RESPONSE We have been unable to postulate any relationship.
D.
Does this observation invalidate previous analyses made by you concerning the impact of Unit 1 on the reservoir?
No, i,
's REFERENCES FOR ATTACHME.VT 1
'1 Pennak, R. W. ; Fresh-Water Invertebrates of the United States, p.99, 1953.
2.
Houser, A1; South-Central Reservoir Investigations Group, U. S.
Fisheries and Wildlife Service.
3.
Beavers, Berry; Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Lonoke Fish Hatchery.
4.
Moen, Thomas; " Hydra in an Iowa Nursery Lake", Iowa Academy of Science, Vol. 58, 1951.
5.
Mehrle, Paul and Mayer, Jr., Foster, " Toxaphene Effects on Growth 6 Bone Composition of Fathead Minnows Pimephales Promelas", Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Vol. 32, No. 5,1975.
W.
---.--.-.a
ATTACINENT ' 2
. Discharge Temperature Fluctuations
~For-Spring:1976
'During Shutdowns and Startups Continuous operation near full power until March 19 when shutdown.
March 19 TIME OF*
1600 67 1700 67 1800 67
-1900 67 2000 66 2100 60
.2200 57 2300 57 % non-critical at 2217 March 20 000 57 100 57 200 57 300 57 Continuously shutdown until June 19 when started up, s
June 19
-TIME O
__F_*
1000 79 1100 79 1200' 79 4
1300 79 1400 79 % critical at 1353 1500 79 1600 79 1700
-79 1800
'79 1900 79 2000 79 2100 79 2200 79 -
2300 80 j'
June 20 000' S0 100' 80 200
.80 300 80 400 81 500' 81
'600 81 700-81.
(
800 81
F TDE OF*
900 81 1000 80 1100 80 1200 81 1300 81 1400 82 1500 82 1600 84 1700 85 1800 87-1900 87 2000 86 2100 86 2200 86 2300 86 June 21' 000 86 100 85 200 85 300 86
-400 86 500 87 600 86 700 87,
800 78 '
~ tripped at 0729 900 Not available 1000 Not available 1100 78 1200-78 1300 79 1400 79 Continuously shutdown until June 28 when started up.
. June 28 TDE OF*
1700 79 1800 79 1900 79 1
2000 79 2100 81 m
2200-83 '
-- critical at 2115
' 2300 84 June 29-000 84 100 89 200 Not available 300-88 400 88
- as measured in the discharge fiume.
.a