ML19319D655
| ML19319D655 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 08/26/1977 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19319D650 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003180688 | |
| Download: ML19319D655 (3) | |
Text
. _
f UNITED ST ATES y'y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISslOtw j
j, i, WASHINGTON, 0. C. 20555
+.... ' '
%,r j
ENVIRONMEflTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMErlDMENT NO. 7 TO LICENSE NO. DPR-72 FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION, ET AL CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-302 Description of Proposed Action By letter dated August 1,1977, Florida Power Company, the licensee, proposed an amendment to the Environmental Technical Specifications (ETS) for Crystal River Unit No. 3.
The purpose of the amendment is to allow exceeding a limit on the maximun discharge temperature while the required thermal plume determination study is being conducted.
The licensee also proposed a change to the thermal plume study to require that station power capacity be at 9: eater than 80% only if possible.
Environmental Impacts of Proposed Action Specification 4.1 requires thennal plume monitoring to be conducted t ' ice during the first year of operation of Unit 3.
According to the specification, monitoring is to be at times of aximum intake temperature (July or August) and during times when the minimum intake temperature is observed.
In addition to the requirement that the intake temperature be nearly maximum, all three units were to operate at a minimum of 80", of full capacity.
The licensee plans to conduct a thennal plume study in August which would satisfy this requirement.
However, the licensee indicates that in conducting the study at maximum intake temperatures, with all three units operating, the maximum discharge temperature limit (Specification 2.1.2) of 1030F may be exceeded.
Specification 2.1.2 now allows the maximum discharce temoerature to exceed 103 F, but not 106 F, for 3 consecutive hours.
According to the licensee, about 3 days would be needed in August to conduct the thermal plume study, during which the discharge could exceed 8
e 3o08190 FP i
- 0 1030F, but not 106 F, for about five hours per day.
We have reviewed the potential impact associated with the operation of the station for 3 days with the discharge temperature approaching 1060F for about 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> per day.
Our review indicates that the short time the discharge temperature may exceed 103 F would not substantially increase the period of 53% of the year that the Final Environmental Statement (FES) predicted that a 950F discharge temperature would be exceeded.
(The Crystal River FES concluded that some ecological impact would occur when any combination of ambient and incremental temperatures exceeded 950F).
The hi increase the extent (acreage)gher discharge temperature could of the ther.nal plume which 0
exceeds 95 F.
The objective of the thermal plume study, however, is to determine the location and size of the thermal plume at maximum temperatures in order to evaluate the impact of periodic operation with this larger plume.
We conclude that the environmental impact of operation at higher discharge temperatures will be insignificant because the time 4
of the study is short, the potentially larger plume (about 950F) will fluctuate with the tidal currents, and the fringe of the plume would not remain in constant contact with benthic organisms. The Crystal River st.ation discharges into the nearshore of the Gulf of Mexico. The nearshore species in Florida are generally adapted to tolerate short-term thennal stress as the nearshore waters may naturally reach high temperatures because of their shallow depth and the high thermal load from the sun.
This tolerance should allow the local communities to survive the possible one time stress the thennal survey may cause and will help to minimize any damage.
Based on the licensee's intentions to conduct the thennal plume study during a three-day period and our appraisal for such a period,wehavemodifiedtherequestedchangetoETS4.1 indicating that the discharge temperature limit of 103 F in ETS 2.1.2 can be exceeded only during the three-day test period in August.
The 1060F limit of ETS 2.1.2 will not be changed.
The second change requested by the licensee concerns the minimum power loading of the three units at tha Crystal River site during the study.
The present survey as defined requires that each tinit be loaded to at least 80% of capacity.
The licensee indicates that Units 1 and 2 (the fossil-fueled units) are run at 40 - 50". of capacity at night because of reduced demand.
With Unit 3 at 100L Joad, the maximum load at night is about 70% for the site.
During the
3-survey, the licensee will increase load to meet increased system requirements but may not be able to keep all units at > 80% load and may not be able to keep the total site load at > 80%. The licensee therefore proposes to add the words "if possible" to Specification 4.1.
We have reviewed the impact of this change and find that for the purposes of the thermal plume study the ideal situation would be to have all units at full power.
However, the impact of the thermal plume would be from the routine loading of the plant and not from an artificially imposed maximum loading.
The impact'of the change is considered acceptable in that the reduced capacity would have less adverse effects on the aquatic communities and the survey would be conducted with the station operating at typical power output.
We have determined, however, that a lower limit should be placed on the site capacity during this study based on the ex ;..ed night load on the site. Therefore, we have discussed with FpC and they have agreed to a change in the proposal regarding site capacity to require that site capacity be no less than 70%.
Conclusion and Basis for flegative Declaration We have reviewed the proposed technical specification changes associated with this amendment.
We have found the environmental impact of operation under these revised specifications will not be substantially greater than that evaluated in the Crystal River Final Environmental Statement for Unit 3, that the changes will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and that a negative declaration to this effect is appropriate.
Dated: August 26, 1977 e
e
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET N0. 50-302 FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION, ET AL NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Afl0 NEGATIVE DECLARATION The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cormission (the Commission) has issued Amendment No. 7 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-72, issued to the Florida Power Corporation, City of Alachua, City of Bushnell, City of Gainesville, City of Kissimmee, City of Leesburg, City of New Smyrna Beach and Utilities Commission, City of New Smyrna Beach, City of Ocala, Orlando Utilities Commission and City of Orlando, Sebring Utilities Commission, Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc., and the City of Tallahassee (the licensees) which revised Technical Specifications for operation of the Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant located in Citrus County, Florida.
The amendment is effective as of the date of issuance.
This amendment waives a maximum discharge temperature limit during the three days in August 1977 that the required thermal plume study is conducted.
The limit waived is that the maximum discharge 0
temperature may not exceed 103 F for more than three consecutive hours.
In addition, the requirement that all Crystal River Units be operated at greater than or equal to 80% capacity during this study has been changed to require a site loadino no less than 70%.
7003/ o927 3
2-The application for the amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
~ Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Prior public notice of this amendment was not required since the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
The Commission has prepared an environmental impact appraisal for the revised Technical Specifications and has concluded that an environmental impact statement for this particular action is not warranted because there will be no significant environmental impact attributable to the action other than that which has already been predicted and described in the Commission's Final Environmental Statement for tne facility.
For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the application for amendment dated August 1,1977,(2) Amendment No.
7 to License No. OPR-72, and (3) the Commission's related Environmental Impact Appraisal.
All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. and at the Crystal River Public Library, Crystal River, Florida.
A copy of items (2) and I
_3, (3) may be obtained upon request addressed to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C.
20555, Attention:
- Director, l
Division of Operating Reactors.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 26th day of August 1977.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Q
aO
< j g&d-WLw Robert W. Reid, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Operating Reactors i
e f
9 9
e we- -,,
,r-m,-
, - - - - + - - - - -
w.*
~+