ML20003H506

Application for Amend to Licenses CPPR-108 & CPPR-109 to Modify Plant Chlorine Discharge Structure & Delete Conditions 3(E)(5)(a),(b) & (D).Army Corps of Engineers Ltr Re Discharge Structure Encl

ML20003H506
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	05/01/1981
From:	Ehrensperger W GEORGIA POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20003H507	List: ML20003H506 ML20003H509
References
NUDOCS 8105060211
Download: ML20003H506 (4)

Text

.! wm , r m em ,

m P e e C" .t fi W p , ,,(04 I,I,7 f.MSdb L Li 6 gg 0d3)[ $ '

9

w. c. thrensperger g t'# g M I ,i " '

N 'l

Z l,' fy' "

Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation May 1, 1981 Attention: Darmll G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Project Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wasi.ington, D. C. 20555 NRC D0CKET NUMBERS 50-424 AND 50-425 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NUMBERS CPPR-108 AND CPPR-109 ALVIN W. V0GTLE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT - UNITS 1 AND 2 DISCHARGE STRUCTURE

Dear Mr. Eisenhut:

Georgia Power Company, acting on its own behalf and as agent for Oglethorpe Electric Membership Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, by this application requests NRC approval of a modification in the design of the discharge structure for the Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Power P % t, Units 1 and 2.

Modification of the plant discharge structure has been prompted by U.S. Corps of Engineers (C0E) review of the original Vogtle multiport discharge structure design. To install the Vogtle Plant discharge structure in the Savannah River, a permit is required from the U.S. Corps of Engineers.

An application was submitted for this permit by Georgia Power Company on August 15, 1980. By letter of November 14, 1980, Georgia Power Company was informed that the structure could not be permitted as designed under COE navigational and maintenance operations criteria (see Attachment 1). The proposed mod:fication would substitute a single point, submerged plant

discharge structure for a submerged multiport discharge structure. Redesign l with a single point, submr-= d plant discharge meets COE criteria.

l The redesign i iso represents marked environmental improvement over the original design in that it reduces the potential of maintenance and operational problems due to biofouling by Asiatic Clams which Georgia Power has learned are present in the Savannah River; also, and more importantly, plant discharge with the redesigned discharge structure will result in a smaller predicted chemical and thermal plume than was predicted for the original design and assessed in the construction pemit stage FES. This reduced environmental effect is demonstrated by thermal and chemical dispersion studies reported in Attachment 2.

In conjunction with this request for approval of the design change, Georgia Power also requests amendment of Construction Pemits CPPR-108 and CPPR-109 to delete related conditions 3E(5)(a), (b) and (d) which concern plant chlorine discharges. Conditions 3E(5)(b) and (d) assume four-unit operation and as written are inappropriate for the present two-unit plant. These same two conditions are based on the use of a multiport 8105060M\

O Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Page 2 diffuser discharge structure and are inapplicable for the redesign. In any event, all three conditions on chlorine releases and related monitoring should be deleted as a matter o/ law, as they are properly subject to NPDES limitations. Georgia Pcder Company has discussed this request with the State of Georgia which has NPDES permitting authority granted to it by EPA, and has learned that effluent limits and monitoring requirements on chlorine will be considered by the State in issuance of the Vogtle NPDES permit.

Accordingly, Georgia Power Company requests approval of the modified plant discharge structure design and deletion of three related construction permit conditions. Three signed originals and forty copies of this application are provided -for your use. Also enclosed is a check in the amount of

$4,400.00 based on car evaluation of this request in accordance with 10 CFR 170.22 and our determination that it is in the case of Unit 1 a Class II administrative amendment (but associated with requested approval of a redesign involving one issue deemed not to involve a significant hazards consideration) and in the case of Unit 2 a duplicate of tne Unit I amendment.

MfbWh

, W. E. Ehrensperggr g/ N Senior Vice President Power Supply.

Georgia Power Company Sworn to and subscribed before me this /*~~- day 0.' May,-1981.

i l

k. czee .>

Notary Public i Netwy PtMe.GeWe, State et Large WEE /caa My Commbian Empires e.Weh 21,1985

. sc: R. A. Thomas T. E. Byerley

! J. A. Bailey File: X7BC06 - X2BLO7 l D. E. Dutton Log: GN-130 J. G. Farley C. D. McCrary G. F. Trowbridge l B. L. Lex K. M. Gillespie 1

1 __

~

4~

~*

, / .(

• f

- '* DEPACTMENT OF THE ARMY.

• • ( 'ANNAM Disr%fCT COtPs CF ENGINI REChQb

, 5gg, p' I' i- d , g /j$ ,

e. o. ox e.. u.S hg,24 rdgi s AVANNAH. G EOMGlW"3Ho2 YQl h fN At *tv 10 .

-_.- ATTtaff aces C74 s SA50?-?? .

14 November 1980 074 OYN,004251 . .

Mr. T. E. Byerley ATTACHMENT 1 '

Manager of Environ = ental Affairs Georgia Power Cocpany Ehrensperger to Eisenhut 230 Peach:ree Street -

Dated: hAnu i , 1981 P. O. Bcx 4545 Re: Discharge Structure A;1an:a, GA 30303 GH -no . -

Dear Mr. Byerley:

• .  ?

P1 ease refer to your letter of 7 October 1980 and recent discussions between .

you and your staff .dd Mr. J. R. Peavy of this office.

On 15 August 1980, you submitted an application for a Department of Ar=y -

Te:._-it for a diffuser pipe discharge at Plant Vogtle (at Savannah River Mile 15 0.8). Your letter of 7 October 1980 ce=pleted that original application O h7 f===1 ht=s >=osection of the che=ica1 cha=ac=eri =ic of the ce ti=>

tower nake-up water and the blowdown va:er, and projections of the "wors:

case" :her=al characteristics of the discharge and the surrounding strea:.

Your application and succeeding supp1ementary information indicated that the river bottom in the vicinity of the proposed work is, at eines, as low as elevation 66.5 feet mean sea level (=si); that the top of the proposed diffusers would be at eleva: ion 71.3 feet ::s1; and that the " normal water" elevation is 80.0 feet ms1.

In our discussions, you requested that we furnish our co=ments on the rela-tion between your proposed diffuser pipe discharge structure and the operation j and maintenance of the adjacent Savannah River Below Augusta (SRBA) navigatien proj ect.

.The authorized depth of the SRBA project is

• 9 feet and the authorized width is 90 feet (at ordinary summer flow of 5800 cubic fee: raer second at Augusta, Georgia). The ref erence plane (5800 cfs) at =ile 150.8 is 79.0 feet ms1. This area is subject to dredging, and we require our contractors to dredge to a depth of 9 feet below the reference pinne plus another two feet of attowabte overdepth to cover the inaccuracies cf the dredging process. Consequently, based on our past e.xperience, a dredging contractor wou1d thus dredge down to elevation 68.0 feet ms1. Dredging no:. ally occurs no closer than 50 fee:

,~

f 4 -. -- .- ,

- [.. ,'

(..- . .

..y ,

s 14 Nove=ber 1980 SAS0?-FP '

074 OYN 004251' Mr. T. E. Byerley -

i from the bank, Construction of structures in the' navigation cht.nnel'would '

thus have to extend no further than 50 feet from the bank and no higher than 68.0 nsi to avoid damage to.the no::les during dredging. However losering of the diffuser nozzles would increase the chance of shoal material covtring the diffusers during periods of low flow and between dredgin;4 cycles.

L'e understand from our discussions with your staff that following your re-ceipt of these ce==ents, you will proceed with design changes to your diffuser syste=. We vill, accordingly, hold your application'in abeyance until further notice from you. ~ s I'

- We hope that this infornation complies with your request.

Sincerely, ,,

l W ..

STEVEN OSVALD Chief, Regulatory Functions Branch f

J 1 e b

2

,.n. -- -- - - - . . , , . ~ - - , ~ - , . -

- . , , - - . - - - - - -