ML20037A779
| ML20037A779 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 08/02/1977 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20037A778 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004070446 | |
| Download: ML20037A779 (3) | |
Text
,
=
ENVIR0tNENTAL IMPACT APPRAISA FOR CRYSTAL RIVER ENVIR0tNENTAL l
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES a
1.
Description of Proposed Actions On August 1,1977 the Florida Power Company submitted proposed Technical Specification Change No. 7.
The purpose of the amend-ment is to allow exceeding the limit on the maximum discharge temperature while the thermal plume determination study is being conducted. The licensee also proposes to change the wording of-
_~
the thermal plume study to indicate that station power capacity will be at greater than 80% if possible.
2.
Environmental Impacts of Proposed Action Specification 4.1 requires thermal plume monitoring to be conducted twice during the first year of operation of Unit 3.
According to the specification, monitoring is to be at times of maximum intake temperature (July or August) and during times when the minimum intake temperature is coserved.
In addition to the requirement that the intake temperature De nearly maximum, all three units were to operate at a minimum of 80% of full capacity. The 11-censee plans to conduct a thermal plume study in mid-August which would satisfy the intent of this specification. However, the licensee indicates that in conducting the study at maximum intake temperatures, with all three aits operating, the maximum dis-charge temperature limit (Specification 2.1.2) of 103*F may be exceeded.
Specification 2.1.2 now allows the maximum discharge temperature to exceed 103*F, but not 106*F, for 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> per day in the event the intake screens become fouled with algae and seagrasses. Ac-cording to the licensee, about 3 days would ce neecea in mic-August to conduct the tnermal plume study, during which the dis-charge could exceed 103*F, but not 106 F, for accut five hours per day. We have reviewed the potential impact associated with the operation of the station for 3 days with the cischarge tempera-ture approaching 106 F 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 exceea 103 F would not substantially iacrease the perioc of 53% of the year that the FES precicted that a 95cF cischarge tempera-ture would be exceeded.
(The Crystal River FES ccncluded that some ecological impact would occur when any comoination of ambient and incremental temperatures exceecea 95 F).
The higher discharge 8004070 Y N
~
temperature could increase the extent (acreage) of the thermal plume which 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 of the study is short, the potentially larger plume (above 95*F) will fluctuate with the tidal currents, and the fringe of the plume would not remain in constant contact with benthic organisms.
The Crystal River station discharges into the nearshore of the Gulf of Mexico. The nearshore species in Florida are generally adapted to tolerate short-term thermal stress as the nearshore waters may naturally reacn high temperatures because of their shallcw depth and the hign thermal load from the sun. This tolerance should allcw the local communities to survive the possible one time stress the thermal survey may cause and will help to minimize any damage.
Based on the licensee's intentions to co,C.ct the thermal plume study during a three-day period and the staff's appraisal for such a period, the staff has added a phrase to Environmental Technical Specification (ETS) 4.1 indicating that the discharge temcerature limit of 103*F in ETS 2.1.2 can be exceeded only during *the approximate three-day test period in mid-August.
The 106 F limit of ETS 2.1.2 will not be changed.
The seccnd change requested by the licensee concerns the mini-mum pcwer leading of the three units at the Crystal River site curing the study.
The present survey as defined requires that each unit 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 Ur.it 3 at 100% load, the maximum load at night is about 70% for the site.
During the survey, the licensee will in-crease load to meet increased system requirements but may not be aole to keep all units at ? 80% load and may not be able to keeo the total site lead at ? 80%. The licensee therefore proposes to add the words "if possible" to Specification 4.1.
4
, h-
.s
. ~=
v~.e,~
The staff has reviewed the impact of this change and finds 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 artifically' 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.
3.
Conclusion and Basis for Hegative Declaration We have retiewed the proposed technical specification changes associated with this amendment. We have found the environmental m_c 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.
O e