ML20198D906

Forwards Response to RAI Related to Power Uprate Facility Operating Licenses & TSs Change Request

ML20198D906
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	12/31/1997
From:	Dennis Morey SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
NUDOCS 9801080314
Download: ML20198D906 (5)

Text

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Dave Mor:y SIuthern Nucl:er g*

Vice PresGnt Op:tatg Company Fartey Project P0. Box 1295 Barmingham./Jabama 35201 Tel 205 992.5131 December 31, 1997 SOUTHERN h COMPANY Energy to Sern hurWorld" Docket Nos.

50-348 10 CCR 50.90 50-364 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission A*ITN.: Document Control Desk Washington,DC 20E3 Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Response to Request for Additional Information Related to Power Uprate Facility Oprating Licenses and Technical Specifications Chance Requel Ladi:s and Gentlemen:

By letter dated February 14,1997, Southem Nuclear Ope.ating Company (SNC) proposed to amu.d the Facility Operating Licenses and Tecimical Specifications for Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant

FNP) Unit I and Unit 2 to allow operation at an increased reactor core power level of 2775 megawatts thermal (Mwt). NRC letters dated July 1,1997; August 21,1997; and October 14,1997 requested SNC provide additional information, and SNC responded by letters dated August 5,1997; Sep.cmber 22,1997; and November 19,1997, respectively. SNC letter dated December 17,1997 responded to NRC questions resulting from conference calls on December 9,10,11 and 15,1997. By telephone conference call on December 11,1997, SNC responded to additional NRC Staff questions. The following Attachment provides the SNC responses to these questions. If you have any questions, please advise.

[

Respectfully submitted,

[

$4 2nen Dave More >

Sworn to and subscribed e,1bre me thishay o 1997 N/daflo b be L

Notary PubhV My Commission Expire.::

0 7A b u LL / c209/

(

MGFJmaf:pwmp27. doc Attachment cc:

Mr. L. A. Reyes, Region II Administrator g y [gg pll ggi g ll Mr. J. I. Zimmerman, NRR Project Manager I,Il I,11I,I<l,ilI,I I,11,1 1,1 Qg(.D~0 Mr. T. M. Ross, Plant Sr. Resident Inspector 9001080314 971231 PDR ADOCK 05000348 P

PDR

.o i

ATTACHMENT SNC Response to NRC Request For AdditionalInformation Related To Power Uprate Submittal-Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2 SNC RESPONSES TO NRC QUESTIONS RESULTING FROM NRC/SNC CONFERENCE CALL ON DECEMBER 11,1997

~

i

, _ 7 7

1 SNC Response to NRC Request For AdditionalInformation Related To Power Uprate Submittal - Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2 2

NRC 04 No.1 (Refmr.oce Dwd.c 11.1997 NRC/SNC Confermee Caln

. Soc: ion 2.22 of the BOP Licensing Report provides a summary of the Farley uprate environmental l

impact evaluations. Explain discrepancies between 1 ES values, existing operating values, and uprate values associated with cooling tower parameters.

i SHC Resnonne No.1 in 1996, as part of research conducted in support of the Farley Power Uprate Environmental L

Impact Evaluation, it was discovered that the current operating conditions for the Farley Nuciear Plant cooling towers were not consistent with the design conditions upon which the conclusions of the Final Environmental Statement (FES) are based. It was subsequently determined that the original design of the cooling towers has nevr i a:n able to achieve expected performance levels.

Numerous atteenpts' have been made to improve cooling tower performance including modification of the circulating water pumps to increase circulating water flow. However, actual capacity of thi.

cooling towers is currently approximately 72 percent of original design estimates.

Upon discovery of this discrepancy, a review of records rad other information was conducted to e

determine if an environmental impact evaluation, as required by Section 3.1 of the Farley Nuclear Plant Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), had been performed. Based on this review, it appears that no evaluation was performed. As such, an emironmental impact evaluation of the discrepancy Letween the current cooling tower operating parameters and the original design parameters, upon

- which the conclusions of the FES are based, was performed in January 1997. M addition,' an -

i '

administrative noncompliance with Section 3.1 of the EPP was identified and reported in the 1996 Annual Environmenta' Operating Report. De referenced evaluation will be summarized in the y

~

1997 Annual Environmental Operating Report since ic wasi completed in January 1997.

In order to accurately represent the comparison beteen the original design condition, the current operating condition, and the proposed uprate condition, Teble 2.22-1 of the BOP Liensing Report was developed his table presents the values for each parameter, under each condition, in tabular form so that the differences may be easily observed. The table allows not only comparison of the proposed uprate cwlition with the current operating condition, but also allows comparison with the condition upon'which the conclusions of the FES are based - Footnotes are provided where t.dditional clarification is needed The evaluation concludes that no significant environmental impact will result from power uprate and that the fmdings of the FES remain valid for the uprate

~ condition.2-

- SNC/ tem J 12/19/97 t

t W

?

+

e

E6-elaa No. 2 (Reference Decernber 11.1997 NRC/SNC Conference Call)

L Are there any concerns with change in fogging potential resulting f om Farky power uprate?.

j SNC P-w-No. 2 De increase in cooling tower evaporation resulting from uprate compared to the FES value is _

approximately 20 percent. -De increase over the current operating condition is approxunately 6 :

percentf %e FES concluded that the potential for fogging associated with cooling tover _ operation

~

was not signiScant. Studies conducted during the first year of operation confirmed his conclusion.

No foggmg problems have been noted to date. No significant impac.t cssociated with fogging is expected for the uprated conditio i; SNC/ tem.12/19/97 NRC Ouestion No 3 (Reference Dccember i L 1997 NRCiS.lC Conference Call)

Have discussions been held with the Alabama Department of Emironmental Management regarding the Farley uprate ar.d the potential for impact on the NPDES permit?

SNC Resoonse No. 3

' Yes. %e Alabams Department of Environmental Management was im olved very early in the development of the environmental impact evaluation for uprate. No ch ges or additions to the NPDES Permit were required. '% slight increase in final discharge temperature associated with uprate falls well withir the acccy;.able range determined in the 1990 Dermal Study conducted in l

support of renewal of the NPDES Permit. %c renewed permit was issued without limits on

.temperatum based on the reses of this study. De permit does contain a monitoring requiremes.t for tempaure.

He slight ter..perature increase associated with uprate was discussed with the Alabama -

Department of Environmental Management staff. Per these discussions, no NPDES permit related actions are required as a result of uprate.

SNC/t in - 12/19M NRC Ouestion No. 4 (Reference December i1.1997 NRC/SNC Conference Call)

Provide a description of the microbiological control program for the Faricy cooling towers and how it relates to the control of thermophyllic organisms. What control measures are utilized to mimmize health concerns to employees working in the cooling towers?

)

-v mn..

a

I

, SECK nonse No. 4 he chemical treatment program for die cooling tnwers consists of application of an oxidizing biocide (chlorine dioxide), non-oxidizing biocides for algae control, mild steel and copper corrosion irhibitors, an antiscalant, and a dispersant. He chemicals are injected into the bulk water. During outages, wood cooling tower members are sprayed with a nonoxidizing biocide to minimize microbial and fungal attack.

ne bulk water is sampled for microbiological activity on a periodic basis to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. No environmental problems associated with microorganisms have been noted since the beginning of plant operation.

He change in heat load to the cooling towers associated with power uprate is not expected to have significant impact relative to environmental effects from microorganisms, including thermophyllic organisms.

ne effects of airbome pathogens, such as Legionella, in cooling towers has been resie.ved and a program is in place to ensure protection of workers performing work in the cooling towers. He program is contained in a plant procedure. Respirators are required for workers in the cooling towers when conditions which support exposure to airbome pathogens exist. Penodic sampling of the bulk water and sludge is conducted. He impact associated with airbome organisms resulting from t!mMr temperature increase due to uprate is not significant.

SNCA.m 41'W17 4'

-________________ - _