Text

Forwards Response to 980304 Telcon RAI Re 970214 Amend Request to Allow Operation at Increased Reactor Core Power Level of 2,775 Mwt.Environ Evaluation of Changes in Cooling Tower Performance Parameters Also Encl
	ML20216D478
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	03/06/1998
From:	Dennis Morey; SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING CO.
To:	; NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
	NUDOCS 9803170075
	Download: ML20216D478 (26)
	v • d • e

Dave Morey.

Southern Nuclear Vice President Operating Company Farley Pro #ct Wox 1295 Birmingharn. Alabama 35201 Tel 205.992.5131 March 6,1998 M EM h COMPANY Energy to Serve YourWorld" Docket Nos.:

50-348 10 CFR 50.90 50-364 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN.: Document Control Desk j

Washington, DC 20555 Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Response to Request for Additional Information Related to Power Uprate Facility Ooeratine Licenses and Technical Soecifications Channe Reauest Ladies and Gentlemen:

By letter dated February 14,1997, Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) proposed to amend the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical 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. SNC responded by letters dated August 5, 1997; September 22,1997; and November 19,'1997 respectively. SNC letters dated December 17

{

and 31,1997; January 23,1998; February 12 and 26,1998; and March 3,1998 responded to NRC questions resulting from conference calls. During a telephone conference call on March 4, 1998, the NRC Staff requested responses to additional questions. Attachment I provides the SNC responses to these questions. Attachment 11 provides a copy of the " Environmental Evaluation of Changes in Cooling Tower Performance Parameters" requested by the Staff.

f.

'If you have aay questions, please advise.

Respectfully submitted,

}

IT41/6

)

Dave Morey Sworn to andsubscribed befo me this(efday of 1998

'Y/W L

L Notary Public V My Commission Erpires:

h Y0l

}

RWS/maf: pw..p33. doc Attachments

.vv40 cc:

Mr. L. A. Reyes. Region 11 Administrator Mr. J. I. Zimmerman, NRR Project Manager Mr. T. M. Ross, Plant Sr. Resident inspector lllllllllllllllllllllllkll ll

'^'

9803170075 980306 PDR ADOCK 05000348 P

PDR

ATTACIIMENT I SNC Response to NRC Request For Additional Information Related to Power Uprate Submittal-Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 SNC RESPONSES TO NRC QUESTIONS RESULTING FROM NRC/SNC TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL ON MARCH 4,1998

)

SNC Response to NRC Request For Additional Information Related to Power Uprate Submittal-Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 NRC Ouestion No.1 (Reference March 4.1998 NRC/SNC Conference Call)

Are there any changes to design or operating conditions, resulting from power uprate which would adversely impact safe shutdown capability in accordance with Appendix R7 SNC Resgonse to Ouestion No.1 The power uprate evaluation did not identify changes to design or operating conditions that adversely impact the post-fire safe shutdown capability in accordance with Appendix R. There are no physical plant configuration changes or combustible load changes as a result of the uprated power level that affect the Appendix R analysis previously performed.

!,NC/rws - 3/5/98 NRC Ouestion No. 2 (Reference March 4.1998 NRC/SNC Conference Cal.!)

Please provide a copy of the Environmental Evaluation of changes in cooling tower pdormance parameters associated with pre-and post-uprate conditions.

SNC Response to Ouestion No. 2 See Attachment Il for a copy of the requested evaluation.

Please note that the process documented in Attachment II involved two evaluations due to discovery of changes made in cooling tower operation and modificatiens made to the cooling tower system in the past because of efficiency problems. The first evaluation discusses the environmental impact associated with the operational changes and modifications made to the cooling towers which are currently in effect. The second evaluation discusses the environmental impact of the proposed power uprate.

The evaluations conclude that no significant emironmental impact resulted from the cooling tower changes mentioned and that none would occur from the proposed power uprate.

SNC/mja A rwe - 3/5/98

ATTACHMENT II SNC Response to NRC Request For AdditionalInformation Related to j

Power Uprate Submittal-Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2

{

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF CHANGES IN COOLING TOWER PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS l

1 i

l 1-

i a

4 ATTACHMENT I TO ENV-97-005

)

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF CHANGES IN COOLING TOWER PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS d

J

~

l i

I

T l

FARLEYNUCLEAR PLANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPA CT EVAL UA TION OF CHANGES IN COOLING TOWER PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS Backeround Farley Nuclear Plant Unit I and Unit 2 are currently licensed to operate at a nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) power level of 2660 MWt per unit. A power uprate to an NSSS power level of 2785 MWt for each unit is proposed. The proposed power level uprate will net an additional 24 MWe per unit.

l I

In the course of conducting an environmental impact evaluation of the power uprate proposal, as required by Section 3.1 of the Farley Nuclear Plant Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), it was determined that discrepancies existed in cooling tower operating parameters. Specifically, current values for certain operating parameters differed significantly from the design-based values documented in the Environmental Report - Operating License Stage, and the subsequent Final Environmental Statement (NUREG 0727). Based on review of this information, it was determined that an evaluation of the environmental impact associated with the current cooling tower operating conditions should be conducted.

This evaluation is required under Section 3.1 of the EPP to determine if the discrepancy between the i

current operating parameters and the design information documented in the Environmental Report, upon w hich the conclusions of the Final Environmental Statement are based, constitutes im unreviewed emironmental question or a matter which requires a change to the EPP.

Sectia 3.1 of the Farley Environmental Protection Plan, Appendix B to Facility Operating Licenses NPF-2 and NPF-8, states that "the licensee may make changes in plant design or operation, or perform tests or experiments affecting the em'ironment provided such activities do not involve an unresiewed environmental question and do not involve a change to the EPP. Section 3.1 requires that an emironmental evaluation be prepared and recorded prior to engaging in any activity which may significantly affect the environment. Section 3.1 further states that "A proposed change, test, or experiment shall be deemed to constitute an unreviewed emironmental question ifit concerns: (1) a matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse emironmental impact presiously evaluated in the FES-OL, emironmental impact appraisals, or in any decisions of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; or (2) a significant change in effluents or power level; or (3) a matter not presiously reviewed and evaluated in the documents specified in (1) of this Subsection, which may have significant emironmental impact." In accordance with these requirements, the following emironmental impact evaluation has been performed.

References

1. Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Emironmental Report - Operating License Stage

2. Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Fina! Emironmental Statement (FES-OL) NUREG 0727

3. Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant FWnmental Protection Plan (EPP), Appendix B to Facility Operating licenses NPF 2 and NPI-8.

4. " Evaluation of Mixir.g Zon;.s for Temperature and Total Residual Chlorine in the Chattahoochee River Related to the Farley Nuclear Plant Main Combined Facility Discharge" - Report dated November 12,1990.

r;.

y EffE The Farley Nuclear Plant Environmental Report and subsequent Final Environmental Statement (FES) i evaluates the nonradiological environmental impact of two unit operation. The scope of this evaluation -

j pertains to environmental impacts associated with dissipation of heat via operation of the cooling towers.

~

The circulating water system at Farley Nuclear Plant is a closed circuit which includes the condensers and cooling towers. Makeup to replace system losses due to evaporation, driA, and system blowdown is provided to the cooling towers from the discharge from the service water system Three cooling towers containing 14 cells per tower are in place for each unit. The tower design conditions are documented in

- Section 3.4.3 of the Environmental Report - Operating License Stage.

- The FES concluded that no appreciable environmental impact should occur due to the release of heated water effluents from Farley Nuclear Plant. This conclusion was based on a thermal balance calculation which utilized an intake water temperature of 86

F (noted as a maxunum summer river temperature), a maximum Slowdown temperature of 89 ' F, a service water temperature of 94.~ ' F, a cooling tower 5

blowdown flow of 10,200 gpm, a service water discharge flow of 35800 gpm, and a minimum river flow of 1210 cfs. The calculation indicated a final discharge temperature of 93.4

F rnd a resulting -

temperature increase in the river of approximately 0.5

F aAer mixing.

It has been determined that the original design of the cooling towers has never been able to achieve expected performance levels. Numerous attempts have been made to improve cooling tower performance, including modification of the circulating water pumps to increase the flow from 635,000 gpm to 692,900 gpm. However, actual capacity is currently rated at cpproximately 72 percent of design. The primary environmental concern associated with cooling tower performance is an increase in cooling tower blowdown temperature. The current blowdown temperature (based on 78

F wet bulb) is approximately 7.4

F higher than the design value documented in the FES using the same conditions. In order to evaluate the environmental impact of the increased blowdown temperature, thermal balance calculations were performed comparing the current cooling tower operating parameters at the design 78 ' F wet bulb temperature with the cooling tower design information documented in the FES. This method was chosen to ensure equal comparison between the current condition and the original design condition nueard in the FES and allow a direct assessment of thermal impact on the Chattahoochee River. Additionally, calculations of thermal balance were conducted at the 7Q10 flow and Most ProbL~ river flow. The ','Q10 flow is the flow normally used by the Alabnma Department of Environmental Management for NPDES permitting purposes and the Most Probable flow is representative of river flow conditions that normally occur. This data was compared witl' the data upon which the Final Environmental Statement' conclusions are based to evaluate the potential for environmental impact.

Evaluation Utilizing the cooling tower operating parameters for the current conditions and a service water pond temperature of 86

F, the thermal balance calculation (Ref. Attachment 1) indicated a final discharge temperature of 95.04

F, a river temperature of 86.56' F after mixing, and a resulting temperature increase in the river of 0.56

F above ambient at the minimum flow of 1210 cfs defined in the FES. This represents an approximately 1.6

F increase in discharge temperature over the 93.4

F value defined in the FES and an approximately 0.1 ' F increase in final river temperature after mixing over the FES value.

The FES concluded that the approximately 0.5

F increase in river temperature under extreme conditions associated with operation of Farley Nuclear Plant did not result in significant adverse em-ironmental impact. At these severe conditions of extreme wet bulb temperature, maximum recorded river temperature, and low river flow, the river temperature after mixing of approximately 0.1

F above the

- value defined in the FES resulting from cooling tower operational changes does not significantly impact the conclusions of the FES relative to thermal impact.

Page 2

s.,.

The FES concluded that the original analysis conducted under extreme temperature and flow conditions was conservative and protective of water quality standards. The approxicaate 0.1

F increase during extreme conditions resulting from changes in cooling tower operation is also conservative and protective of water quality standards. At the 7Q10 flow and higher flows, river temperature increases are minimal "and quickly decline to values which approach the limits of temperature measurement instrumentation. As discus: ~1 in the FES, adequate mixing occurs such that the size of the thermal plume is relatively small and acceptable. This conclusion remains valid. A summary of the existing operating parameters for the cooling towers and the values contained in the FES is included as Attachment 2.

An additional conservatism relative to thermal impacts, beyond those discussed above, exists in the current operating methodology for the cooling towers. The above evaluation investigated operation of the cooling towers at 3.5 cycles of concentration which is consistent with the FES conditions and determined that no significant adverse environmental impact occuned. Currently, the cooling towers are operated at 10 -12 cycles of concentration since the surface water withdrawn from the Chattahoochee River has relatively low hardness. This results in significantly lower blowdown flow (74 gpm rather than 10,200 gpm) and produces a reduction in final discharge temperature of approximately 0.6

F with a corresponding reduction in river temperature. As such, actual thermal impacts are even less than those discussed above.

In addition to the FES, the thermal impact associated with cooling tower operational $hanges was evaluated relative to the Farley Nuclear Plant NPDES permit. The Alabama Department of Environmental Management issued NPDES Permit No. ALOO24619 to Farley Nuclear Plant. The permit, which was renewed in 1995, contains no limits for temperature. This is based on previous permit i

monitoring reLtive to temperature and a study conducted in 1990 which confirmed, under extreme f

temperature and flow conditions, that the thermal discharge from Farley Nuclear Plant did not result in significant adverse environmental impact and did not warrant numerical permit limits.

l i

In addition to the considerations regarding temperature, the change in cooling tower flow noted above also l

produced a slight change in cooling tower drift. This change in drift rate of approximately 116 gpm (based on a 0.2% drift loss) will result in an increase of approximately 2 tons / year of mineral deposition above the 24 ton / year value identified in the FES. As discussed in the FES, it is impossible to predict how minerals from cooling tower drift will actually be deposited on the land but they will likely be deposited within the site boundary. If uniform deposition was assumed, it would amount to 0.014 tons / acre-year, a 0.003 ton / acre-year increase over the FES value.- These minerals are essentially the same composition as the natural water from the Chattahoochee River and are, to a great extent, the same as found in commercial fertilizer. Based on the above, the FES conclusion relative to deposition of minerals associated with cooling tower drift remains valid. No changes are expected in the river or soil which may lead to adverse environmental impact.

The slight change in evaporation rate associated with tower capacity and flow changes is insignificant relative to environmental impact associated with consumptive use. The approximate 0.5 cfs change is less than 0.06 percent of historical low river flow and is not significant relative to environmental impact on the Chattahoochee River. Changes in river water withdrawal to compensate for the increase in cooling tower makeup are enveloped by the 90,u00 gpm withdrawal rate upon which the conclusions of the FES are based.

j l

i Page 3

s Conclusion i

Based on the above evaluation, the discrepancies noted between the current operating parameters for the Farley Nuclear Plant cooling towers and the pai.E

. defined in the Environmental Report - Operating License Stage, upon which the conclusions of the Final Enytronmental Statement are based, do not result in significant environmentalimpact. The Final Environmental Statement concluded that no significant environmental impact would result from operation of Farley Nuclear Plant. This conclusion remains valid relative to the changes in cooling tower operating parameters. As such, this matter does not constitute an unreviewed environmental question or a matter which requires a change to the Environmental Protection Plan per Section 3.1.

This evaluation has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.1 of the Farley Nuclear j

Plant Environmental Protection plan and will be provided, in summary form, to the NRC as part of the Annual Environmental Operating Report.

l 4

+

l Page 4

9,

a ATTACHMENTI ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTEVALUATION

CHANGESIN COOLING TOWER OPERA TING PARAMETERS I

SUMMARY

OFCALCULATIONS a

l i

-)

i

F A

t R

i s

$ n # s! 2 9

2 s: 2 J M L Q R 9 4p A < n

<i 2

e J

1 V

I 1

3 3

3 2 2 2 2

2 2v 2 2 2 2 1 d 5

i 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

J 4

3 2

1 0

9 8 7

6' 5

4 3 2 1 0

9 8 7 6,5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6

<5 4 3'

2

.1 E

f R.

f 4

h.'

e 5 r

4

" P ;'

4 0

- i

^

s

~

X i

C P

D D U U T T S

S C C C C

J LS C

l o

o p p

o o

e e o o

a A

W A

a t

t r

r o t

n n

r r

l l

ci v

l ol c S

n w

w s

s a

a v

i i

ni u EC A

l S

t t

5 E

c n

D s

s e

e S

R e

e g g a

1 t

t a

a A

l 2

i r

r e

i 25 s

e e mm v

t W W T T e

S

_Q r

c a

a v

e o

o d

d 6

ha m

m Ri R i

r r

i c

a a

w w

t t

=

~

v v

e Di e e

e e

i m

( (

g c

T F

B B

p T

S R i

o o

ni m /"

~

s r

r r

r e

m m

e e Wa h

e o

o l

a o

e i

R T T

T T

U A U A A'

r r

?

n s

i i

w w

v v

x x W W l

l i

s t

r o

c a

v e

e i

m e

e t

a t

t m

w w

w t

l c

r r

u O m R

n e

r i

r r

e e

O m p

d d

a a

r g p d

d O

S e

T W B H R C F W p p V

iB

) )

t t

I a

e e

D e e

o o

p p c

R R r

r i

Fl a w

w e

t r

n e

e o

l e

ti RE i

i W m a

ol o a

l o

e r

i

=

i i

T F

s r

t rr o

r o

o v

v l

c o

u t

n n

R v

t t

n d

w c

a p e

w t

u i

sA W g b

a a

n n

e e

e o

h n

W l

g

& hl W

w r

d e

l T

F v

l e

e F

o a

t t

s r

r m

w a

r t

e i

R W W p g

i

(

n n

e l

e r

(

a G

b g

o r

l w

A 7

i e

n p

m w

W DM T

r t

R D o e

D v

a a

C c

o p

W P

^

t e

w n

C D r

e C

B e

t t

a i g Fl T g G

p m

ti w

M D o a

a E

t s

e r

r e

e u

T

.l n e

a e

e G o e

T e

n a

o a

t s

R t

r r

b e

b a

e F

i a

e l

5 m l

d r

W T F

n a

t r

C e

g d

e d

/

r T

l D

P w

m F

F i

u d W t

t o

e u

r F

r i

O o

F p

w t

t o

r o

A m

e o

e M

n t

n T

F l@

o e

m w

p i

d e

w g

G p

l n

r o

p E

A m

P D

T (i

e (i n l

h D

w

+

M C R R F

e n

p l

G M e l

D c

u L

i m

n g

)

8 e

l.

r P

g e

r S

E M

c pl F

a M

g 5

A e

E Y

p r

t w

pl n

i D

u F

t F

M n

N a

(

r t

S N

a e

r c

n g

e U

s n

t c

e0 T

C I

e d

l

)

t

!D d

i

)

I n

V L

i s

bl

~

d T

E

$i F

s c

I c

h a

M t

T A

W i

h a

w 2

io Y

R a

r r

g d

n g

e o

n T

P

^

w p (s O L

e

)

n W

A

)

p T

N p$

re O T

-u W P

p E ra_R te B tE

)

,L M

0WO 6

OW

,N C

C u

u X

r r

s e

e n

n t

5 5

6 t

(

7 4

3 2

1 2

1 9

F

(

(P 8

3 5

5 0

5 1

0 2

P A

r 8

0 8

6 2

2 1

9 r

M e

8 8

9 0

0 8

1 0

1 1

9 0

7 e-p 6

7 6

7 5

0 4

0 6

0 0

8 6

0 0

4 8

6 0

8 0

u u

.5 9

0 9

0 0

.5.0 4

5 0

0 0

9 5

4 p

5 0

0 0

0 r

6 6

7 0

7 4

0 0

0 r

a a

t t

D D G D G D G D G D G

G D D C G D D D G D )e W

e

)

e e

P e

P P

e e

F P

e e

e P

e g

g g

g M

A g

F M

M M

M g

S M

g g

F F

F

.F F

G tF x

mi

1 s

1 1

2 2

_H 7

5 2

8 C

.r 9

7 2

9

.0

.7 7

0 7

_6 0

6 4

3

~

f C

C

_C C

C a

[

r F

F F

v S

S S

i l

er e

Y_

s a

g e

s

FA R

2;-

4 i V

4 J

~

J L

s 1

r5 5

5 35 5' 5

5 5

5 4 4 4 4'

4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3

3' 3 3'

N c

4 1

/

56 6'

6 6

6 6 6 6

2 1

0 9

8 7

6 5

4 3

2 1

0 9 8 7 8

5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8

7 :6 5

E 8

7 6 5 4

o R.

.~

^

s s

X C

P D D U U T

T S

S C C C

L A

a o

op p

o o

e e

o o al 3

S l

t t

r r

o S

n w

w s

s a

a i i

il ol u 6

D s s

e e

l l

i c

t t

v v

N' t

n n

r r

E S Rc c

n n l

i r

r e

i e e

g g a

t t

a a

3 4

s e

e m

m t

v W W T T e

r c

a a

v e

o o d

S h

i r a a

w w

4 a

m m

R Ri e D e e

e e m

c t

t I

r i

v i r r

r r v

=

g

(

t a

o o ol a o e i R T T TT T

T_

Ri T T T T

T T

U A e

m m

e e

s T S R i o o o

o o

o Wa h e l

Bl B p

c T F

r r w w w

w w w 5 o

o o o

o o

ni ss i

i v v x

x W W

~

m e

e i

t r

v w w w w

w w

c a v t

l i

e e r r e e e

e e e %

t m

w w

w e

u e

r e

e e e

e e

r p

d d

a a O m c

r r r

r r

r B

r g p d

d O

S e T W B H R

C F W 4 e

ti 3

)

t t

r r

a e e D e e

o o

W S H R C

F p

p c

R R r r r

n e

e W

l l

r o

o v

i T F s F

a w

w v W m a

o o a

ol o e

i r

a t

o a

ol u t

i v

c l

t r

t o

e t

t n

d w

n n

R o

u i

i ap e

w t

t n

d w

a n

n e

e e

e w

l Wg b

t c

o h

W l d g

b i

s e

l T

F v

l e e.

r d

d W w

t m w a

u t

r l

e F

o a

r e

r r

W l

g

& &l R p

u e

e o

r n

F o

a G

b G

b i

W W. Ce l

n e

a e

e F

T g

r

(

g m

w W

p R D o w

l a

r t

l v

ni (

o w

t a

e G o e

T e

n a

y W T F

i e

o p

W a

ie w

n Dt P

e a

a c

r e

w n

D P

r e

C D e

t t

t M D t

s g

e r M D o a r

e e

u T

e r

4 F

T g a

e l

c m

l d

a e

F G o e

. T e

t r

r b

b r

l m

C l

e g

D P

w m

F P

w m

F d

e g

i 2

o e

u r

F t

t h

F i

s t

o F p w

m e

l m

t

- p F

T o

e M

9 r

p o

e m

w t

d e

w g G

p M

n e

p r

p J

o p G

m l

P D

l D

A l

T

(

S D

w

+

l G

M e l

D P

D d

i M e m

n c

l e

e n

p F

e (i n

.c g

)

P g

e 8

e

.l 5

a M

g P

g e

c r

g E

p t

p F

p l

F F

t F

l a

(i D

u F

e r

a a

n n

g e

2 n

t f

c D

t d

b d

i

.l

)

s b

e is c

l c

h o

h a

w a

r r

r g

g e

o E

t d

w e

)

s

)

n

)

i 4

h w

iE i

i f'

t Cu rr e

6 n

9 9

5 2

3 2

1 2

1 9

(

6 t

F 1

9

(

5 0

2 P

5 0

5 5

0 5

2 0

2 9

1 8

6 2

6 0

2 1

9 0

0 1

1 9

0 7

e 8

0 9 0

9 0

9 0 9

0 0

8 5

0 1

1 9 0 7

0 2

1 9

r 0

0 9

.5 4

0 0

p 3

.3 7

.0 7

M.0.5 0

.4 0

0 5

0 0

0 9

5 4.

8 o

0 6

7 6 7

E 0

4 0 6

0 0

8 6

0 0

4 8

6 0

.0 0

0 4

8 6

0 8

u 0

r 4

4 2

0 2

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 9 0

0 0

a t

C G D D

D G D )e D D G D G D G D G D

G G D D C G D D D G D

F P

e e

e P

e e

e P

P e

P P

e e

F P

e e

e P

e t

g M

M g

S M

g g

F F

F

. M g

g g

g F

F M

g g

g M

M

.F M.F S

M g

g M

.F g

F F

F i F

G 3

x m

J 2

2 H

1 0

2 5

7 5

2 9

0 9

7 2

.0 7

7 0

7 6

0 6

4 3

f C

C C

ar F

F F

v S

S S

i I

l e

e r

g Y

a e

2

e' FA p

R 4

(

n j

V 1

1 4

4 4

f 4

1 3

s W 4

!' 3 J 4

4 t M 1

1 s 4 4

I 0 0 0

9 9

8 8

8 8 i8 8 8 8

8 8 7

7 7 7 7 7 7!

A 5

7 7

?

6 1

1 1

0 9

E 2 D 0 9

8 7

6 E

4 3

2

1 0

9 8

7 0 5 4 :3 2 1 0 9

6

7 6 5 4 2

R 6

s 3

' f M

5 i

' !e

?.

e

}

s i

+

s c C C C

P D D

U U T T

S S C C C X

L o c a

A a o o p p o

o e e o

o a

A S

l t

t r

r n

w w

s s

a a

v vi ni ni u t

t l

ol c k

o l

o o

n i

c S d l

li l

t n

n r

r l

l c c A

i n

u E

s s

e e

4 Di t

t a

a S

R T-l g

r r

e i

e e g E

4 g g a

S s

e e

m m

v t

c a

a i

e W W T T

T e

r e

v o

o d

3 o

o d

E m

m Ri Ri e De e

e e

h h

r c

a a

w w

a t

t i

r v

v e

e m

g s

r r

=

( (

i B

B p

T S RR T

T T

TT T

U A E

i x

i r

r e

e T

S R g W

r r

e m

m c

T F

l W

a h

e l

B B

o o

l

=

o e

i M

o o

o w

o o

n s

x W W a

o e

i ii t

r v

v v l

l w

w s

o o

c a

v e e w

w w

t r

4 m

e e

e r

i t

a a

v e

m w

w t

l ci r

I t

e t

l i

r r e

e e

e u

w w

)d )d a a

c r

r r

r O m r g p d

W O

S e

T B

t t

d d

O S

e T W B H

R C F

W e t

e e

D e p

p R

R r

r i

e o

r n

e e

i o

o n e

e l

o a

o o

e a

n n

e e

e l

c lF a w

R i

W m M

=

l r

w w

W m a

o r

s r

o v

i T

F i

i v

t n

v l

r o

v t

t n

d w

n n

R i

a p

e w

o u

i c

a p

t r

T F

v l

e e

f o

h g

b i

s r

r d W c

r w

i u

m w

a t

T F

v e

e t

t e W l

g e

l e

l R

e l

e F

o a

n M

i W W p l

r

(

o r

a G

b g

m w

W o

r m

w W

r R D o w

v a

a C e ni (

p R D 4 l

t r

e D

e P

r e

e u

T o

p W

t C

D e

w n

c a

i e

p W

a i

g F

T g

e t

t r

M D o a y sg l

t s

e r

t n

e a

e e

C e

a e

e G o e

T e

n a s r

r b

i t

W T F

i e

bl d

r t

r r

t r

l a

e F

a e

F c

m o

e u

r F

e g

d p

m ti s

t t

D P

w m

F tu r

F T

l D

M a

e l

F p

w F

i 7

o d

l t

r o

e m

e o

e m

w r

T o

e M

p t

M e

w g

a

~

r 1

e w

g G

n o p p

i e

e n

p l

G m

T

(

e (i

n l

S D

w

+

m P D F l{

t F

&a F

j p

G M e l

D l

c e

m n

c g

)

8 e

l r

P r

P g

e c

.5 a

M a

M g

p I

d F

t p

u F

e a

n i

D u

a

(

l e

r n

g e

re s

n t

c a

d t

S i

si

.l

)

i d

D b

s c

t-c h

ol h

a w

t E

g d

a r

r o

g e

w e

)

h

)

n

)

g

?-

o y

W s'

is A

C d

u r

r e

2 2

n 2

2 6

t 2

F 1

2 1

9 7

4 3

2 20 5

(

0 5

8 0

2 P

9 4

5 5

9 1

8 6

2 f

2 6

0 2

1 9

r 9

0 0

8 0

0 1

1 9

0 7

e 8

6 8 6

9 0

0 8

6 0

0 8

6 0

0 4

8 6

0 8

0 6

5 6

5 5

0 4

0 6

0 0

.8 6

-u 4

.0

.5

.0.0.9 4

0 p

1 1

1

.0 1

.0.0.5

.4 0

5 0

0 0

5 0

0 0

r 4

4 7

0 7

4 0

0 0

0 a

t D G G D D C

G D D

D G D )e D D G D G D G D G D G G D D e

P P

e e

F P

e e

e P

e e

e P

P e

e g

. M M

M M

g g

F F

M g

g g

g S

M g

g g

F F

g M

M.F F F

F F

G N

5 5

0 0

H 2

7 0

7 5

2 2

9 0

9 7

2 7

0

.0

.7 7

6 0

6 4

3 73 f

C C

a F

r F

F F

S S

S i

S t

e 1

r t

i n'

e

_s

F A

.h R

/

t f1 1

1 1

1 4

1 1

1 d

1

(

x 3

1 s

i s

1 1

5

(

1 L

L L

1 i

1 1

1 d

N 1

1 1

3 3

3 2

2 2

2 1

1 1

1 0

0 0

E 8

5 4

3 2

1 0

9 8

7, 6

5 4

3 2

1 0

9 8

7 6

S 4

3 2

1 0

9 8

.7 6

5 4~

3 R.X D U U T

T S

S C

C c C

P D D

.8 U

T T

S S

L t

o p

p o

o e

e o

o a

A l

o o

p p

o o

e e

a S

t t

r r

o o

w s

s t

t r

r l

t c

S n

w w

s s

a a

v vi A~

r r

r l

a v v a

l iiaiu E

t t

i

[A t

n n

r r

l l

c c

L e e

E c c n

D s

s e e

S R

e e

r ei R eeg d a' 5

i a a i

r

- na a

e i

WW Ti e

S i

t e

m m

v t

v s

e e n n r

W W _~

r a

v e

c a

a v

e o o d

h r

m R

R i

r c

a a ww a

m mRRi a

a vi vi e D

e e

e e m

E t

t I

i vi c r

v e

D e

e l!

t t

(

i T

S R

i o

o o

o n

s

(

i r

r s

r r

r r g

e e

m e

e W W s a

h e

l ol ol a o

e i

R T

T T

T U A e

m mi W W c

T F

B B p

r r

i r

r c

T F

i x

x a

h e

l ii x W W v

v t

r e

e w

w w

w i

s o

c a

vi r

r e

e e

e o

t a

m e

e t

a e

m w

w w

t m

w u

e r

p d

d a

a m

t l

c r

r r

r d

a a

r O m 5 r

g p

d d

O S

e T W B H R C

F W I

g p

B

)

t t

)

t t

a e

e e

e D

e e

o o

e e

p p

c R

O R

r r

i F

a w

w r

n e

e r

a l

o a

ol o e

r i

=

i R

r r

o l

e t

r i

T F

s l

t n n R

v W m T

F s

F t

t r

o o

v iv_e l

c l

a v

l c

o u

i i

a p

e w

n d

w t

t e

e o

u t

a n

n e

e o

h o

h c

g b

i s

r r

d W w

w el e

l v

l e

e r

m w

a TF u

m w

a t

r r

t r

e W-l g

R W Wp e

e F

n r

(

a g

i p(

m w

W R D ol o

a W p r

(

o G

b r

C e

n w

/

i g

i

(

r t

a v

a a

C e

n p

e t

e w

n D

P e

u T

l o

p W

r e

C D W c

a i

g e

r c

o e

t t

t s

M D o

a r

e e

u T

.l n r

b e

n e

a e

e F

T g

t T

l D

P w

m F

i W

W T F

ci e

b d

~

t r

r b

b d

r t

l e

T e

n a

r a

e F

G o C

F ci m l

t t

m l

t e

g d

e u

r F

o o

e F

o'

/s a

e l

F p

w m

l F

p w

m e

p m

W o

d e

w g

G p

o d

i t

r o

e M

e m

w w

H*

t t

J p

1 n

r o

p

(

o p

m P

D i

T (i

S D

w

+

n l

e e

n p

l G

M e l

D n

m n

c l

S D

e'

+

i e

e n

F e

(i n c

c 8

e 5

g c

c g

)

r P

g e

6

.l g

)

l g

pl F

a M

F 4

p l

pl F

5 t

p e

r a

n ni D

D u

F s

f l

a

(

a

(

e i

n n

g c

e g

n t

t c

di l

)

t d

l d

i

.l

)

i D

b o

i s

b c

l W

s c

c h

ol h

o a

w h

a w

r a

r r

g d

e o

g e

o w

w e

)

n J

)

n

'y

)

s r

/s l

4 E

f'f

c W'

ce C

b u

s c

r re a

3 3

v 6

5 n

5 5

6 t

2 9

3 2

F 6

4 2

2 2

9

(

6 0

5 5

8 3

5 5

5 1

2 P

A 4

6 8

6 7

0 6

6 6

2 1

9 r

8 6

9 0

6 8

8 9

7 9

0 9

7 0

8 1

7 1

1 9

0 7

e r

0 9

.0 9

5 5

0

.0

.0 9

4 0

p

~

6 4

5 0

4 0

1 6

7 4

4 4

0 6

4 0

8 6

0 4

4 8

6 0

8 u

0 0

4 0

5 0

0

.0

.0 5

.0 2

2 7

0 7

1 0

0 0

r 9

9 7

0 7

4 0

0 0

a t

G D G D G D G D G

G D D C

G D D

D G D )e

/

D D G D G D G D G P

e P

P e

e F

P e

e e

P e

0 e

e P

a P

e P

g g

g F

F F

F M

O g

g g

.F F

F M

M M

M g

S M

g g

F F

M M

F F

G C

4 ES

(

8 8

M 1

1 7_

N_

0 0

2 2

0 7

5 S

1 5

5 9

0 9

7 7

0 7

7 0

7_

.0 7

0

.2 2

.0 1

0 S

6 0

5 4

0 0

0 4

6 W0_

C_

C C

fa F

F N

F F

r v

S S

i S

S S

e I

r

^

..s u

W F

A O

E w=

R M. i I

M 1

V 3

3 E

8 7

R

.X P

D g L

a o

@i S

l n w s t

n D s A t J i

r s

e c a ha m J'

r l

g

(

e m

i A

x I

m e s a )d s ar R

i i i $

v on e

r }

R W i

t v

a s

e t

r e

r W T C

a e

te m

'^

r p

T e (i b k

m nc d p

t p

c la x n

t di D' s

ch $

a rge

)

M M

E i

5@l b

ss SE F

l 8

i 0

6 s 3

3 s 8

8 4

i D D s e

e

?

g g

A F

F GBI E

M 50 Al H

far iv il er

^

vage--

a-

l d

ATTACHMENT 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION

SUMMARY

OF OP.r ~.? TING PARAMETERS i

i a

f e

1 ATTACHMENT 2

SUMMARY

OFOPERATINGPARAMETERS Parameter Existine Value FES Value Change Cooling Tower 17,077 gpm

17,800 gpm See Note 1 Makeup Cooling Tower 692,900 gpm

635,000 gpm 57,900 gpm Flow See Note 1 Cooling Tower 12,808 gpm

11340 gpm 1468 gpm Evaporation

- See Note 2

, CoolingTower 1386 gpm

1270 gpm 116 gpm Drift See Note 3 Consumptive 14,194 gpm

12700 gpm 1494 gpm Water Use See Note 4 Cooling Tower 3951 gpm

5200 gpm See Note 5 Blowdown Cooling Tower 96.4

F

89

F 7.4

F Blowdown Tunp See Note 6 Cooling Tower See Note 7 Chemistry River Water 67,504 gpm" 90,000 gpm No increase Withdrawal See Note 8 Intake Canal See Note 8 Velocity Discharge Flow See Note 9 Rate Discharge Temp 95.04

F 93.4

F 1.6

F Change River Temp Change 0.6

F 0.5*F 0.1

F

Provided by Southem Company Services

" DOE EIA 767 Report 1990 - 1995

v, o,

1 i

ATTACHbfENT2 PAGE 2 - NOTES.

NOTES l

1. The Fina! Environmental Statement considered a cooling tower flowrate of 635,000 gpm and evaporation and drift losses of 12,700 gpm per unit. The FNP circulating water system -

- currently operates at a flow rate of 692,000 gpm as a result ofpump modifications. The changes in cooling tower makeup resulting from the changes in cooling tower efficiency and i

referenced pump modifications are myeloped by the existing values in the FES.

2. He change in evaporation associated with changes in cooiing tower p'erformance pa ameters does proouce a slight change in consumptive water use. This 2936 spm (6.5 cfs) increase for two unit operation is not significant relative to environmental impact and is discussed further in Note 4 below.

2

3. Changes in cooling tower drift of approximately 116 gpm (0.35 cfs) result in a slight increase in mineral deposition which wi'l likely be c+?r+1 within the site boundary. His increase is quite small and does not have significant environmental impact such that the conclusions of the FES relative to mineral deposition remain valid.

4. The small increase in consumptive water use of approximately 6.5 cfs is less than 0.6 percent of historical low river flow and is insignificant relative to the impact on consumptive water use discussed in the Final Environmental Statement.

5. Cooling tower blowdown flow is actually less than the blowdown value used in the Final Environmental Statemeat. Blowdown flow will not significantly affect the discharge flow rate. Change in discharge flow rate is enveloped by the criteria upon which the conclusions of the Final Environmental Statement are based.

6. De 7.4

F increase in blowdown temperature does not result in a large increase in service water discharge temperature (~ 1.6

F) with a corresponding 0.1

F increase in river temperature. This 0.1

F increase ir not significant relative to the 0.5

F increase evaluated in

'the FES.

7. No chan.ges in cooling tower chemistry will result from uprate. Makeup and blowdown will be adjusted accordingly to maintain acceptable cycles of concentration.

8. The slight increase in river water withdrawal to compensate for increase in cooling tower makeup is not significant and is enveloped by the 90,000 gpm maxunum withdrawal criteria upon which the conclusions of the Final Environmental Statement are based. No significant increase in intake canal velocity will result from the slight increase in withdrawal.

9. The increase in cooling tower blowdown temperature associated with power uprate will produce a slight increase in river water discharge temperature and river temperature after mixing. This rise is not significant and the conclusions of the Final Environmental statement relative to thermal impact remain valid. There is no significant change in discharge flow or velocity.

ATTACHMENT 2 TO ENV-97-005 POWER UPRATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FVALUATION 4

i

{

~

l l

.,;.i.l%.

FARLEYNUCLEARPLANT PROPOSEDPOWER UPRATE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Bachuround Farley Nuclear Plant Unit I and Unit 2 are currently licensed to operate at a nuclear steam supply -

system (NSSS) power level of 2660 MWt per unit. A power uprate to an NSSS power level of 2785 MWt for each unit is proposed. The proposed power level uprate will net an additional 24 MWe per unit.

Section 3.1 of the Farley Naclear Plant Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), Appendix B to Facility Operating Licenses NPF-2 and NPF-8, states that "the licensee may make changes in plant -

design or operation, or perform tests or experiments sh*ing the environment provided such activities do not involve an unreviewed environmental question and do rat involve a change to the EPP." Section 3.1 requires that an environmental evaluation be prepa.. and recorded prior to engaging in any activity which may significantly affect the environment. Section 3.1 further states that " A proposed change, test or experiment shall be deemed to constitute an unreviewed

=

environmental question ifit concems: (1) a matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the FES-OL, environmental impact i

appraisals, or in any decisions of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; or (2) a significant shange in effluents or power level; or (3) a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the

<lumments specified in (1) of this Subsection, which may have a significant adverse environmenal impact." In accordance with the above requirements, an environmental evaluation assessing the l

environmental impact of the proposed power level uprate from 2660 MWt to 2785 MWt has been J

I performed. This evaluation documents that the proposed change in' power level is not significant f

relative to adverse environmental impact.

References

1. Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Environmental Report - Operating License Stage

2. Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Final Environmental Statement (NUREG 0727)

3. Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), Appendix B to Facility Operating Licenses NPF -2 and NPF-8

4. Environmental Evaluation " Changes in Cooling Tower Performance Parameters" January 14,1997

5. Farley Nuclear Plant Uprate Analysis - Southun Company Services BgNE The Farley Nuclear Plant Final Environmental Statement (FES) evaluates the nonradiological impact of the two units at Farley Nuclear Plant at a maximum NSSS L:oss thermal output of 2660 Mwt. In support of the requirements of the Farley Nuclear Plant EPP, the parameters evaluated in the Environmental Report - Operating License Stage and the subsequent FES at the NSSS power level of 2660 MWt were re-evaluated at the 2785 MWt NSSS power level. These parameters were compared to the current operating condition and original FES findings to determine if the proposed change in power level is significant relative to adverse environmental impact.

4

t, The engineering calculations relative to cooling tower performance parameters, service water dischargc, and river water temperature were performed by Southern Company Services (SCS).

The following environmental evaluation utilizes the information provided in the SCS evaluation and specifically considers effects on the following parameters.

River Water / Service Water Intake System Withdrawal rate intake canal velocity Circulatine Water System Changes in rate of cooling tower blowdown Changes in temperature of cooling tower blowdown Changes in makeup to the cooling towers Changes in the amount of cooling tower drift Changes in cooling tower chemistry Changes in consumptive water use Groundwater Withdrawal System Changes in groundwater withdrawal to supply sanitary water system Changes in groundwater withdrawal to su ply fire protection system Radwaste Dilution Systent Changes in liquid radwaste which would impact dilution flows River Discharme System Changes in discharge flow or velocity Changes in discharge temperature or thermal plume Changes in discharge chemical composition Based on information contained in the SCS evaluation of cooling tower and service water performance parameters, and review ofinformation contained in the Environmental Report -

Operating License Stage and FES relative to impacts associated with the above systems, the following information is provided.

River Water Intake. Service Water. and Circulatine Water System The proposed power uprate will result in an increase in cooling tower duty of approximately 381 MMBtu/hr over the current operating condition, with a corresponding increase in evaporation, makeup, and cooling tower blowdown temperature. Cooling tower flowrate does not change as a result of power uprate. Cooling tower drift, which is a function of flowrate, also does not change.

A slight increase in heat load to the service water system may also occur. As discussed in Reference 4, original design cooling tower performance parameters, upon which the conclusions of the FES are based, have changed since the plant began operation due to inability to achieve expected performance levek This discrepancy has been evah.ated and determined not to be significant relative to cHronmental impact.

Page 2

't.

o Since the information in the Final Environmental Statement no longer reflects current cooling tower operation, the changes in cooling tower parameters associated with power uprate have been compared to values in the FES and the current operating condition in order to assess environmental impact. The proposed power uprate will result in an increase in cooling tower blowdown temperature of approximately 0.2 ' F over the current operating condition. In order to evaluate the environmental impact of the increased blowdown temperature, thermal balance calculations were performed comparing the current cooling tower operation with the uprated condition at the design 78

F wet bulb temperature utilized in the FES. The results of this comparison, including the original FES values, are summarized in Attachment 1. Rese calculations were conducted at conditions consistent with the FES calcalations (78

F wet bulb temperature, service water temperature of 94.5

F, normal 2 unit service water flow of 35,800 gpm, cooling tower blowdown flow of 10,200 gpm and river flow of 1210 cfs) to support comparison with FES conclusions relative to thermal impact. The resulting change in discharge temperature associated with power uprate increases the service water di: charge temperature an additional 0.06

F above the current operating condition with a resulting increase in river temperature ofless than 0.004

F at these severe conditions of extreme wet bulb temperature, maxunum recorded temperature and low river flow. Operation of Farley Nuclear plant at the uprated power condition will produce an increase in river temperature of approximately 0.56

F above ambient river temperature during extreme temperature and flow conditions. The FES concluded that the approximately OJ ' F increase in river temperature associated with operation of Farley Nuclear Plant at extreme temperature and flow conditions did not result in significant adverse environmental impact.

Based on the above, the additional heat load to the Chattahoochee River associated with power uprate does not significantly impact the conclusions of the FES relative to thermal impact. The FES concluded that the original analysis conducted under extreme temperature and flow conditions was conservative and protective of water quality standards. De mimmal increase in river J

temperature associated with power uprate is also conservative and i rotective of water quality standards. As discussed in the FES, adequate mixing occurs suca tt the size of the thermal plume is acceptably small. This conclusion remains valid for power uprate.

]

An additional conservatism relative to thennal impacts, beyond those discussed above, exists in the operating methodology for the cooling towers. This methodology will also be utilized after pow uprate. The above evaluation investigated operation of the cooling towers at 3.5 cycles of concentration which is consivent with the FES conditions and dhimi that no significant adverse environmental impact occurred. After implementation of power uprate, it is anticipated '

that the cooling towers will continue to be operated at 10 -12 cycles of concentration since the low hardness characteristic of surface water withdrawn from the Chattahoochee River should not significantly change. He significantly lower blowdown flow (74 gpm rather than 10,200 gpm) will produce a reduction in final discharge temperature with a corresponding reduction ofincrease in river temperature. As :;uch, actual thermal impacts are even less than those discussed above.

In addition to the FES, the thermal impact associated with power uprate was evaluated relative to the Farley Nuclear Plant NPDES permit. The Alabama Department of Environmental Management issued NPDES Permit No. AL0024619 to Farley Nuclear Plant. The permit, which was renewed in 1995, contains no limits for temperature. This is based on previous permit i

monitoring relative to temperature and a study conducted in 1990 which confirmed, under extreme temperature and flow conditions, that the thermal discharge from Farley Nuclear Plant did not result in significant adverse emironmental impact and did not wnrant numerical pennit limits. No additional monitoring requirements or other changes relative to the NPDES permit are required as a result of power uprate.

i Page 3

e 4 1-Service water intake flow will increase slightly in response to the necessary increase in cooling tower makeup. U!timately, this increase will require an increase in withdrawal of service water from the service water pond and a corresponding increase in river water withdrawal to supply the pond. His slight increase (of approxunately 2032 gpm over the current operatmg condition) falls well within the 90,000 gpm maxunum withdrawal rate evaluated in the FES. Similarly, impingement and entraintnent concems associated with river water intake canal velocity were previously evaluated at the 90,000 gpm maxunum discussed above, and are not affected by power uprate. The amount of water supplied to the cooling towers as makeup will increase slightly over the current value due to increased evaporation associated with power uprate. This small increase in consumptive use (3.3 cfs during worst case cor.ditions) is less that 0.3 % of historical low flow and is not significant relative to environmental impact on the Chatthw River. In addition, the slight increase in service water temperature due to increased heat load has also been reviewed.

His increase will be bounded by no more than 6 % of the current 8.5

F heat load added by the service water system and will have neglible impact on final discharge temperature.

With the exception of the parameters discussed above, the operating parameters evaluated with regard to potential for environmental impact associated with power uprate either retain the same values as the original values evalurted in the Final Environmental Statement or are bounded by those values.

Other Systems The evaluation also considered the flowrate required by the liquid radwaste system due to the proposed power level increase. No significant change in liquid radwaste quantities or activity leve!s which would increase the required radwaste dilution flow are expected.

No significant change in groundwater withdrawal required to supply the sanitary water system or fire protection system will result from pour uprate.

Conclusions Based on the above evaluation, the plant operatmg parameters impacted by the proposed power uprate do not result in significant adverse environmental impact. The Final Environmental Statement concluded that no significant environmental impact would result from opera: : af Farley Nuclear plant. This conclusion remains valid for the proposed power uprate. Based on the above evaluation, it can be concluded that no significant environmental impact will result from the proposed power level increase from 2660 MWt to 2785 Mwt l

i Page 4

, s('

0,*

7

> e

,t 4

e t

A1TACHMENT1 ENVIRO VMENTAL EVALUA TION OFPROPOSED POWER UPRATE

SUMMARY

OFOPERATINGPARAMETERS l

1 G

i FARLEYNUCLEARPLANT PROPOSED POWER UPRATE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUA TIONPARAMETERS Parameter Existing Value Ucrate Value Change FES Value Cooling Tower 17,077 gpm

18093 gpm

1016 gpm 17,800 gpm Makeup See Note 1 Cooling Tower

- 692,900 gpm

692,900 gpm

0gpm 635,000 gpm Flow Cooling Tower 12,808 gpm

13,570 gpm

762 gpm 11:40 gpm Evaporation See Note 2 C

Cooling Tower 1386 gpm

1336 gpm

0 gpm 1270 Drift See Note 3 Consumptive 14,194 gpm

14956 gpm

762 gpm 12,700 gpm Water Use Cooling Tower 3951 gpm

4238 gpm

287 gpm 5,200 gpm Blowdown See Note 4 Cooling Tower 96.4

F

96.6

F

0.2*F See Note 5 Blowdown Temp Cooling Tower See Note 6 Chemistry River Water 67,504 gpm" 69536 gpm" 2032 gpm" 90,000 gpm Withdrawal See Note 7

~

Intake Canal See Note 7 Velocity Discharge Flow Sec Note 7 Rate j

Discharge Temp 95.04

F 95.10

F 0.06

F 89

F Change River Temp Change 0.559

F 0.561

F 0.004

F 0.5*F j

Groundwater See Note 8 Withdraw 31 4

Provided by Southern Company Services

" DOE EIA 767 Report 1990 - 1995; Two unit operation

Ii r.e a

i +.

FARLEYNUCLEARPLANT PROPOSED POWER UPRATE ENVIRONMENTAL EVAL UA TIONPARAMETERS NOTES

- 1. De Final Environmental Statement considered a cooling tower flowrate of 635,000 gpm and evaporation and drift losses of 12,700 gpm per unit. De FNP circulating water system currently operates at a flow rate of 692,000 gpm as a result of pump modifications. The -

current 692,000 gpm flowTate will not change as a result of uprate. No change in drift over the current operating condition will occur. The change in evaporation associated with uprate does produce a slight change in makeup requirements and in consumptive water use. His increase of 2032 gpm for two unit withdrawal is enveloped by the 90,000 gpm rate considered in the FES ( See Note 7). Consumptive use is discussed in Note 2 below.

2. The change in evaporation associated with uprate does produce a small increase in consumptive water use. His small increase of approximately 1524 gpm (3.4 cfs) for two unit operation is less than 0.3 percent of historical low river flow and is insignificant the relative to the impact on consumptive water use discussed in the FES.

3. Since circulating water flow does not change, no change in cooling tower drift will occur as a result of uprate.

4. Cooling tower blowdown flow is actually less than the blowdown flow value used in the FES.

&wdown flow will not significantly impact the discharge flow rate. Change in discharge flow rate is enveloped by se criteria upon which the conclusions of the FES are based.

5. The approximately 0.2

F increase in cooling tower blowdown temperature does not result in a significant increase in service water discharge temperature (0.06

F) with a corresponding 0.004

F increase in river temperature. This increase is not significant relative to the 0.5

F increase evaluated in the FES.

6. No changes in cooling tower chemistry will result from uprate. Makeup and blowdown will be adjusted accordingly to maintain acceptable cycles of concentratba.

7. De slight increase in river water withdrawal to compensate for increase in cooling tower makeup is not significant and is enveloped by the 90,000 gpm maximum withdrawal criteria upon which the conclusions of the FES are based. No significant increase in intake canal velocity will result from the slight increase in withdrawal.

8. There will be no significant increase in groundwater withdrawal associated with power uprate.

i 1

1

!

ML20216D478

Contents

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

ML20216D478

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search