View source for 3F0384-09, Submits Notes of Conference from Second Quarterly Progress Meeting on 840202 Re 316 Study,Per NPDES Permit Reporting Requirements

{{Adams
| number = ML20087H154
| issue date = 03/15/1984
| title = Submits Notes of Conference from Second Quarterly Progress Meeting on 840202 Re 316 Study,Per NPDES Permit Reporting Requirements
| author name = Westafer G
| author affiliation = FLORIDA POWER CORP.
| addressee name = Denton H
| addressee affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (NRR)
| docket = 05000302
| license number = 
| contact person = 
| document report number = 3F0384-09, 3F384-9, NUDOCS 8403200265
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE, UTILITY TO NRC
| page count = 9
}}

=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:.-
t 000
[                   e oO              Oso s     ,
O o    O        e oce M
P.o..w..er March 15,1984 3F0384-09 Mr. H. R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attn: Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

==Subject:==
Crystal River Unit 3 Docket No. 50-302 Operating License No. DPR-72 NPDES Permit Reporting

==Dear Sir:==

Florida Power Corporation hereby submits the attached Notes of Conference from the Second Quarterly Progress Meeting concerning the Crystal River 316 Study.
This information is submitted in accordance with Crystal River Unit 3 Technical Specification, Appendix B - Part II, Section 3.2 If there are any questions concerning this information, please contact this office.
Sincerely, i
G. R. Westafer Manager, Nuclear Operations Licensing and Fuel Management Attachment DHV/feb cc:        Mr. 3. P. O'Reilly Regional Administrator, Region II                                                                  I Office of Inspection and Enforcement                                                               l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                                                                 j y
101 Marietta Street N.W., Suite 2900                                                               '
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 8403200265 840315-                                                                                l PDR ADOCK 05000302 P                     PDR                                                                     00I l GENERAL OFFICE 32011hirty-fourth Street South e P.O. Box 14042, St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 e 813-866-5151  ll

: r uz I
:                                M Power ConroeaveON March 5, 1984 i
Mr. Charles H. Kaplan Water-Management Division Permits Section U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 345 Courtland Street Atlanta, Georgia 30365

==Subject:==
Crystal River 316 Study

==Dear Mr. Kaplan:==
f Enclosed is a copy of the Notes of Conference from our Second Quarterly Progress Meeting, held on February 2,1984. Should you have any comments or             ~
questions regarding these notes, call me in St. Petersburg at (813) 866-5521.
Sincerely, Paul'Jl.Behrensfauf 8&
4 PJB/gr
-                                          Enclosure Ger1eral Office 320s inney;sourth street souin . P O Box 14o42. st. Petersburg. Florda 33733 e 813-866-5151
                                                                                                                                                                     ~

4 NOTES OF CONFERENCE                                            J.O.No. 14498 FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION Held in the Of fices of                        Present for:
Florida Power Corporation St. Pe tersburg , FL                           Florida Power Corporation (FPC)
February 2, 1984 David Voigts Paul Behrens U.S. Environmental Protection c
Agency (EPA)
Charles Kaplan Delbert Hicks Florida department of Environmental Resources (DER)
Lawrence Olsen Doug Farrell U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWJ)
Jack Callagher Mote Marine Laboratory (MML) i Kumar Mahadevan Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC)
Tom Biffar David McDougall Tom Folger PURPOSE The meeting cons tituted the Second Quarterly Progress Meeting for ' the Crystal River NPDES 316(a) and (b) studies.
DISCUSSION At tachments ''l and 2 provide the meeting agenda and the attendance list.
Mr. Behrens opened the meeting, noting that a summary plan of study had been produced as requested at the _ first quarterly progress meeting and distri-buted to interested parties.
Dr. Biffar reported     that . Station L, a grassbed station- for plankton sampling, was relocated on October 24 as the grassbed no longer existed. It was suggested that sampling continue at the new location - but that re-establishment of .the grassbed be monitored.       Should the grass reach B4-14498-59

2 previous densities, supplemental sampling at the original site will be considered.        In the course of the discussion Dr. Mahadevan noted that Stations L and M were not intended to be comparable and do have dif ferent dominant macrophytes. It was also noted that the crab tagging program began-in September and was completed in early January. Dr. Farrell expressed some concerns -that female movements as influer.ced by the intake spoil dike would not -be adequately monitored without further sampling, however, it was pointed out that the program had been designed and previously approved to run from September through December.             DNR's longer term return information could be used to supplement the site-specific data.                 Dr. Farrell is parti-       ,
cularly interested in total catch, male ve rsus female ratio and catch by station.
Dr. Mahadevan reviewed- the status of' field collections and laboratory analyses as summarized in Tables 3-1 and 3-2.                  No exceptions were taken regarding any of the biological tasks.           Mr. Kaplan inquired about the ground truthing- question raised at the first r. meting and was told that macrophytes at locations other than specific station locations are also investigated and recorded.      Mr. Kaplan questioned the lack of available aerial photographs and asked if EPA Las Vegas had been contacted ' for help. .MML had done this and got no new suggestions.             Mr. Hicks indicated that . experience in the present program is about what he would ~ expect concidering meteorological and water quality conditions.        Dr. Voigts noted the desirability of hand-held, amateur photographs in' lieu of no photographs.- Changes in' gear types as described in the first quarterly meeting are working _well.
Mr. - Kaplan was concerned . that references in Table 3-1. to ' stations missed during low-tide, photometry sampling do~-not always correspond to ' data; presented in the data tables.          Table 3-1 vill be reviewed and corrected as necessary for - future reports, but it was noted. that the table is ' not intended to be as precise as the data. Mr. Kaplan also referred to several apparently incorrect _ temperature records in the monthly temperature tables. -
Most numbers questioned were correct when comparedito ? field logs' but ; two    -
values _ were input errors.      An additional check .will _be put into the system -
to a) evaluate field data for " reasonableness" before input and b)' evaluate variations within and between stations.              Relative to the' weekly temperature -
data, ' Mr. Kaplan stated that ~ EPA documented ~by - letter - (April: 22) their-desire for plume plots and acreage determinations for each survey. Af ter an -
extended discussion of the need for 'such an - ef fort, it was suggested that only plots of worst . case temperature ~ under high and low Ltide . conditions, J
approximately. each six'. weeks ~ (the benthic core ' schedule) might be'~ suf fi -.
Dr. Voigts asked' SWEC to develop one L set of . plots : for Mr. ' Kaplan's'
                                                                            ~
cient.
review. Discussion between Mr. Behrens ~ and Mr. Hicks l subsequent _ to'' the meeting suggested ' that plots of weekly data . would not be needed if these1 data are L to - be correlated directly'. with - the biological data.-(see Attach-ment 3).. Plant _ heat output. data 11s needed . to - correlate with the. measured
                                 . temperature.-                                                                          m Dr. Mahadevan reported- better ' thermograph l recovery ::since - markers; were
                                 -changed.     ,Mr.! Kaplan . noted that;EFA has been reviewing thermograph data recovery especially for'' July, August. and September. , They expect ? to make a.               '
                                 - decision :on adequacy in the near future.'- If-the' data are judged; inadequate,'
                                  ~B4 -14498-59
                                                                                                      ,f-                    ~ >

3 EPA may request an extension of the collections to cove r June, July and August, 1984.      Mr. Behrens questioned the level considered adequate and the need for an extension since recovery may be no ? tter in 1984.               He stated that if more data were requested, collecting e              ' ewer stations should be cons ide red. Mr. Hicks agreed that 75 percent cecovery was reasonable and stated that his prime interest was in " bottom" units and only Stations 173 and 45B appear to have real problems.          DER is interested in having adequate data for a mixing zone determination and would be concerned with gaps in the temperature data.
Adequacy of tide height data was briefly discussed.             Boundary stations are most imporcant but even loss of data at some of these stations can be compensated for, although with difficulty.          Latest inf orma tion from - MML is that data enhancement efforts have been successful and good recovery of boundary information will result.        Exact status will be known in two weeks and EPA will be notified.
It was agreed that, if necessary, scheduled phot ome t ry and related water quality sampling would be altered to ensure sampling correlated with storms and barge traffic the neceseary number of times.
Meteorology data from FPC has been obtained to compensate for the August gap in data from MML's facility. Data from overlapping periods . will be compared to define the relationship between the two sets of data.
Replication adequacy is being reviewed for benthic samples.- Several para-mete rs such as saturation curves, density changes, Shannon-Weaver and Morisita's index are being used.        The results should be available in about two weeks. Dr. Farrell is interested in the Shannon-Weaver results.
1 Oyster reef data is being af fected by sediment at certain stations.                 As sedimentation occurs, cages are being lifted but . not reloca ted.              It was agreed that this was appropriate.
Mr. Kaplan noted several open items from the earlier meeting.                In parti-cular, the definition of ambient temperature recains open. EPA does need any revision of the MML Quality Assurance Manual / Standard Operating Pro-cedures.      The need for additional entrainment sampling was discussed at length. Since it was estimated that complete mixing requires r.uch of the discharge canal and that set tlement of plankton in the canal is unlikely given ambient currents, S tation C in its present -location will suf fice.
Mr. Kaplan stated that the quality assurance ~ program in place is-acceptable; DER has no definitive problem.        Mr. Kaplan also reiterated program changes made since June, 1983_ and requested and received formal approvals.                 The changes were:         moving Stations B,       I,  K and L;       inclus ion of only Stations 4-30 in the 90 minute window; deletion of fish stomach analysis and changing the crab tagging program.            The movement of Station L' should - be documented by letter to EPA.        While no new entrainment sampling station is needed, Station C should ' be sampled at an appropriate interval af ter:Sta-tions D and E.      The Technical Specification Summary submitted previously is B4-14498-59

4 a ccep tab le. Extending thermograph data collection for three months is still under consideration.
Mr. McDougall reported the status of modeling. Model setup and testing with mock data has been successful; the site grid and a model velocity output were displayed.      The computer programs and procedures to handle da ta on tide s,   currents, water quality and meteorological conditions have bee n completed and the August data will soon be prepared for use as model input; data from Station 5 were displayed. The last of the August data should be received within the week. Returns are better than previously ' thought, but in either case should be sufficient for the modeling ef fort.      The January surveys have been completed and data from the in situ me ters should be available in about a month. The near-field model has not yet been selected.
Mr. Kaplan reiterated his concern with cultilayer plume conditions; this phenomenon will be handled in the near-field but is not modeled in the far-field.
Dr. Biffar passed out some explanatory notes concerning the data presenta-tions and data tables as follows:    replacement salt marsh (Spartina) tables, new oyster mortality tables for November, replacement impingement tablec, replacement drop net biomass table s, and a. new crab tagging table.
Mr. Hicks would like to see species lists by family.          Input on desired analyses are requested for the next meeting.         A summary of anticipated analyses will be included in the next report as a starting point for the discussion.
TBif far:PBF B4-14498 . - -         -    -

AT T AC M M E NT         \
.i AGENDA SECOND QUARTERLY PROGRESS MEETING CRYSTAL RIVER NPDES STUDIES
: 1. Introduction - P. Behrens
: 2. Program Changes - T. Biffar
: 3. Field Work and Laboratory Analysis - S. Mahadevan
: 4. Hydrodynamic and Hydrothermal Modeling - D. McDougall
: 5. Data Tables and Data Analysis - T. Biffar
: 6. Discussion
                                                                       -i

      .                     n rT Ac.a Mw NT x Om 1
d    -
d   rWs$r       ~.e      -     A4
  -ro n w.rAA                  h.m u u A& s Koman. mawansv hl           t%* %ia _ t.ak e Thomas A. Foly er            Sbne/Webrl                     rem
                                                              .        o. ~%c.ri h vic] W ' D o v ctll           H                 "      "     'I
     %\he >+ 8. >ch                  EPR       -
cm.s: il nuc                     '-          -
JAC/c      & AL L AGHu'R       J1FWS             v D a.v; d h]3 ts              FPC N      g & cco                 F o t= A "
leersu ,) . (b,            FbER         d OuJ heas                       FPC-w m         e-  w              4    m    e e

~
Attachment 3 Dr. S. Mahadevan has prepared the following response regarding the use of weekly temperature data (collected in conjunction with light, conduc-tivity and pH measurements) in the assessment of thermal impact on the-benthic infaunal community in the vicinity of Florida P6wer Corporation's Crystal River Power Plant.
In the original Plan of Study bottom temperature at the benthic stations was proposed to be collected monthly in conjunction with the infaunal samp-ling program. In MML's review of the Plan of Study, such a sacpling fre-e quency was considered inadequate and MNL recommended that weakly sampling of temperature and other parameters be conducted at the infaunal stations in order to statistically delineate temperature differences at the stations.
i It is anticipated that this information will be used as follcws:
: 1. Confirming the validity of northern and southern control stations 4
in terms of temperature regime.
: 2. In' terms of temperature, classify the stations in thermal area according to the grarlation of delta T's as determined from 6 weeks or quarterly averaged data and comparing the thermal stations with paired control stations.
: 3. Identify in terms cf infaunal benthic communit y characteristics,
                                             ~
the gradction of stations that are different or under stress.
Utilizing the information obtained in Item #2 (above), along .
with similar information from other physical parameters, identify the thermally altered stations and thereky the area of thermal impact.
Therefore, all the analyses of temperature data will be on-an inter and intra station basis with emphasis on bottom temperature and not vertical profiles.      The. utility of extrapolated plots or isotherms (as suggested by the Environmental Protection Agency) will be -limited for purposes of the benthic community impact assessment.
3
                             --      ,                                         ,s}}