ML19305A867

From kanterella
Revision as of 14:14, 29 November 2019 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Informs That Util Plans to Submit Petition to Il Pollution Control Board Requesting Mod of 1975 Alternate Thermal Std. Outlines Factors Mitigating Need for 96 F Limit.Requests Comments
ML19305A867
Person / Time
Site: Clinton  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 03/14/1980
From: Wuller G
ILLINOIS POWER CO.
To: Deyoung R
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
U-0129, U-129, NUDOCS 8003180524
Download: ML19305A867 (2)


Text

_

,, c~

U-0129 ILLIN0/S POWER 00MPANY  ;;m; L32 -80 (03-14) ~9 ki" 500 SOUTH 27TH STREET, DECATUR, ILLINolS 62525 March 14, 1980

.

Mr . Richard C. DeYoung, Director Division of Site Safety & Environmental Analysis Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. DeYoung:

Clinton Power Station Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-461 and 50-462 Construction Permits No. CPPR-137 & CPPR-138 The purpose of this letter is to inform you that Illinois Power Company is planning to submit soon a petition to the Illinois Pollu-tion Control Board requesting that they modify the alternate thermal standard adopted in 1975 for the Clinton Power Station. The U.S.E.P.A.,

Region V had 316(a) jurisdiction during the original proceeding at which the alternate thermal standard for the Clinton Power Station was approved. Since that time, the State of Illinois has been dele-gated NPDES authority and concomitant 316(a) and 316(b) jtrisdiction.

Several factors prompted us to reevaluate the appropriateness of the existing 960F temperature limit for Lake Clinton. These are:

1. Improvement in the state-of-the-art of thermal modeling.
2. The fact that recent research on the biolog*. cal significance of thermal additions has shown that discharge iemperatures greater than 960F are not necessarily harmful and site-specific limits of up to ll10F have been established for other Midwestern cool-ing lakes.
3. The length of time that unit #1 will be operating prior to unit
  1. 2 coming on line has been expanded from the one year as origin-

! ally proposed to at least 5 years.

!

4. The impact of energy requirements for cooling sprays on net sta-tion output (which would be a maximum at the normal period of l peak electricity demand on our system).

l h j s o o a l a 0 Siz.Q.

. 1

. . _ .

  • 1

. ~ .

!

Mr. Richard C. DeYoung March 14, 1980 After considering the above factors, Illinois Power Company has decided to petition the Illinois Pollution Control Board for an alternate thermal standard to be applicable during one unit opera- .

tion. This matter was never addressed in the original 316(a) demon-stration because the original plan called for Unit #2 to come on-line

- within one or two years after Unit #1 was operational.

We are aware that U.S .E.P. A. (or a State which has been delegated NPDES authority) is the agency with authority to grant alternate ther-mal limitations under Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act and we plan to work closely with both the State and Region V of the USEPA.

In discussing this matter with Mr. Donald Sills of the NRC, he sug-gested that the NRC staff be kept apprised of our actions to have an alternate thermal standard approved. Thus, we plan to send you copies of our petition to the Illinois Pollution Control Board along with appropriate support documents for your information.

l-We invite your comments on our plans , and we would appreciate receiving your indication of concurrence with our effort to enhance the total performance of this unit.

Sincerely,

'

,/, "

G. E. Wuller Supervisor-Licensing Generation Engineering Department GEW/jh cc: Robert A. Gilbert NRC Clinton Environmental Manager i

a