ML20217G109

Annual Environ Operating Rept for 1997 (Nonradiological)

ML20217G109
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 9804290061
Download: ML20217G109 (9)

Text

r

, Dave Mor;y Southern Nucliar

!- . Vice President Op rating C mpany l Farley Project P0. Box 1295 l Birmingham, Alabama 35201 1

Tel 205.992.5131 l 1 SOUTHERN I April 21, 1998 CQMM Docket Nos.: 50-348

• " ~

50-364 I

\

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion l ATTN: Document Control Desk )

Washington, DC 20555 i Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant 1997 Annual Environmental'Operatina Report (Nonradiolonican Ladies and Gentlemen:

In accordance with subsection 5.4.1 of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant {

Environmental Protection Plan (Units 1 & 2), Appendix B to Facility Operating License l Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8, please find enclosed the Annual Environmental Operating Report for 1997.

If you have any questions, please advise.

Respectfully submitted, f lNcd Dave Morey AHM/ cit:98 report. doc Attachments:

1. Annual Environmental Operating Report for 1997 (Nonradiological)

2. Environmental Impact Evaluation Changes in Cooling Tower ,

Performance Parameters y V

cc: Mr. L. A. Reyes, Region II Administrater Mr. J. I Zimmerman, NRR Project Manager o Mr. T. M. Ross, Plant Sr. Resident Inspector o

h

...s v v v J 9804290061 971231 PDR ADOCK 05000348 R PDR

l l

l ATTACIIMENT 1 .

SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY '

l JOSEPli M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT - UNITS 1 AND 2 ;

NRC DOCKET NOS. 50-348 AND 50-364 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. NPF-2 AND NPF-8 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT FOR 1997 (NONRADIOLOGICAL) l I

I

JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT - UNITS 1 AND 2 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT FOR 1997 (NONRADIOLOGICAL)

INTRODUCTION In accordance with Subsection 5.4.1 of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Environrrental Protection Plan, Appendix B to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8, this report is submitted summarizing implementation of the Environmeetal Protection Plan for calendar year 1997.

REPORTING REOUIREMENTS A. Summaries and Analyses of Results of Environmental Protection Activities Required by Subsection 4.2 of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) for the Reporting Period

1. Aerial Remote Sensing - Aerial Remote Sensing is no longer required.

2. Herbicide Application - There is no reporting requirement associated with this condition.

3. Land Management - here is no reporting requirement associated with this condition.

B. Comparison of the 1997 Monitoring Activities with Preoperational Studies, Operational Controls, and Pretious Non-Radiological Monitoring Reports

%ese programs were not required because no nonradiological environmental monitoring programs were conducted during the reporting period beyond those performed in accordance with NPDES Permit No. AL0024619.

C. Assessment of the Observed Impacts of Plant Operation on the Environment here were no significant adverse environmental impacts associated with plant operation during 1997.

D. EPP Noncompliance and Corrective Actions Backaround Farley Nuclear Plant is currently licensed to operate at a nuclear steam supply system power level of 2660 MWt per unit. A power upiate to 2785 MWt for each unit is proposed. In the course of conducting an environmental impact evaluation for the power uprate proposal, as required by Section 3.1 of the EPP, it was determined in November 1996 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 Ensironmental Statement (FES) (NUREG 0727). It was subsequently determined that an ensironmental impact evaluation, required by Section 3.1 of the EPP, had not been performed. Based on this ,

discovery, an admmistrative noncompliance with Section 3.1 of the EPP was identified. Section 3.1 requires that the licensee prepare and record an evaluation of actisities that may l

A-1 1

J

1 significantly affect the environment and determine if an unreviewed environmental question exists prior to engaging in additional construction or operational activities. An evaluation of the environmental impact associated with the changes in cooling tower operating conditions was conducted to determine if the changes between the current operating parameters and the design information documented in the Environmental Report and the FES constitute an unreviewed ,

environmental question or a matter requiring a change to the EPP. 4 The evaluation was completed in January 1997 and confirmed that the environmental impact associated with the changes was consistent with the FES conclusions and did not result in significant adverse environmental impact. Further, it was determined timt this matter did not constitute an unreviewed environmental question or a matter which requires a change to the EPP per Section 3.1. However, because the admmistrative noncompliance was identified in November 1996, it was hmented in the 1996 Annual Environmental Operating Report.

Since the evaluation was completed in 1997, a copy of the evaluation is attached to this report.

E. Changes in Station Design or Operation, Tests, or Experiments Made in Accordance with EPP Section 3.1 Which Involved a Potentially Significant Unreviewed Environmental Question

1. There were no changes in station design or operation, tests, or experiments in 1997 which involved a potentially significant unreviewed environmental question.

F. Nonroutine Reports Submitted in Accordance with EPP Section 5.4.2 There were no nonroutine reports submitted in 1997.

A-2

1 1

ATTACIIMENT 2 SOUTIIERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY JOSEPli M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT- UNITS 1 AND 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION CIIANGES IN COOLING TOWER PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT

\

i l

l

FARLEYNUCLEAR PIANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPA CT E VAL UA TION OF CHANGES IN COOLING TOWER PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS l

Background

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.

In the course of conducting an environmental impact evaluation of the power uprate proposal, as required l 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 j current operating parameters and the design information documented in the Environmental Report, upon which the conclusions of the Final Environmental Statement are based, constitutes an unreviewed environmental question or a matter which requires a change to the EPP.

l Section 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 environment provided such activities do not involve an unreviewed emironmental question and do not involve a change to the EPP. Section 3.1 requires that an environmental 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 environmental question if it concerns: (1) a matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse emironmental impact previously evaluated in the FES-OL, environmental impact appraisals, or in any decisions of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; or (2) a significant change in efnuents or power level; or (3) a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the documents specified in (1) of this Subsection, which may have significant environmental impact." In accordance with these requirements, the following environmental impact evaluation has been performed.

References

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

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

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

4. " Evaluation of Mixing Zones 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.

i Bases The Farley Nuclear Plant Environmental Report and subsequent Final Emironmental Statement (FES) evaluates the nonradiological environmental impact of two unit operation. The scope of this evaluation 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, drift, and system blowdown is provided to the cooling towers from the discharge from the service water system Three cooling towe'rs 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 maximum summer river temperature), a maximum blowdown temperature of 89

• F, a service water '=nmwe of 94.5

• F, a cooling tower 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 and a resulting j temperature increase in the river of approximately 0.5

• F after mixing. ,

It has been determined that the original coign of the cooling towers has never been abic 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 approximately 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 l i

7.4

• F higher than the design value documented in the FES using the same conditions. In order to I 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 i

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 assessed in l the FES and allow a direct assessment of thermal impact on the Chattahoochee River. Additionally, l calculations of thermal balance were conducted at the 7Q10 flow and Most Probable river flow. The 7Q flow is the flow normally used by the Alabama Department of Emironmental Management for NPDES l permitting purposes and the Most Probable flow is representative of river flow conditions that normally occur. This data was compared with 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 cf 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. Th 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 emironmental j

I impact. At these severe conditions of extrerne 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

The FEE concluded that the original analysis conducted under extreme temperature and flow conditions was cons:rvative and protective of water quality standards. The approximate 0.1

• F increase during extreme c onditions resulting from changes in cooling tower operation is also conservative and protective l of water qulity standards. At thq 7Q10 flow and higher flows, river temperature increcses are minimal and quicklf decline to values which approach the limits of temperature measurement instrumentation. As discussed it, 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 I cooling towers at 3.5 cycles of concentration which is consistent with the FES conditions and determined that no significant adverse environmental impact occurred. 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 thost-discussed above. i 1

In addition to the FES, the thermal impact associated with cooling tower operational changes 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 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 environmental impact and did not warrant numerical permit limits.

In addition to the considerations regarding temperature, the change in cooling tower flow noted above also 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 emironmental impact on the Chattahoochee River. Changes in river water withdrawal to compensate for the increase in cooling tower makeup are enveloped by the 90,000 gpm withdrawal rate upon which the conclusions of the FES are based.

Page 3 i

=

Conclusion Based on the above evaluation, the discrepancies noted between the current operating parameters for the Farley Nuclear Plant cooling towers and the parameters defined in the Environmental Report - Operating License Stage, upon which the conclusions of the Final Environmental Statement are basel, do not result in significant environmental impact. The Fircl Environmental Statement ccncluded 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 requin:s 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 Plant Environmental Protection plan and will be provided, in summary form, to the NRC as part of the Annual Envitaa-a*=1 @r='iag Report.

e o

Page 4

- - . -