rr( * R»OUI.I»i<OR»l<ORNAl<»ON DiISl'RISUT~ION~ SSN (RIDS).

SUBJECIT': F<orwards info( op< col((oo.nant. cop(l<ing wate'r: sysil terna ii2. I3; ai; 3,ageUdressing sei sl((i C< quail(i f i ceIt i op»boa'si s fo,r 64: F!ocea'n'elo< E aa(<( f,lo(w/singl e fe'i lure an'a(lysi s requested. a.t»8504'19 ~ sting» toi reso,ive re>a(ining issues;.

DISTRIBUT<IOV( CQDKl» 80013 COPKES RKCE»IVKDel.ITR" ( KNCLI ~ SIZEI$T(ITLEI: Llicanal'ng Suoa»i ttali('PGAR/FSAR. Amdts L Re(I(sited< Cb(rrespopdance.

t

ACCESSION( iVBR: 83052%0375< OOCLDAITE.: 8'3/05»/18'OITARLZKO': iVO OOCKKIT( ((

F»ACIILI:50-275< Oi abiloi Cbhyol~< Vuc<l ea'r; PoIwer: P(18'nti Unii ti ii«P(aci f ic< Ga( 05000275(AUTH'AblKI AUTHOR AFFCLKA<T'ION

CRA»VE(R P(, A"~ . P(abri f.ic< Ghis h Eilectric< Cb(,.REC»IP<, VA<»IEI RKCKPKEIV<T( AFFLLKATIO<V(

EIISENHUT(i 0<.G(. Oli vi si on< o(f< Lli censing

NOTES:Ji HahcheItt( 1CY, POR: Obpuwents. 05000275»

RECKP<IKN(T(ID COOEV»VAi<iIKI

ARR'/DL»/ADLIiV R R'83<

LIMNI

COPIESLlriTRI ENCLI

ii 01< 0

RKCKP(IKN(TIIDI CQOE'/NAI(IKI

ARRl LB 3 BCI.BUCI<lLK»Yg 9 ~, 01

COP'IKS'IT'TR

ENCLI0(

1- 1

I »V T KR iV A Lls ELO</H06'2:IKVDKPKR/KPB( 36IKVDKQAVQ»AB( 21<ARR/OKVCKB( 11<»V RR /OK'/KQB( lbiVRR/OK'/HGKB( 30VRR/0=/IIITKB( 1,7»VRR/DK</SGKB( 25<NRR/DHF6/L.QB( 32:VRR/DL»/65PB(VRR/OSC/ASS(NRR/OS%/CSB( 09VRR'/OS%/»<iKITB( 12:iVR 8( 22.

KG( FC,< Kl 04<.

8(IB(

KIXTKRiVALID ACRS 4'1<

OiiIB'/DSG' AI<ID<TS)LPDR." 03»iVS I CI 05<

VO<TKS e

1<

3<

li1<

2.1<

ii2:1<

1

li

li1<

lilib1»

2:1<

03v

1<

1

2,1«

ii21<

01»

1»

1»

1

ii0

b1»

?."

i.

IKI FKLKIIEVOEPKR/IR8( 35<iVRRVOKVAEAB('VRR/DKVEHEB(ARRVOKVGS<

28'RR/OE</MES(

18'RRVOKVSAB(

2A'RR/OHF6/HFK840

,VRR/OHF6/PSR8(NRR/DSI/AKB( 2b»VRRV OS I/CPS( 10NRR/DSI/ICSB( lbVRR/OS I/PS B( 1,9NRR/OSI/RS9( 23RGNG(

B(VLI(AUDITS( ONLI|'3 I

FKMAi RKP( DK,VI 39VRCI POR'2."iV»T'IS'

1

1 1

1, 0(1 1

2. 21I(

1 1

1< 1

1. 1

i.1< 1.1 11'

1 13'<ii 1

1 1

1» 1

1< 1

TOTAu NU~BER. OF( COP(IKS REQUIRED: LITTR 5»7 ENCLI 50

~:);~ Iff'iff

i1 f

ht

tli

hr c

C1ll Ir II I' ir Il I'

I

I(f I

', i ri!I tr hr

I", „r'IIIIIr I cr'IIII ff

Ich I'l i I'l' Ii off" tr

,'lkfill

I i

('(i I"L I

.J I ii Il

I(

Oi

,;I f'

rrl f

II cy

I II

C c..f '

I

iC

r f,,kiri

li t

I 4 'I I hf „'7l I ~ „ II,',!IC f,'-sf Ir

I

f1+fr I

It 'I'fll t(,",

Jf.

lt I'( l

I I ~r 4 1 CP

r I, I'I\, Jfl

ic f, q I(, Ir',i'

A

; li,i

Jl

f

II.," r, Wf ~'

f I I r r

Ji

I(

II I )

J

J>

I i

( I

I

i r"

Ii

ciAti

rh I

I

E(

hf

I

gf) .I<

l

I, 'IC

)

I 'll ICC

tt, i

Ift i '}'rr'lf

f,I tr~

al'fI''c-r lfr II 1

)! '' I

II

r

IL

PL I

ti fr f

1 i W h tt I

I It

I'r ilr r

C

I

h(t

it

ff I'f I I I i

r elf r'II

I r

f J.

i(

r,

C,f i

n

.II I i' (.

lr

PA C IF IC GA.S AND E LEC TRIC C 0 MPA.NY

ROBERT OPS L BACHVICE PRESIDENT AND DENERAL A'TTDRNPV

77 SEALE STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94106P. O. BOX 7442, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94120

TELEPHONE (415) 781.4211TEI.ECOPIER (415) 543 ~ 7813

CHARS.CS T. VAN OCUSCNPHILIP A ~ CRANE, JR,HCNRY J ~ L~ PLANTS

JOHN S, 0 ISSONARTHUR I ~ Hll LMAN.JR,

C HARL CS W. THISSCL LOANICL C ~ SISSONJACK P. PAL LI N, J R ~

JOS CPH I. KCLLYHOWARD V. SOLUSQLCNN WCSTT JR ~

AEQITANTCtat CAL ODUOEEL

SILEEOTL MAAAIDKDAH DAAY~ ON LU~ ODOC

JAMES'

LooaooaRO ~ EAT L TIOAOON~ ETEAW HAN~ OHENRIOHA1D P LOOCEDAVIDL I.UOYIO~ DMWILLIAMH, CDHAIDOJ MICHAELREIDENCAOHIYDA C SAN ~ OHSHIALCYA WOOI AT*ICE0 ODLOEHITIONA11M, MOE ~I.DUI~ C VINOEHT

CDWAADJ MODANNEYSEANAAOJ DELLASANTAJOENUA ~IAA LCYJOSEPH S CNOLt1T Jl~RD ~ E ~ T L HAAAI~DOUOLA~ A DOLE~ OVJ, PETCA SAUNDAATNENJOHN H PAVERafter R. RIOCtTTDAVIDJ,WILLIAM~ OHSAUCE R,WOATHIMOTOMRIOHAAO L MEI~ 1JAOKW. SHUCK

May 18, 1983

DAVIDW, AMDCO CONCAAID M SUCNEOAUNLENIN S DA~ CIDYAUO1EYA DAIHE~DONALDD CAIOCCONDAVIDD DIL~ EATSTEVEN P DAEENHALDRIDNAAO C JONE ~HAaavW LUNDYJa,JONM R LDWROOEAT S. MOLCNNANRODEO J PETE11JO ANN ~ NAT CEO

IATHANY ANNANOSTtVEH P, SUACCPANELA CNAPACLLCDA1Y P CNOINAODAVIDM T'LEIS IOSAILA D AC CLYJUAN M JATOMEaEC C LIA~ OHJE ~ 1IDA LOAIHOA. KIar MDKtMMEKENNETH 0 OLE ~ OMSNI ~ LEVA SAHDCAEONKENNCTN YAHO

ATTOANEY~

Mr. D. G. Eisenhut, DirectorDivision of LicensingOffice of Nuclear Reactor RegulationU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555

Re: Docket No. 50-275, OL-DPR-76Diablo Canyon Unit 1Component Cooling Water System

Dear Mr. Eisenhut:

Enclosed is the Unit 1 Component Cooling Water (CGf) System informationidentified as items 1, 2, and 3.a thru 3.e in our letter of May 3, 1983.

The enclosed material provides information on the issues of seismicqualification, basis for 64oF ocean temperature, and maximumflow/single failure analysis requested by the Staff during the meeting onApril 19, 1983 to resolve remaining CCW System issues.

We are investigating the results of the analyses of Design Basis Eventsprovided in the FSAR using a 70 F ocean water temperature with respectto the use of the 64oF temperature discussed in the Enclosure.

Very truly yours,

Enclosure

CC: (w/enc.): Service List

8305240375 8305|8PDR ADOCK 05000275P PDR

h I

y I

ll

I'J

ENCLOSURE TO MAY 17, 1983 LETTER TO MR. D. G. EISENHUT

DCPP UNIT 1 COMPONENT COOLING WATER SYSTEM

1. Seismic Investi ation.and Qualification

All of the Design Class II components in the Component Cooling

Water (CCW) System including the Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP) lower

bearing oil coolers, have been analyzed to assure that they willmaintain their pressure boundary integrity under postulated Hosgri

seismic conditions.

Seismic qualification of the RCP lower bearing oil coolers was{

{

demonstrated by seismic analysis after redesign of the support clipfor the 3/4-inch diameter cooler coil. We are proceeding with

replacement of the support clips. The installation schedule for

this modification will be provided as soon as it is developed.

The original support clip for the RCP lower bearing oil cooler

coil supported the coil from the bottom but did not sufficientlyrestrain the coil from moving upward. Analytical modeling was

difficult because of the non-linear characteristics in the

unrestrained direction. It is unlikely that the coil would faildue to seismic loading in the unmodified configuration. Vertical

movement is limited between the lower bearing support and the

2956a/0205A/eg

U

"~ Ill

h

t

O

I

support clip. The horizontal movement is limited by the oil

reservoir walls. However, for simplification of analysis, the

support clip is being replaced to restrain the coil in the

horizontal direction and both the upward and downward direction.

This support change facilitated seismic analysis by the normal

sinusoidal vibration model.

The DCPP Unit 1 licensing commitments with respect to the CCW

System could be met without seismic qualification of the RCP

I

bearing oil cooler since the rate that CCW would be lost could be

limited if a seismic event resulted in even an assumed double-endedn I

rupture of the cooling coil. This could be accomplished byf J

\

'limiting the CCW'flow by placing limits on the valve position in

the CCW supply and return piping to the oil coolers. With the

valves appropriately throttled to maintain design flowrate for

normal plant operation in the CGf lines to the RCPs, a flow of 5

gpm would be supplied to each RCP lower bearing oil cooler.

Calculations indicate that with the valves in the throttled

position if a double-ended rupture occurred in the oil cooler coil,

the net loss of CCW would be approximately 15 gpm for each pump (a

total of 60 gpm for the four pumps). This is well within the 200

gpm makeup capability to the CCW Surge Tank.

2956a/0205A/eg

) t h

II

I"$g

' I I >„' '

hI

h,h

I> h ) I4 (h

tlh Ih f ht I . ~ ) I))I'))hh hh,lh )I

h )t~

I y

Verification of normal levels in the CCW System could be

assured subsequent to a seismic event by a modification of PGandE's

Emergency Procedure EP M-4 (Nuclear Plant Operations'mergency

Procedure for Earthquakes).

EP M-4 requires operator actions subsequent to a seismic event

exceeding 0.01 g's as measured by the Earthquake Force Monitor.

The existing procedure has a check list of level indicators

that need to be recorded after the seismic event. The procedure

could be modified to require the operator to visually verify CCW

surge tank level locally.

However, we are proceeding with the replacement of the cooling

coil support clip to preclude the need for (1) administrative

controls on valve position in the CCW supply to the Reactor Coolant

Pump lower bearing oil cooler, and (2) modification of emergency

procedure EP M-4.

This concludes all actions and investigations necessary to

assure maintenance of the pressure boundary of the CCW system under

postulated Hosgri loading.

2956a/0205k/eg

(

'Jl

4Y

lz I

' ll' lip I,*,

j

4 il

h, l ,(

E ~ ag»

II

2. Ocean Water Te rature and Recirculation

The basis for selection of the 64 F ocean water temperature

including potential for recirculation from discharge to intake is

discussed below.

I

II'hermalmodel tests are discussed in PGSE's Environmental

Report, Supplements 7 'and 8. The May 1976 Addendum to the Final

Environmental Statement presented the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission's (NRC) position that there was essentially no

recirculation between the discharge and intake structure. A copy

of the relevant portions of the statement is enclosed as

Attachment l.

Graphical presentations of the statistical temperature data

from ocean water temperature measurements for the period from 1970

to 1980 are enclosed as Attachment 2. Graphs of this type were not

prepared for the period between December 1973 through February

1976. From 1970 to the present, measured ocean water temperature

has not exceeded 64 F, with the exception of a five day period in

1976. This was due to an anomaly in the ocean current patterns

resulting in a peak measurement of 20.2 C (68.36 F).0 0

Statistical data for that five day period are enclosed as

Attachment 3.

2956a/0205A/eg

f'

f

f ,"(I f It,f I, 'V

n

V I, f I

4

V ~ ' ''I

f 'f4 4~1

~'fffa

k P

ff fr, f

kaJk4 I

r f'fV'f»)" f) f Vf

If V~, g,t

\

fM'

This unusual current pattern existed for approximately 0.1$ of

the total time of temperature recording and consequently, the

64 F ocean water temperature was selected as an adequately0

conservative value when calculating the postulated heat load cases

used to determine the maximum temperature of fluid in the CCW

system concurrent with a LOCA.

i

No other accident considered in the FSAR was analyzed for

64 F. However, if 64 F were used as the maximum oceanII l

temperature for other accident analyses, the results of the

analyses would be bounded by analyses which are governed by a

maximum assumed ocean temperature of 70 F specified in the FSAR.

3. Maximum Flow/Single Failure Anal sis

3.a, 3.b and 3.c. Flowrates for One, Two, and Three Pu 0 ration

The effect of multiple CCW pump operation on system

performance is shown in Figure 1. The Figure shows CCW System

resistance curves plotted against CCW pump curves for one, two, and

three pump operation. The CCW System resistance curves are derived

from the single failure cases summarized in Table 1 and are based

on calculations which assume the system is balanced for normal

operation with one CCW pump in service. The calculations also

2956a/0205A/eg

1

llj ,v ~

l

II

t

ilII

I

assume that no repositioning of balancing valves is required for

all other modes of operation. The CCH pump curves are based on

certified pump performance curves. The single failure thermal

analysis was based on adjustment of balancing valves to meet

nominal component design flow requirements for the design loss of

coolant accident system line-up (i.e., with the "C" header

isolated) with one CGV pump operating. The calculated flows shown

in Figure l are essentially equal to or exceed the values used in

the analysis.

Table 2 shows the calculated flowrate to individual components

or groups of components for each of the cases analyzed. The

nominal design flowrate for the components is also provided in

Table 2 to show the incremental flow increase through the

components as a result of two and three CCH pump operation.

Figure 1 and Table 2 indicate that there is only a small

difference in flow between the operation of two or three CCW

pumps. Since one CCW heat exchanger is assumed to be in service

for all cases analysed, it is our position that the heat removal

capability of the system is essentially the same whether two or

three CCW pumps are in operation.

2956a/0205AJeg

t

At

")

c ~

R

0

''

lip

li

AI

H

0

I

lh

3.d and 3.e CCW S stem Heat Exchan ers Ca bility

Unit l start-up testing has been performed to demonstrate

acceptable CCW System operation under normal and accident

conditions. This testing has included the operation of one, two,

and three CCW pumps, as well as verification of proper valve and

equipment responses to safety injection and containment isolation

signals. Flow data is generally not available, however, since flow

meters are not provided on most components. For these components,

flow is throttled based on process cooling requirements or process

temperature limitations. In addition, flushing has been performed

and the flowrates through several components have been recorded (in

some cases using temporary flow meters). Components for which

flushing flowrates are available include safety injection pump and

CCW pump lube oil cooler and certain critical "C" header components

such as the spent fuel pit, letdown, and seal water heat exchangers.

The maximum recorded flushing flowrates for these components

are provided in Table 2. The calculated flowrates do not exceed

the maximum recorded flushing flowrate for these components. There

has been no indication of damage to these components due to

flushing. With regard to the containment fan coolers, information

provided by the vendor indicates that operation with flows to

4000 gpm per cooler is acceptable.

2956a/0205A/eg

J I ~ ~ e 4I

Hn

~I ~ J ~ 44

H ~ I

ever nha

4' '4

I nI ~ ~

n 'H.rr

4 ~ I 4avg r Hn

~ r J'

gnI A

Hl II

Jl ~ \J I fh, v ln' ~ II" II

ne HJ -I I „ I',, hH

e 0 ' ~ .P

h

I~ II ~ a

~ 4 J \

The CCW heat exchanger specification includes a design

condition for CCW flow at 18,600 gpm. The conditions of operation

are shown in Table 3, which is extracted from CCW Heat Exchanger

Specification No. 8757. The vendor guaranteed that all flow

conditions in this specification could be met. For all cases

analyzed, total calculated system flow does not exceed 18,100 gpm.

2956a/0205A/eg

U

ff C I

n

I(V q, ~

1

o

P

FIGURE 1

CCW SYSTEM RESISTANCE CURVES

NOTE: For definition of cases,refer to Table 1

180

Case 2, 3 System Curve without"C" Loop

System Curve with"C" Loop

Case 1

3 CCW Pumps

Case 4

2 CCW Pumps

120

100

5000 10000

~1 CCW Pump

15000 20000 25000 30000

FLOW (gpm)

TABLE 1

CASES CONSIDERED IN CCW ANALYSIS(Note 2)

No. of Cont.Fan Coolers

No. of Aux.No. of Cont. No. of CCW Salt WaterSpray Trains Pumps Pumps

Ava11 a bi 1 1 tyof Offsite

"C" Header PowerS1ngl eFa1lure

Case l Isolated Not ava11. Electr1calBus "G"

Case 2 Isolated Not ava11. OneContainmentSpray Pump

Case 3(Note 3)

Isolated Not avail. OneAux. Salt-water Pump

Case 4 Open Available(Note 1)

El ectr1ca 1llHII

Notes: l. Case 4 Header "C" heat loads are not dropped due to availability of offsite power.

2. Hain steam line break was also cons1dered; however, DBA LOCA resulted 1n higher CCW temperatures.

3. Case three has been determined to be the worst case for CCW supply temperatures.

0083M/0095P-2

~Com anent .

A. Vital Header(s)

Table 2Flow Through Individual Components

Flow (gpm)

Recorded Maximum ComponentCase 1 Case 2, 3 Case 4 F'lnshin Flowrates ~Desi n

CCW pump coolers(each pump)a. lube oilb. seal water

RHR pump sealwater cooler(each pump)

Centrifugal Chargingpump coolers(each pump)

a. lube oilb. gear oilc. sea'I water

13

80

-]40

13

83 - 69

30

3735

10

2032'l0

Safety Injectionpump coolers(each pump)

a. lube oilb. seal water

39 40 36 (0

Containment fan coolers 12 400 12,890(Total of 5)

B. Non-Vital Header

10,740 10,000

Waste GasCompressors 113 100

Central SamplePanel Coolers

Recip. ChargingPump Coolers NA 113

40

100

Boric Acid EvaporatorPackage/RadwasteConcentrator Package NA 1,768 1,560

Table 2Flow Through Individual Components

Flow (gpm)

~Com onent

Auxiliary SteamVent Condenser

100

Case 1 Case 2, 3

NA

Recorded Maximum ComponentCase 4 Floshin F1ownates ~Desi n

113

NSSS Sample HeatExchangers

Seal Water HeatExchanger

Letdown HeatExchanger

Steam GeneratorSample HeatExchanger

Spent Fuel PitHeat Exchanger

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

238

1,133

48

3,399

320

1,700

3,550

210

1,000

41.4

3,000

Notes:

Flows shown under Cases 1, 2. 3, and 4 are calculated.

2. Isolated components and components not in service are not included.

3. Gross Failed Fuel Detector heat exchanger flow has not been calculateand is not included.

Table 3

Design Conditions fromCCW Heat Exchanger Specification

Shell Side

czficaticn 4i o. 8757

Tube Side

FluidPassesSpecific GravitySpecific Heat, Btu/lbDesign Pressure, psigTest Pressure, psigDesign Temperature. F

Treated Distilled Mater.1VariableVariable

150225300

Sea Vater11.0260.955

loo150200.

Condition "A"

Temperature in, FTemperature out, FDu"y, Btu/hrFlo~, gpm at 125F

171.7125.0258.8 x 106

11,210

70.0

Condition "B"

Temperature in, FTemperature out, FDuty, Bru/hrFlot:, gpm at 125F

199.9125.0258.8 x 10

7,000

70.0

Condition "C"

Temperature in, FTemperature out, FDuty, Btu/hrFlov, gpm at 90F

Condition "D"

98.4890.051.9 x 10

12,310

70.0

Temperature in, FTemperature out, FDuty, Btu/hrFlov, gpm at 125F

162.9125.0224 3 x 106

12,000

70.0

Condition "E"

Temperature in, FTemperature out, F

.. Duty, Btu/hrFlov, gpm at 90F

97.8290.072 ' x 106

180600

70.0

Condition "F"

Temperature in, FTe...perature out, FDuty, Btu/hrFlov, gpm at 115F

126.13115.0

68.6 x 1012,420

70.0

ATTACEdENT 1

m the Addendum to the FES

by the h1BC liay 1976

3.3.3 Thermal

3.3.3.1 ~terr nts

As a result of the staff's decision to upgrade its assessment of potential impacts on themarine environment of the Diablo Canyon Plant, the applicant has been required to obtain morecomprehensive data on the ocean currents ad)acent to the plant. A better understanding of thesecurrents is needed to (1) define baseline conditions for plant operation and for the physicalmodel study in nearshore waters outside of Diablo Cove, and (2) permit accurate selection oflocations of temperature monitors that will be needed to define the thermal plume during opera-tion of one or both units.

During 1972 and 1974, the applicant measured near-surface currents, usually for one half tidalcycle, once each month, using a single fixed-current meter and near-surface drogues. The data,in tabular and graphical form, were presented by the applicant in supplements to the Environ-mental Report; however. no analysis or conclusions were provided. The staff has, however;under taken a preliminary assessment of the current measurement results, in order to gain abetter understanding of coastal current patterns and to assess the applicability of the currentsused in the model studies.

In the absence of data from an array of fixed current meters., it is not possible to extrapolatethe results of a single point measurement to cover the entire region of interest. The staff is,therefore, of the opinion that the drogue results furnish a more representative picture of thenearshore flow conditions prevailing, during each set of measurements. During 1974. the dataindicated current speeds averaging about 0.4 knots. The directions were variable; however,during the sumer the predominant direction of flow was to the southeast (downcoast). Thewinds during this period were generally from the northwest. Similar flow patterns were alsoobserved during the sumaer of 1972. The dominant coastal current near the site during winter isthe northerly Davidson Current. Several drogue releases made at the site during the winter of1974 showed northwesterly (upcoast) flows; however, the data indicate that this current patterncan be modified or reversed by local winds. These data formed the basis for the currents thathave been factored into the design of the physical model of the environs of the plant's dischargestructure. Sufficient data are not available to allow an evaluation of flow patterns or direc-tional persistence of winter flows in the site vicinity.

3.3.3.2 D e Dis ersion Tests

The applicant conducted aerial tracer dye surveys in September 1974 under several tidal condi-tions, during cold-water testing of the Unit 1 cooling system, to determine discharge movement,dilution rates and ambient flow patterns. The results of these tests have been used to evaluatethe correlation of the physical model with the prototype.

3.3.3.3 Ph sical Hodel Studies

~Desert tenn

One of the conditions for the continuance of the construction permit for Unit 2 required theapplicant to plan and carry out extensive physical modeling of the present discharge system aswell as to carry out modeling of alternative systems.~ To accomplish these objectives, anundistorted physical model of the coastal region including both Diablo and South Coves wasconstructed at the Richmond Field Station of the University of California. A 1:75 scale wasused with a 64 by 85 foot section of the model basin representing a 4800 by 6400 foot area nearthe plant (Figure 3.2). Data from hydrographic surveys were used to scale the model bathymetry,with special care being taken to accurately represent the irregular bottom near the dischargestructure. The model has the capability of simulating waves. currents and tides through the use

3-3

/

gu.'

>

~I/

fPf g

Pig. 3.2 Test Basin at Richmond Field StationUniversity of California

3-4

of various pumps, manifolds andand connected through pumps andbe accurately scaled.

)

paddies. The intake and discharge structures have been modeledheaters in such a manner that flow rates and temperatures can

Staff members visited the facility in July 1975 to discuss the program with both the applicantand its consultants and to observe several preliminary tests with the model.

Hodel tests were run in August 1975. for both hot and cold discharges, with and without dyeinjection, for various combinations of waves, currents and tides. Dye concentration was measuredwith an aerial dye test imaging system mounted above the tank and by collecting small samples ofwater at various locations and analyzing the dye content of those samples in laboratory tests.Temperatures were measured with an aerial thermal infrared imaging system and with a thr eedimensional array of thermistors. The aerial imaging systems were operated by Battelle PacificNorthwest Laboratories. Another series of tests were conducted in January 1976, with currentsflowing north to simulate the Davidson Current conditions (the earlier series modeled southerlyand no-current conditions). A su+nary of the conditions during the various tests is given inTable 3.1.

The cold-water dye-test results acquired with the model wer e compared with those obtainedduring the September 1974 prototype dye tests in Diablo Cove and nearshore waters. Because ofthe spatial and temporal complexities in the current structure in both the model and prototypeand because of the very irregular bathymetry in the cove, it is difficult to determine accuratelythe degree to which the model predicts the prototype behavior. The dye plumes in the model,however, were similar in general behavior to those observed in the prototype, with no majordifferences observed. These results strengthen the staff's belief that model results can beused to predict the general behavior of the thermal plume in the prototype.

A description of the model .along with results of many model tests under various conditions havebeen reported in Supplements 7 and 8 to the Environmental Report. From these tests, a generalpicture of expected flow patterns and temperature distributions, especially within Diablo Coveduring one-unit plant operation, has emerged. Figures 3.3 and 3.4 show schematic representationsof the flow patterns observed in the model for downcoast and upcoast current conditions. Theapplicant has concluded that the temperature distribution within the cove during plant operationis controlled predominantly by the natural (without plant discharge) net flow through the northentrance. Determination of the degree of this control might provide guidance for the optimaldesign of future monitoring programs in both model and prototype.

Ph sical Model Studies - A licant's Evaluation

From the data acquired from these tests, the applicant was able to draw a number of conclusionsin regard to the temperature distribution expected from plant operation. The staff has determi-ned that these conclusions, as sumerized below. are supported by the data presented.

1. There was essentially no recirculation into the intake structure for any of the conditionstested (strong and moderate downcoast coastal currents, no coastal current, and a moderateupcoast coastal current. with waves from NW and without waves). This was true for Unit 1 operat-ing under full load, and for Units 1 and 2 operating together under full load.

2. When there was either a downcoast current or no-coastal current, there usually was littletemperature rise in the water in the north entrance of Diablo Cove. For the moderate upcoastcoastal current, there was a rise of about 3 to 6 degrees C (5.5 to ll'F) above ambient at thesurface, but of the order of only 1 degree C (2'F) above ambient near the bottom.

3. The discharge jet is pointed towards the west entrance of Diablo Cove. The mixing jetalways moved in that direction 'for all conditions tested. The surface temperature at the centerof this entrance was usually less than 6.5 degrees C (10'F) above ambient temperature, and thetemperature about 13 feet beneath the surface (mean sea level) was usually less than 3 degrees C

(5.5'F) above ambient for downcoast currents and for no currents and less than 3.5 degrees C

(6.3'F) above ambient for the moderate upcoast current condition.

4. All of the evidence obtained from the thermal tests showed that the mixing jet was largelya surface phenomenon. Close to the discharge structure and for much of the southern part ofDiablo Cove, the water was warm throughout the water column but it was mixing. By the time themixing jet had reached the west entrance to the cove a strong vertical thermal gradient existed,with the temperature of the surface water considerably greater than that of the deeper water.

3-5

0

A. 19-26 AUGUST 1975

TABLE 3.1

LABORATORY DATA SHEET. UC BERKELEY, RICHMOND FIELD STATION, TEST SUMMARYEXPERIMENTS ON 19-26 AUGUST 1975 and 12-16 JANUARY 1976

TestNo.

CurrentDate Time N ~ S

0 s-charge Dis-Units charge

Nom naaT

~FCTidalNode

Tidal ScannerLevel Node

ave Con talons

Waves (sec.) (ft.)n-

Com-.er

20 Aug 10:32 Moderate20 Aug Moderate20 Aug 22:44 Moderate

C7l

789

10ll12

21 Aug21 Aug21 Aug22 Aug22 Aug25 Aug25 Aug

10:46

ll:38

ModerateModerateModerateModerateModerateStr ongStrong

131415

16

17

18

25,Aug25 Aug25 Aug

26 Aug

26 Aug

26 Aug

StrongStrongStrong

None

None

ttone

1 19 Aug 14:43 Hoderate2A 19 Aug 16:20 Moderate28 19 Aug Moderate

1 Cold 0 01 Hot 19 1041 Hot 19 104

ColdHotHot

0 019 10$19 10$

1 5 2 Hot1 tt 2 Hot

1 Hot1 , Hot

1 5 2 Hot1 Hot1 Hot

19 10$19 10$19 10$22 1219 10$19 10$19 104

1 tt 2 Hot 19 1041 tt 2 Hot 19 1041 tt 2 Hot 19 10'

Hot 19 10'

Hot 19 *'041 tt 2 Hot 19 109

StaticStaticStatic

DynamicStaticStatic

StaticStaticDynamicStaticDynamicDynamicStatic

DynamicDynamicDynamic

Static

Dynamic

Dynamic

HSLMSLHSL

ts CycleHSLHSL

HSLHSL

13'yclesHSL

1+ Cycles1 CycleHSL

4 Cycle=4 CycleFractionof Cycle

HSL

Fractionof CycleFractionof Cycle

DyeOye

Therm-istorsonlyDyeThermalThermal

ThermalThermalThermalThermalThermalThermalThermal

ThermalThermalThermal

Thermal

Thermal

NoNoYes

NoNo

. YesYesYesNoYesNoYesYesYes

.YesYesYesNoYesYesNo

NoYes

Yes

Thermal Yes

(Extreme)YesYes

(Extreme)SteepHoderate- (Calm)

(Moderate

Moderate)Moderate)Extreme)Moderate)Extreme)Moderate)

(Moderate)(Extreme)

NoYesYes

YesYesYesYesYesYes.Yes

~q'

Yes

(Extreme) Yes

(Hoderate) Yes

(Extreme) Yes

ttote: Wave Heights and Per>ods determined fro... na ys s of Wave Records.

A. 19-26 AUGUST 1975

TABLE 3.1

LABORATORY DATA SHEET, UC BERKELEY, RICHMOND FIELD STATION, TEST SUMMARY

EXPERIMENTS ON 19-26 AUGUST 1975 and 12-16 JANUARY 1976

TestNo.

CurrentDate Time S ~ N

D s-charge Dis-Units charge

NominahT

~f

Wave Conditsons M nz-Tidal Tidal ScannerMode Level Mode Waves Period, Height, put

T H

2021222323A24252627

~s 28v 293031

12 Jan12 Jan14 Jan14 Jan14 Jan14 Jan14 Jan14 Jan14 Jan14 Jan14 Jan15 Jan15 Jan

Moderate +Moderate +Moderate +Moderate +Moderate +Moderate +Moderate +Moderate +Moderate +Moderate +Moderate +Moderate +Moderate +

1

1

1

1521521 5,2152

1

1

1

1521

~ 152

HotHotHotHotHotHotHotHotHotHotHotHotHot

22 1222 1220 1120 1120 11

20 1120 11

20 1120 1121 11420 ll21 11420 11

StaticStaticStaticStaticStaticStaticStaticStaticStaticStaticStaticDynamicDynamic

MSL NoneMSL None

MLLW NoneMLLW NoneMLLW None

MSL NoneMSL NoneMSL NoneMSL NoneHHW NoneMSL None

MSL~/Cycle NoneMSL~/Cycle None

Yes

.YesYes

4.6

4.64.6

2.2

3.03.0

A%YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes

'\I

pfofgt.ggovgwCW oF SoT ~

OI41ERS 1odARP ~

S~O'Ef Cog8,Alanpg g J'OP'at/'aagO'PTFR /NTu

~ SoNpg ariJ

lloyd

boueHca~ c,obstat

CWARC+y'ff-PIP

@EttaDIABLO COVE tHC 4IAppO

<>Me aPrR~Z>N+reZuS17lTIoOOAQI'g<<~~~~Wi o >!ra ~prong ~

Off0 O g 0 IVPRT)P f

j/Typal

llg~~ y

j ~

r)

RHSOejS Oe Sr. oldS~Arg C4CC Exfdr!PSON'.N'Q PJ'S" $74&kfg- @oaf rRfaloe'd Sz npzrz-fR>md J

Pup op aideto 4 4..(4WES;4Q47llPCX S'rQgi l>44+1''iF /'ss Ega )

PACIFICOCEAN

Ho 4Cofgsc&rr ldFlosl .OP>~<4M <KEYS lure

l4~~ cowl Tlotovcpp

. PE@ cs/Ag+gg

Coj. P HATER . Irffkau->IAFcrnu AVn ntmerrgyZ "

<4neH <o~uusO ey44Rorpc cwgg~

'

FIGURE 3.3 - Conceptual sketch of flow patterns for downcoast current(Unit 2, warm)

3-8

goDEA-g

~~

I

Plant 1

Discharge

Hbyt'~tj

/ ~ r

Co~Tat.c Ug~p/r

Sa1f5tk'a Cl.l'tg z

V/CbMf'vCQrp

~>t.4t'Ot

Rstaf»vtY sqRoUr~ ~~porto<-Wtt,ow Tkt:oucq

. ~~'s DEzp Cu<Neg

v~ I

StCeflf trJlvfpoR77OA't=WRRr~ ui~mu-C JLcuMf85 Pgpuaty>EXP~aQS tttrO N gtmAaeatPoR.~N bP'4tgQeouP, 4kb tS.Rg«gdt~+Eo hugo ~r,

.'K7

Cog+

/

OuTFLo4 t-otp con~t. CQRrfuT opcohsr

PACIFICOCEAN

FIGURE 3.4 - Conceptual sketch of flow patterns for upcoast current(unit 1, warm)

3-9'

5. Once the mixing warm water discharge Set reached the region seaward of Diablo Cove, thewarm water was confined within a few feet of'he surface with very little change from the ambienttemperature occurring more than 10 feet beneath the surface, even when both units were operatingsimultaneously at full load.

Ph sical Model Studies - Staff's Evaluation

The applicant did not present drawings showing anticipated isotherm patterns, or tables listingisotherm areas. under various conditions expected at the site. Instead, the results of individ-ual model tests, at specific testing times, were given in graphical and tabular form. The staffhas used this information to develop a number of conclusions about thermal plume behavior tosupplement the general observations by the applicant presented above. A more quantitativeevaluation of the thermal field would require additional analysis and testing, involving boththe model and prototype during hot water operation. It is the staff's opinion that the presentinformation, while not exhaustive, can be used for the purpose of estimating the biologicalimpacts of the thermal plume,

(a) General

1. The 10'F surface isotherm never completely filled Diablo Cove under any of the conditionstested. Hence, any suggestion that the Cove may fillwith water 19'F above ambient is notplausible.

2. The surface plume was observed to be smaller at low tide than at either mean sea level orhigh tide. This is in agreement with results obtained from the numerical model which werepresented in the FES. However, physical model test results suggest prototype plume areas largerthan those presented in the FES.

3. Recirculation into the intake structure is not expected under any of the conditions testedwith the model.

4. The plume is expected to be primarily a surface phenomenon upon exiting Diablo Cove, withbottom temperatures considerably less than surface temperatures. In the nearshore water outsidethe Cove, bottom temperatures beneath the thermal plume are not expected to exceed ambient.

(b) For downcoast currents

5. The area enclosed by the 10'F surface isotherm can cover approximately the southern half ofDiablo Cove, although during one-unit operation its extent will usually be less.

6. The 10'F surface isotherm can extend out of the west entrance of the Cove, but during one-unit operation will not usually extend past Diablo Rock.

7. The area enclosed by the 4'F surface isotherm can cover the entire Cove.

8. The 4'F surface isotherm will always emerge from the Cove, sometimes covering an extensivearea of hundreds of acres but is not expected to be as large as a square mile (640 acres).

(c) For u coast currents

9. The area enclosed by the 10'F surface isotherm can cover most of'the Cove including theentire southern part.

10. The 10'F surface isotherm can extend well out of the west cove entrance, possibly as muchas several thousand feet. This condition was most conspicuous during two-unit operation andduring tests with a aT of 22'F.

11. The area enclosed by 4'F surface isotherm is expected to cover the entire Cove

12. The 4'F surface isotherm is expected always to emerge from the cove and cover an extensivearea. The maximum extent could not be determined in the model, however, due to, the limitedextent of the thermistor array and the size of the model.

3-10

h

()Figures 3.4 and 3.5 show the surface thermal plumes measured during two separate model testswhich simulated two-unit operation, moderate currents and waves. Test 6 (Figure 3.5) simulateda downcoast current while Test 25 (Figure 3.6) simulated an upcoast current. It is emphasizedthat these figures represent the results of specific model runs and are only qualitative indica-tions of expected prototype behavior. It should also be noted that the data are from the testruns that produced the largest surface plumes.

The above tentative conclusions are based on data obtained from physical model experiments withheated discharges and are predicated on qualitative model/prototype correlations observed fromlimited tracer dye tests. The extent to which the physical model predicts, quantitatively, thefeatures of the prototype thermal plume cannot be determined more accurately without considera-bly more comparative testing of the model and prototype. Therefore, the staff believes that themost practical method of obtaining a more quantitative assessment of thermal plume behavior will.be the establishment of an extensive current and temperature monitoring program during initialoperation of Unit 1. The data so obtained can be used to validate and further calibrate thephysical model. It would then be possible to use the model to: 1) better predict the thermalfield resulting from two-unit operation, and 2) predict the thermal field resulting from the useof other discharge configurations. The staff believes that additional modeling should await ananalysis of the biological impacts caused by the operation of Unit l.

t7

C C

C'acer

O jCUtI COO ICC~a~~~~ ~C CIC CNC ~CCAI 8 7 fJg cd

~ Cbae~ eWe Oea~cCCCCC ~~ ~C M~kQS.

'

C

C

I

I

IC

dbms~g(i(>fPPcgiif~~i i i

'C C~! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t il ~! l! ~ - ~! 0 = > ". 7 ~ ". < X c-' ~ b O C: <! g i ~ ~! < I + 'i j "- R . k -". ~ ". j q a a f! >

" ~'4 'P < ~ 4 a" a '.l i ll ~ X = ~ C $ X 4 ~ $ ~.C < 4 - i a"~ 46 4404 itj+«+ 'iai4l +j +4 $ 0&~ j'$Qp ~Q 4 ~ lklga iii"'isa ~~i'~~ 4 ~>a.i'll" ihirg~! jaqi4" Oi "isa'AC 4i >> ~f f> > » x z> zi > >s ><> ql <> ci <> >i z rII >II A

T~, erect r Ywv

'I cC I110 C l91

From. Marine Environmental Investigations

at DC Units 1 and 2NPD Site, 1969-1971

Part of Supp 2 to the ER

Figure jI4

iO

TEMPERATURE, 'F

TEMPERATURE C4

tO CD C) t4 4)

JAN

FEB NO DATA

MAR

APR

MAY

AC JUNZl Plm M JUL

Ca) AUGO ( SEP

mI OCT

fllZ NOV

0 Z0

DECZ

IV) JAN0

CIlz z FEB

n0 MARm

APR

m MAY

JUNC

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

11It)

xZ

c c

6lrtau

rtO'r e0

'8IlO

Ql~ I

I

4l +

0

1

IS

o =MEAN TEMPERATURE+ = +/- I SIGMA

U

Q~ l6

l4Q

I-~Z l2

IO

+o i-++ o+ f++ oo

~i++ +++ ++ + +ce o+ + +

+o+ + Iy ++ +

+ + tp+oo+ o++p ++o +-4 +

+o ~+ +

+ + ++ ++4' +~

+ o>I. i A.0+ + + I ~+C+go++ + o+4 Q +

+oo c+ ~

I. ++ +

~4. ~~+++ m + o o+" o""+ +W+~ s P'+w + o profp Po o o

+ i+++ +

+++

I f'

A 5ONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMMONTH—I976 l977 I978 l979 l 980

'EAR

From Diablo Can on PlantNine Month Pro ress Re ort316(a) Demonstration, August 1980

FIGURE 3.7- I

SUBTIDAL WEEKLY MEAN TEMPERATURE INNORTH DIABLO COVE FROM JULY I976 TO FEBRUARY I980.

DATA OATK! 18~18 76 JuxlAN DATE! 292

PAI'IF lC GAS 4 EI„ECTRlC POWER CO,

PREPAREO 8Y ENOECO

TlNE! PST TENPS lN DEGREES C

TtVE

188288388488588688

788888988

188B11881288

1388. 1488

1588168817881888

198828882188228823882488

HKlN!

SVA lS

17e5.17e 4

17e717e617I317e2

17e2'6e9

17ei'7e3

17I217e2

17'I 517e818I818I4.

18%2'8e5'8e5:

18I418e218e318,117I9

~17'I 7

STA OS

17e216,516e616I316,216e4

16,416I716,716 916,816,8

16e917 I 117 I 217 I317I317I6

17,317e417IB16,616I716e8

16I9

TA S

17,517e517e517e517e517I5

17e517e417 ~ 31 7 ~ 3

17,5

17e718e118,418I418,418,4

18,418I418I418e318I218ei

17I9

STA SE

17ei17ei17ei17ei17,816,9

16I916,816,816I816I916,9

17ei17)317I718,818,218,2

18,118IB18I817I9i7I817I7

17,4

O0

g

a Me 4

8 VJ

S eI rt0 0

e

aI0Cn 0

Qg 5 8p g frj

lD

0le

PATA

TlHE

188288388488588688

DATRIL 18 19-76

STA ls STA OS

17e9 17,118e2 17oiile8 17,218 F1'7 '17e9 17e317.7 17,2

JULlAN OATEN

STA SC

17 e917e717e717e717e71 7 ~ 7

293

STA SE

17,717e617e617,517e417 e 3

PAClFIC GAS 4 E/ECTRlC POWER CO,

PREPAREO BY ENDECP

TlHEi PST TEHPS lN QEGREES C

4

788888988

less11881288

138814881588168817881888

198828882188228823882488

MEAN!

17e817e817e917e617e818 e

1'8e3

18e418e5

. 18e5.18e418e6

18e718e919e818e718e818e7

18e3

17e817e217e417,317e317e4

17 ~ 317e417,116e616,817e7

18,218,518e418e318e418e1

17,5

17e717,717e6-17 ~ 718 818,2

18,418,6180618e618e318e2

18 318e318e518e618e618o6

18,1

17e317 ~ 217,217e217e317e4

17e718,818e218-;5».18,318e3

18e318e318,418,518,518e3

17e8

OATA OATEN 18 28»76

TAHE STA [S STA OS

JUL1AN OATE!

STA C STA SE

TAHE ! PST TEgPS tN OECREES t:

188288388488588688

788Bsa988

iasa11881288

13881488158816881788issa

198828882188228823882488

18071805'8

'18081807ise6

180618071809180818061806

18.5'809

1809ise919011903

28e21901'9

01'902

19081903

ise9

17,517,5170 7180817091604

160817,517,317,418,81801

180318051S,5180618,717 0 1

17021707180217 0 317 '1703

17 '

18,618,618,418,418,418,4

18,4180418,418,418,61809

19,019011902190319021902

190219,8190819ea180918,9

18,8

18,2i8,218,218,218,318,3

180318041804180418,41804

18,5i8,618,818,918,9i8,918,918081S',8180718081807

1805

DATA. OATEN: 18~28~76 'ULlAN DATE! 294 T1NE I PST

PACll'1C GAS.4 Kl,KCTRlC. PaVKR CO,"-44$f~4(++i r e,'"'.".- '",'PREPARED".BY'KNOCCO<!;.'5''",k""::5:.. '~'"=".;":-..: ~> .'..~ PgAi)

g.-".'EMPS

tN dEGREES C

TAHE

188288388488588688

788S88988

188811881288

138814881588168817881S88

198828882188228823882488

MEANS

STA DCM

1Se71S.S19ei19e219e219e8

19el1SeS1SeS19e319e219e4

19e419e419e419e319e219e2

19e219e119ei19o81Se91SeS

19ei

DATA DATE! 18-21.-76 JUL 1 AN 'DATE! 295

~ y,r yy ~ ~ ~,e ~

TlME! PST TEMPS 1N DEGREESt,'lHK

STA lS STA OS ~T STA SE

108208300489588660

788868988

186811801268

14881508168817661866

196028662168228823602488

180919081901190218081807

1807180718e918e718081807

180919011901.190 819011902

190219091906190219021902

1908

17,7,1800'801

180318041804

180118011803170817,517,5

170 I18,21805180018 '17e9

17e51709180418 e518081808

18ei

18 91808180618,618,51804

18 '18,418,518 718061807

18,818e919,019,8f,90819,0

19,019,018,9180818081807

1808

18,71808180618,618041803

1803180318e3180318,51805

18,518,518,518,6180718 7

1807180818,818 0818081808

1806

OATA

T1HE

188288388488588688

788888988

188811881288

138814881588168817881888

198828882188228823882488

4g

~ ",. '.~

.e'ATE~ 18-21-76

STA OCM

18.818eB18e718e618e518e3

18e418e818e918e919e819e8

19e219ei19e819e819e319e3

19e319e419e419e419e219e2

JULtAN OATE! 295

~ ~ W4 ~ ~ ~ ~

': ~ a>w'x:p,~Sq'- '

~ ) Li

pAC ff'1C- ~AS '4: KI KCTRLC'OHER '"e~ e " = h~. <q,, g<',>;.,;~gg~g@

pREpARED eY ENOECO

p$ $ TEQpS t N pEGREES C

HEANl 19e8

+ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~m

%%fr '» ~ 0 p + IA'm

1 m ~ „,

PACJI'fC GAS 5 tgtv~nle. pvecee v~,PRgPJRKP .Bg -ENQKCO i,',;." '

OATA

Tive

PATE( $ 8~22e 76 ( JULtAN OATEN 296I

STA lS~ STA OS STA 4C STA SE

TINE) PST TENPS lN OKGREES C

188288388488588688

/88888988

188811881288

138814881588168817881888

198828882188228823882488

HEANf

19e819e2:19e219e219e2:19.2(

19e219e81Se919el18e819 ei

19,819e3.19e819e819e8.19e8

18e8iSe718e618e518e618e5

19e8

19e119ei19,118e919e818,3

17e417,417,818,118,418,4

18e618e618,818,418 e318 6

18,118e318e218,418.418e3

18e4

18.818e818,81S,S18eS18,8

18 7.18e618e418e318e418,4

18,518e618,618e418 e31Se1

18,818e818,818,818e818,8

18,4

18,818e818e71Se718e718,7

18e718e718,418e318',418,4

18e518e618,618,'618,518,4

18e318e318e318e2iSe218ei

18e5

I C ~„~as . ~ 1, O s s Lll o OIO~amJ'a".I ') ~s "= .'s aJ:'' w «I'- I A .LU'I ~ s s..~ '.."L3 « '= ~

PREPARFO BY CNOKCQI ~ I

PATA PATEi <8 22 76 —-JULIAN DATE! 296

TlHE S'TA OCM"

TlMEt PST TEMPS lN OEGREES C

~0

~

~ ~

188288388488588688

788888988

188811881288

138814881588i688 .

17801B88

198828882188228823882488

MEANt

19e219e818o918o919e819o2

19ei19eiie.9ie.918e918e9

19e819e318,8io.718e818e6

18e618e5ia,518o518e41S.4

18e8

>I, 4 '' ~,I

I( I g

~ J4

C