ML15273A443

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Nuclear. 2009. Evaluation 2009-8466, Rev. 0, Final Issue, Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact Non- Safety Related. LaSalle County Generation Station Units 1 & 2. September 2009
ML15273A443
Person / Time
Site: LaSalle  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 09/10/2009
From:
Exelon Nuclear, Sargent & Lundy
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML15273A423 List:
References
11333-120, RIS-15-254 2009-08466, Rev 0, L-003545, Rev 000
Download: ML15273A443 (41)
v • d • e


Text

ER REFERENCES TO BE DOCKETED ATTACHMENT 12

Caic No. L-003545, Rev. 000 A7TTACHMENT A, Page A2 of A41 S&LL~ Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 Exelon Nuclear LaSalle County Generating Station Task Report 47- Environmental Impact Project No. 11333-120 Page 1 C.

EXELON NUCLEAR Evaluation 2009-08466 Rev. 0 Final Issue Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact Non-Safety Related LaSalle County Generating Station C Units 1 & 2 Prepared: , /wo/o9 Reviewed:

Approved: ".-- " Date<O--/6-2 o0'-

Pawel Kut -Sargent & Luldyu'c C Exelon. Sare-'t* &,*. Lj..nd,'

Ca/c No. L-003545, Rev. 000 A TTACH-MENT A, Page A3 of A41 Exelon Nuclear ' S&Lu-c Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 LaSaile County Generating Station Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact

  • .Project No. 11333-120 ,,Pagle 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No.

Table of Contents ............................................................................ 2 1.0 Purpose / Scope / Design Basis Summary ................................................. 4 2.0 System Description, Operational, and Material Status ...................................... 7 3.0 Methodology and Acceptance Criteria .................................................... 11 4.0 Assumptions.......................... .................................  :..................... 15 5.0 Design Input ................................................................................ 16 6.0 References .............................. .................................................. ... 17 7.0 Evaluations... ........................................ ....................................... 19 8.0 MUR PU Summary and Conclusions...................................................... 26 9.0 EPU Summary and Conclusions .................................................... ....... 29 10.0 Recommended LAR Text .................................................................. 32 11.0 Limitations and Open Items................................................................ 33

  • ~12.0 Attachments................................................................................. 34 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS No'- -- .. Diescription . .. ... .- .....__...... -"'-:-No. of P-ag-es:-=

i~.12.2 ... Il~lnois._Rive AnalysisEquatios.n* dCaculati,*,ons = - -.... . - ...... 4. ....

(Total Attachment Pages - 6)

(Total Pages - Main Body (34) plus Attachments (6) for a Total of 40 pages)

~Exelrn0

Ca/c No. L-003545, Rev. 000 ATTACHMENT A, Page A4 of A41 S&Lu-c Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 Exelon Nuclear LaSalle County Generating Station Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact Project No. 11333-120 Pane 3 C

II Ill LIST OF TABLES__

  • iTable No. (Title ...... Page1 S2-1 1Outfall Numbers and Descriptions 8hi

______-1 NPDES Resbtrctions on Outfall1001 _____ 13___

1 3-2~ NPDES Restrictions on Outfall A01 13 3-3 - ~NPDES Restrictions on Outfall B01 13.

3-4 fNPDES Restrctions on Outfall C01________ 13 3-5 INPDES Restrictions on Outfall E01____ 14 3-6 NPDES Restrictions on Outfall1101 _____ 14 !_____

3-7 Maximum Ambient River Temperatures 14

__-___ Air Emission Restrictions ________ 14

  • 4-1 Illinois River Temperatures _______ 15 S 5-1 .Monthly Maximum Biowdown Temperatures ... ~...L 16~

, 12-1 Daiiy__Average Discharge Data .(Over 89 Year Span)............- _.......3..

F S 12-2 Statistics of Dischiarge Data Over 89 Year Span 36 12-3___ River Temperature Analysis: Excel Equations ______ 37

, 12-4

' River Temperature Anal ysis: CLTP at 2880cfs L 3

,*12-5 River Temperature Analysis_: CLTP at 9350cfs .... 37 12-6___ River Temperature Analysis: CLTP at 12200cfs _________ 38 J] 12-7

_1248 River River Temperature Temperature Anaiysis:

Analysis: MUR MUR PU PU at at 2880cfs 9350s [: 38 38.

  • 1 12-9 River Temperature Analysis: MUR PU at 1 2200cfs - 39

,J 12-10 River Temperature Analysis: EPU at 2880cfs - - -- 39 12-11L.. River Temperature Analysis: EPU at 9350cfs C 12-12 River TemperatureAnalysis: EPU at 12200cfs

-39

................ 4**°*0...

L.T..~~S ... " .. . ..... ~ '-....

i 2-1 - Makeup and Biowdown System I 7  !

i 2-2  !.Outfall Locations .

7"1 i"Ambient Temperature Rise of the Illinois River under MUR PU .I 23~

___7-2_- Ambient Temperature Rise of the Illinois River under EPU 2 23____

!=_7_-3_...I Ambient Temperatu.re of te I/llinois Riv~er and NPDES Maximum Temperatures - i" 24..:

C Exelon. Swmgunt&*. Lundy"*

Caic No. L-003545, Rev. 000 A TTACHMENT A, Page A5 of A41 Exelon Nuclear _S&Lu-C Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 C. LaSalle County Generating Station Project No. 11333-120 ,,Page Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact 4

1.0 PURPOSE / SCOPE / DESIGN BASIS

SUMMARY

The purpose of this evaluation is to examine the expected changes to the Environmental Impact of the plant as a result of the Measurement Uncertainty Recapture (MUR) Power Uprate (PU) and the future consideration of proposed Extended Power Uprate (EPU) for the LaSalle County Generating Station (LSGS).

LaSalle is a two unit Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) nuclear plant located -55 miles southwest of Chicago, Illinois. LaSalle is provided with a BWR/5 supplied by General Electric. Units 1 and 2 began commercial operation in June 1982 and March 1984 respectively with a licensed core thermal power of 3323 MWt (Original Licensed Thermal Power (OLTP)). Both units have undergone a Stretch Power Uprate of 5.0% to increase the licensed core thermal power to 3489 MWt (Current Licensed Thermal Power (CLTP)). With MUR PU, the licensed core thermal power is expected to increase by up to 1.7%, or 3548 MWt, core. Further uprates are being considered at the station with a targeted EPU licensed thermal power of~-3988 MWt, core.

Evaluations here consider both the MUR PU and EPU programs. MUIR PUT evaluations for both safety related and non-safety related systems and components are performed at 102% CLTP, or ~3559 MWt, core / 3564 MWt, Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) power. This power level includes a small analytical margin above the targeted power

  • level to allow for calorimetric Uncertainty. For EPU, power train evaluations for non-C safety related components are preformed at 398MWt, core / 93MWt, NSSpower.

For safety related components, evaluations include up to 2% margin on core power to account for calorimetric uncertainty.

1.1 Scope This task report evaluates the environmental impact of an MU PU and EPU at LSGS.

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit [Ref. 6.2] places restrictions on the waste discharge from the plant to the Illinois River. The illinois Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [Ref. 6.20] places air emission and fuel Usage restrictions on the plant. Each source of waste is individually analyzed under uprated power levels and compared to NPDES and Illinois EPA restrictions. Thermal discharge to the mlinois River is analyzed to determine the impact on the ambient river temperature, which also has NPDES restrictions. The plant is then evaluated based on its compliance to existing himitations.

Radioactive discharges and emissions, both normal and accidental, are covered in Task Report 44: Radwaste [Ref. 6.18].

~Exel n~

Calc No. L-003545, Rev. 000 ATTACHMENT A, Page A6 of A41 Exelon Nuclear S&Lu-C Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 LaSaile County Generating Station Task Report 47 - Environmental impact Project No. 11333-120 Page 5 II I 1.2 Acronyms and Definitions 1.2.1 Table of Acronyms Acronym M~eaning BWR B Qofling W..ater R~eactor CLTP Current

-- !lcensed Iherrnal Eower DMR ____j Qscharge M.onitoring Report EPA Environmental Protection Agency ________

EPU extended P~ower l~prate______

GE General Electric gpm gallons per minute HP [High Eressure____ ________

IP i ntermediate Pressure

  • LP jLowPressure____

LSGS LaSalle County Generating Station MUR PU JMeasurement U~ncertainty Recapture Power U~prate ,

NPDES INational Pollutant Discharge Eliminatlon .system C ~NSSS OLTP Nuclear Steam -suppiy System______

Original Licensed Thermal Power____

PEPSETh PEPSEThI is a computer code designed to model steady-state power plant heat balances from Scientech, Inc.____ J PM Particulate Mratter PU Power Uprat

____& _ *argent§and Lundy u.c ,

S&W . tone and Webster ...

VOM_ V~olatie Organic Materiai 1.2.2 Definitions Blowdown - The discharge from the man-made cooling lake at LSGS to the Illinois Ri~ver. Blowdown serves to dilute and dispose of sanitary and non-r'adioactive wastes, control Total Suspended Solid (TSS) concentrations in the lake, and control the lake water level.

C_ Exelon. Snr'gerlt ,a- Lurndy~"

Caic No. L-003545, Rev. 000 ATTACHMENT A, Page A7 of A41 Exelon Nuclear S&LI+/-C Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 LaSalle County Generating Station Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact Project No. 11333-120 Paqe 6 C

II t tI w CBOD 5 (5 Day Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand) - An evaluation of pollution levels in wastewaters which measures the amount of oxygen consumed by living organisms when decomposing organic wastes in the water over a 5 day span.

Ofal- an outfall is a waste discharge structure; NPDBS refers to limitations at certain outfall points, which correspond to sampling locations below the last point at which wastes are added to the discharge line.

C C Exelrn. Swgu*trid= &P Lundy"

Caic No. L-003545, Rev. 000 ATTACHMENT A, Page A8 of A41 Exelon Nuclear S&LL+/-c Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 LaSalle County Generating Station Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact Project No. 11333-120 Page 7 C 2.0 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION, OPERATIONAL, AND MATERIAL STATUS 2.1 System / Component Description 2.1.1 Makeup and Blowdown Discharge System The Circulating Water (CW) used in the main condenser is stored in a man made cooling lake at LSGS. Makeup water in the lake is pumped from the Illinois River with three pumps, having a total capacity of 90,000 gpm [Ref. 6.1]. Debris from the river is filtered out by the intake screen at the inlet of the makeup pipe. CW is pumped to the main condenser, where it removes heat from the turbine exhaust steam. It is then returned :to the cooling lake at an elevated temperature, where it evaporatively cools as it returns back to the condenser inlet.

CW in the lake is constantly being discharged back to the Illinois River by means of the blowdown system, which serves to flush out waste and regulate water levels in the cooling lake. The blowdown line has a discharge capacity of 200 cfs [Ref. 6.1]. Along

  • with lake water, blowdown accepts wastes from the sources listed in Table 2-I. It then empties into the river at Outfall1001 (see Fig. 2-2). Blowdown discharges at a temperature higher than the ambient temperature of the Illinois River, effectively raising the overall river temperature. A diagram of the makeup and discharge system is shown in Figure 2-1.

C I.

N ,

7T A

K 6.*

Fig. 2-1: Makeup and Blowdown System [Ref. 6.6]

C- Exele~n. *.vgur'irt* 6, Lunidy,'

Caic No. L-003545, Rev. 000 ATTACHMENT A, Page A9 of A41 Exelon Nuclear S&LY~c Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 LaSalle County Generating Station Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact

-. Project No. 11333-120 Pagle 8

.. 2.1.2 Outfall Description LSGS has a NPDES Permit which allows for the discharge of pollutants into the Illinois River, within certain restrictions outlined in the permit [Ref. 6.2]. Pollutant concentrations in the Outfalls to the river must be below the maximum values in the permit. Uprated power operation may increase pollution from certain sources, so each must be analyzed to ensure that at MUR PU or EPU operation, LSGS remains within the pollution limitations of the NPDES permit. In addition to pollution control, the NPDES Permit also restricts thermal discharge to the Illinois River, since increased river temperatures can have a damaging effect on the surrounding ecosystem.

Table 2-1: Outfall Numbers and Descriptio~ns [Ref. 6._2]

S Outfall Source of Waste 001* Cooling lake blowdown A01 Demineralizer reeeatwastes

. B01 Sewage treatment plant effluetI

~C01 Wastewater treatment system effluent _____

i D01 Cooling water Intake screen backwash (cooling pond) 1, E01 Unit 1 and 2 radwaste treatment system effluent

,; F01 Auxiliary reactor cooling water _______

i- G01 North site storm water runoff -____

C. "l*

H01 101 .

Sot site storm water runoff Reverse osmosis system reject water, greensand. *filter backwash___,

i, 02 Ilinisive make-up water Intake

  • Outtalls A01 through 101 are Incorporated into Outfall1001.

( Exelon.

Caic No. L-003545,"Rev. 000 A7TACHMENT A, PageAIO of A41 S&LIIc Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 Exelon Nuclear LaSalle County Generating Station Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact Proiect No. 11333-120 Pane 9 C.

  • elon S~alle Generation Company. LLCk*

County Station PDES Permit No. IL0048151 C 2-2: Outfall Locations [Ref. 6.21 C Exelon. Bargurit& LundV~

Caic No. L-003545, Rev. 000 A7TFACHMENT A, Page All of A41 S&LLIc Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 Exelon Nuclear LaSalle County Generating Station Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact Proiect No. 11333-120 PaQe 10 C 2.1.3 Air Emission Sources of non-radiological air emissions are five diesel generators, one gasoline storage tank, and a dispensing facility equipped with vapor recovery systems [Ref. 6.20]. The Illinois EPA permit places emission restrictions on nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic materials (VOM), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and particulate matter (PM) on the five diesel generators [Ref. 6.20] (see Table 3-8).

In addition to discharges, the permit places restrictions on total distillate fuel oil and gasoline usage for all internal combustion engines.

2.2 System Engineer: Keith Kehring 2.3 Summary of Interview [Ref. 6.12]

Lake levels are maintained steady within inches. If makeup is lost, blowdown is temporarily suspended. Makeup has previously been down for over a month and the lake level dropped by over a foot. This was not an issue for operation.

Three makeup pumps are cycled two at a time. The flow froma two pumps is the permitted limit for makeup flow. River temperatures for makeup rival the summer lake temperatures. Makeup and blowdown are constantly run with no adjustment for cycles of C concentration. The lake level does not decrease quickly. TraveLing screens from the river are run continuously with screen wash pumps on.

Lu 2008 the lake temperature peaked at 96°F. In 2007, lake temperatures peaked at 980 F.

The hottest recent lake temperature was -99°F in 2005.

The lake makeup and blowdown piping has experienced numerous failures. A study for mitigating future problems is in progress.

2.4 Health Report Summary No health report is provided for the makeup and blowdown system.

C Exelkni Gm'rgun* aP-Lundy,,

Calc No. L-003545, Rev. 000 A TTACHMENT A, PageA12 of A41 Exelon Nuclear S&LIuc Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 LaSalle County Generating Station Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact Project No. 11333-120 Page 11 3.0 METHODOLOGY AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 3.1 Methodology 3.1.1 Overview The evaluation of the environmental impact of a power uprate at LSGS is conducted by determining all environmental limitations placed on the plant by the NPDES Permit [Ref.

6.2] and the Illinois EPA [Ref. 6.20]. Each source of waste discharged through the outfalls is analyzed in relation to a power uprate and evaluated against the restrictions on LSGS. Current operation is determined from monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMiRs) [Ref. 6.19]. Outfalls D01, FOI, G01, HOI, and 002 are intermittent discharges and have no specific NPDES limitations, and thus have no acceptance criteria associated with them. The impact of a PU on all outfalls and emissions is evaluated in Section 7.0.

3.1.2 Illinois River Temperature Analysis Blowdown from the cooling lake is discharged into the Illinois River [Ref. 6.2] at a temperature higher than the ambient temperature of the river. This effectively raises the overall temperature of the river, which could have a negative effect on the ecosystem. In addition to a maximum river temperature limit (see Table 3-7), the NPDES Permit states that as a result of the discharge from Outfall 001, the ambient temperature of the river C cannot increase more than 50 F above its current temperature [Ref. 6.2, Special Condition 3].

River flows were taken fr~om the United States Geological Survey (USGS) website [Ref.

6.7]. Based on USGS data [Ref. 6.7], the river was analyzed under three flows: 2880cfs, 9350cfs, and l2200cfs (see Attachment 12.1). Lower river flows result in a larger ambient temperature increase, and thus represent the limiting case analyzed in this evaluation. Monthly river temperatures upstream of the plant are based on makeup temperatures used in a previous cooling lake performance calculation [Ref. 6.9]. River temperatures near the plant are assumed to be the same as the makeup temperatures, since makeup comes directly from the Illinois River.

Although there is no NPDES limitation on the blowdown flow, operating procedure LOP-WP-04 [Ref. 6.8] states a high blowdown flow of 58,000 gpm, which corresponds to the electronic full open position of the 0WL005 control valve. Although 58,000 gpm is not the absolute maximum flow through the valve, it corresponds to the 45% open position of the valve, which is the most it can be open without a manual override [Ref.

6.8]. For conservatism, this value is assumed as the constant blowdown flow into the river.

C Exelrn.

Caic No. L-003545, Rev. 000 A TTACHMENT A, PageA13 of A41 Exelon Nuclear S&Lu-c Evaluation No. 2009-08486, Rev. 0 CProject LaSalle County Generating Station No. 11333-120 Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact Page 12 The river temperature downstream of the plant is calculated using the following equation:

htm= (m,* -mbIo*)X h*=,* + ,nb,*hb,o (Eq. 3-1)

T* =* = nction(hd,*=,)

where:

bhdxram = river enthalpy downstream of Outfall1001 (BTU/lbn) h~tr*, = river enthalpy upstream of Outfall 001 (BTU/lb.)

hbl* = enthalpy of the blowdown water (BTU/lbm) m*=. = niver flow (ibm/br) m~lo* =blowdown flow (ibm/br)

Tdownuream = temperature of the river downstream of Outfall 001 (0 F)

The downstream temperature of the river is then determined from the calculated enthalpy.

The temperature rise of the river is calculated by subtracting the upstream temperature from the downstream temperature.

" 3.2 Computer Programs and Software The Illinois River temperature analysis performed herein utilizes Microsoft Bxcelg 2003

[Ref. 6.4], which is commercially available. The validation of Excel is implicit in the detailed review of all spreadsheets used in this analysis. All computer runs were performed using PC No. ZD3619 under the Windows XP operating system. Excel Add-in function STMFUNC is used to calculate the thermal properties of water and steam at varying operating conditions [Ref. 6.5]. The Excel Add-rn function STMFU.NC has been validated and approved for use in accordance with the S&L Quality Assurance (QA) program.

3.3 Acceptance Criteria 3.3.1 Acceptance Criterion #1 - The discharge from Outfall 001 must meet the foLlowing NPDES [Ref. 6.2] restrictions under uprated power:

C Exelon.

Caic No. L-003545, Rev. 000 ATTACHMENT A, Page A 14 of A41 S&LL~c Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 Exelon Nuclear LaSalle County Generating Station Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact Project No. 11333-120 Pa~e 13 C- II I Table 3-1: NPDES Restrictions on Outfall 001 i ,l 001: Blowdown Load Limit (Ibslday) Concentration Limits (rag/I) 30 Day Average I Daily Maximum__

30 Day Average I* Daily aximum pHMinimum: 6.0 Maximum: 9.0 Residual Chlorine J .

j ResidualOxi dant I "_ 0.25 3.3.2 Acceptance Criterion #2 - The discharge from Outfall A0l must meet the following NPDES [Ref. 6.21 restrictions under uprated power:

Table~3-2: NPDES Restrictions on Outfall A01 A01: Demlnerallzer Load imt(bdy) Concentration Limits (nag/I)

Regenerant Wastes La mt(b/a)-

I 30 Day Daily

__________IAverage 30 Day I

Daily Maximum 4Average Maximum Total Suspended Solids

('SS)

.r~ -L 15 L 30 3.3.3 Acceptance Criterion #3 : The discharge from Outfall B0l must meet the following NPDES [Ref. 6.2] restrctions under uprated power:

Tabe_-3 NPDES Restrictions on Outfail B01 C B01: Sewage Treatment Plant Effluent -

I Load Limit (Ibslday) 0Dy- Dil Concentration Limits (rag/I)~

a al Maximum Average L Maximum cBoD5

___ -Average

"'" 7.71 J 15.43 - 5 I so *i TSS 9.2 18. 30 60 i Furthermore, pH levels must remain with the range of 6.0-9.0.

3.3.4 Acceptance Criterion #4 - The discharge from Outfall C01 must meet the following NPDES [Ref. 6.2] restrictions under uprated power:

Table 3-4: NPDES Restrictions on Outfall C01- .

STreatment System Effluent ___D-_--y__0__yI _aly_

. pHMiximum: Avrae0Maximum..0i Trotal SsupendedSolids "

- 15 F 30 o,,& Grease I. - . ..- ..... . .. ._.! .. = =.=. - o ... .

C Exelkn. Sargent a. Lundy-*

Caic No. L-003545, Rev. 000 A TTACHMENT A, Page A15 of A41 Exelon Nuclear S&Lu'C Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 LaSalle County Generating Station Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact

  • .. Project No. 11333-120 ... Page 14 3.3.5 Acceprtance Criterion #5 - The discharge from Outfall B0l must meet the following NPDES [Ref. 6.2] restrictions under uprated power:

STreatment System Effluent J Table 3-5: NPDES Restrictions on Outfall E01 s/ay Cocntaio-mis(rgI S30 Day Average f Daily Maximum 30 Day Average_

Daily Maximum

!I

..... &Grease ... *.. .. 15_ ... ... 20 3.3.6 Acceptance Criterion #6 - The discharge from Outfall 101 must meet the following NPDES [Ref 6.2] restrictions under uprated power.

Table 3-6: NPDES Restrictions on Outfail I01 -

System Reject Water & I Greensand Filter Backwash ___"___

- 30 Day Dally 30

--- Day i Daly '

_________ ____ Average I Maximum I Average iMaximum ,'

STrOtal S._uspe n__ded=** ,/ds._(TSS). ....... ... ... .*... JI .. .=5.....!..... __. .

C.3. Acceptance Criterion #7 - As a result of the discharge from Outfall 001 into the Illinois River, the ambient temperature of the river cannot rise more than 5°F above its upstream temperature [Ref. 6.2].

3.3.8 Acceptance Criterion #8 -The ambient temperature of the Illinois River shall not exceed

  • the maximum temperatures listed in Table 3-7 by more than 30 F at any given time.

Table 3-:Maximum _Am_*bient River Temperatures [Ref. 6.2]- - ---

Rie 60F1 o. 0 I 60 0F 90o 9oo oo. 90F

o. Io-60Fo' IlTemp~  !.. L -.l ,__ I _

3.3.9 Acceptance Criterion #9 - The emission from the five diesel generators shall not exceed the yearly limitations shown below, in Table 3-8.

Table 3-8: Ah. Emission Restrictions [Ref. _6.20.]

  • _- .... i-O***CO" VO-M-=...PM 802s)__,.
' Limit 95.00 25.221 5.00 l2.26 7.50 ,

!1(Tons/year) .. .

~Exelon ,---

Caic No. L-003545, Rev. 000 ATTACHMENT A, Page A 16 of A41 Exelon Nuclear S&LL~c Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 LaSalle County Generating Station Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact Project No. 11333-120 Page 15 I

4.0 ASSUMPTIONS 4.1 Illinois River Temperatures - The upstream river temperatures used in the methodology described in Section 3.1.2 are based on the makeup temperatures from the LaSalle County Station Cooling Lake Performance calculation [Ref. 6.9]. It is assumed that the river temperatures are the same as the makeup temperatures, since makeup is taken directly from the Illinois River. The temperatures used are presented below, in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1: Illinois River Temperatures Month Temperature *

{January320 .

I'e~~l March

- L0.U-241.5

  • Aprils~

May J63.0 ,'

June 69.5 July 76.0 -, i

!"August j_ __76.5 September 72.5

  • Ocobr57.0 i~

C November 44.5 SDecember _ 40.0 4.2 Blowdown Flow - The blowdown flow to the Illinois River is conservatively assumed to be a constant 58,000 gpm. This value is a high blowdown flow associated with the electrcal full open position of valve OWL005 [Ref. 6.8]. Flows above 58,000 gpm require a manual overnide to open the valve further than 45%. This flow is conservative for determining the increase in river temperature.

C Exelkn. Saur~garut &* Liindy""

Caic No. 1_-003545, Rev. 000 ATTACHMENT A, PageA17 of A41 Exelon Nuclear S&Lu'c Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0

c. LaSalle County Generating Station Project No. 11333-120 5.0 DESIGN INP~UTS Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact Page 16 5.1I NPDES Restrictions - Discharge and waste restrictions placed on LSGS are taken from the NPDES Permit [Ref. 6.2].

5.2 Illinois River Flows - The Illinois River temperature analysis, per the methodology in Section 3.1.2, calculates the temperature rise under three river flows: 2880cfs, 9350cfs, and l2200cfs. These flows are taken from USGS data [Ref. 6.7] and correspond to the minimum, mean, and 80'!h percentile flows over the 89 year span from which this data was taken (see Attachment 12.1, Table 12-2).

5.3 Blowdown Suction Location - The blowdown suction pipe is located near~the condenser inlet, in the portion of the lake with the coolest water. This is taken from general site plan drawings [Ref. 6.17], which show the location of the CW uptake and the blowdown suction.

5.4 Blowdown Temperatures - Per Design Input 5.3, blowdown temperatures are taken to be equal to CW inlet temperatures. Blowdown temperatures at uprated power levels are based off current operating data [Ref. 6.11] and the methodology in Task Report 17:

Cooling Lake [Ref. 6.10, Section 7.1]. The blowdown temperatures used in this evaluation are monthly maxinmums and are presented in Table 5-1.

Tbe Monthly Blowdown

-~Ternperatures Blowdown Temp. 1*Biowdowni Temp. at CLTP at MUR PU ,JTemp. at EU; J~anuary February 64.52 71.28 ]*71.48 64.72 .J j

65.72 72.48 1'

i

~April March 72.86 ..

81.53 -- 73.06 81.73823 74.06 May 87.75 87.95 88.95  :

  • June 94.70 1 94.90 95.90
  • July 97.63 97.83 98.83

_________ I~ 99.39' - 959105 August 99.94.300.9 }

ISeptember j 93.10 j 93.30 - 8.36 94 October 87.16 87.36 -83 November 71.02  : 71.22 I 72.22 ,

December 59.80 ' 60.00 61.00  ;

5.5 EPA Emission Restrictions - Emission restrictions regarding nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic materials, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter are taken from the Illinois EPA operating permit for LSGS [Ref. 6.20]. Total distillate fuel oil and gasoline usage limits are also stated within the EPA permit.

~Exelrn.

Caic No. L-003545, ATTACHMENT Rev. A18 A, Page 000 of A41 Exelon Nuclear S&LL+/-c Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 LaSalle County Generating Station Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact Project No. 11333-120 ,Page 17 C

6.0 REFERENCES

6.1 LaSalle County Generating Station Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Rev. 14, April 2002, Sections 2.0 and 10.0.

6.2 NPDES Permit No. IL0048151, Public Notice/Fact Sheet of Proposed Reissued NPDES Permit to Discharge into Waters of the State. Illinois EPA, January 12, 2007.

6.3 GE-NB-AI300384-04-01 Rev 0, Task 612: Systems Not Impacted, General Electric, August 1999.

6.4 Microsoft Excel 2003, Sargent & Lundy LLC Program No. 03.2.286-1.0.

6.5 STMvFUNC (Steam Table Function Dynamic Link Library) S&L Program Number 03.7.598-2.0.

6.6 W. Fuller, "Operations Training Program: Lake Makeup and Blowdown" Rev. 5, Exelon Nuclear, 12/11/2006.

6.7 USGS Station 05543500, Illinois River at Marseilles IL, 10/01/1919 - 9/30/2008 (Attachment 12.1).

C 6.8 Operating Procedure LOP-WL-04 Rev. 27, "Lake Level and Blowdown Flow Control,"

April 28, 2009.

6.9 Calculation No. L-002456, LaSalle County Station Cooling Lake Performance, Rev. 1, 11/23/99.

6.10 S&L Evaluation 2009-07279, Task Report 17: Cooling Lake, Rev. 0.

6.11 Plant Operating Data downloaded from LaSalle P1 System, Point IDs LASO1 V_C361 and LA502 V_C361, March 2007 - March 2009.

6.12 2009-037 18, MUR BOP Equipment Assessment, Rev. 0, 8/14/2009.

6.13 Stone & Webster, LaSalle County Generating Station Units 1 and 2 Appendix K Power Uprate Feasibility Study, Circa 2001.

6.14 Stone & Webster, LaSal~e County Generating Station Units 1 and 2 EPU Power Uprate Feasibility Study, Circa 2001.

6.15 Technical Specifications for Unit 1 and 2, LaSalle County Generating Station.

6.16 S&L Evaluation 2009-03904, Task Report 16: Circulating Water System, Rev 0, 6/29/09.

C.

Exelon. Sa~rige*'* & Lzurndy",

Calc No. L-003545, Rev. 000 ATTACHMENT A, Page Af9 of A41 Exelon Nuclear S&Lu-c Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 LaSalle County Generating Station Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact Project No. 11333-120 Pagle 18 6.17 General Site Plan Drawing M-2, LaSalle County Generating Plant.

6.18 S&L Evaluation 2009-08462, Task Report 44: Radwaste, Rev 0A. (For Information Only) 6.19 LaSalle County Generating Station Discharge Monitoring Reports a) NPDES-DMR DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT JUNE 2008 b) NPDES-DMR DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT JULY 2008 c) NPDES-DMR DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT AUGUST 2008 d) NPDES-DMR DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT SEPT. 2008 e) NPDES-DMR DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT OCTOBER 2008 f) NPDES-DMR DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT NOV. 2008 g) NPDES-DMR DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT DECEMBER 2008 h) NPDES-DMR DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT JANUARY i) NPDES-DMR DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT FEBRUARY 2009 j) NPDES-DMR DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT MARCH 2009 k) NPDES-DMR DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT APRIL 2009 1)NPDES-DMR DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT MAY 2009 S 6.20 ApiaonNo. 75040086, "Federally Enforceable State Operating Permit," Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, December 11, 2000.

6.21 Annual Air Emission Reports a) 2008 Annual Emission Report, LaSalle County Generating Station, Exelon, Feb 6 2009.

b) 2007 Annual Emission Report, LaSalle County Generating Station, Exelon, Apr 25 2008.

S Exelkn - ,

Calc No. L-003545, Rev. 000 A TTA CHMENTA, Page A20 of A41 Exelon Nuclear S&LL+/-c Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 LaSalle County Generating Station Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact Project No. 11333-120 Page 19 7.0 EVALUAT[ONS The discharge at Outfalls 001 and 002 are analyzed in this section. Each waste contribution to' Outf'all 001 is analyzed independently. Discharges D01, F~l, G01, H01 and Outfall1002 have no specific NPDES limitations.

7.1 Evaluation of Blowdown at Discharge 001 Blowdown utilizes water in the cooling lake to dilute and discharge waste from the sources listed in Table 2-1. Each discharge (A01-I0l) which contributes to Outfall 001 is analyzed in the subsequent sections. Since lake temperatures are elevated at uprated power, water loss due to evaporation will increase. This results in higher cycles of concentration, which effectively represents the increase in TSS of the lake water.

According to the analysis in Task Report 17: Cooling Lake [Ref. 6.10], a bounding estimate for the increase in TSS levels under MUR PU is 1.6% and 17% under EPU. The TSS levels of Outfall 001 are not specifically noted in the DMRs ['Ref. 6.19], but each contributing source of waste has a large margin compared to the N-PDES Permit. Even a 17% increase in the cycles of concentration in the lake is not expected to violate NPDES restrictions.

Outfall 001 also has restrictions on residual oxide concentrations. Oxidants chlorine and bromine are used for biocide treatment of the CW flow through the plant. The NPDBS C Permit rgltsresidual bromine and chlorine for release to the river. Biocide treatment is expected to be minimally impacted by a PU. Increased discharge temperatures under higher reactor power could potentially increase biological growth and the need for biocide treatment, but the temperature increase is expected to have an insignificant impact on existing controls for monitoring and controlling residual chlorine [Ref. 6.3].

7.2 Evaluation of Demineralizer Regenerant Wastes at Discharge A01 LSGS no longer uses the denilneralizer filter resin regeneration system, and thus does not discharge regenerant wastes [Ref. 6.19]. Exhausted resins in the demineralizer are now replaced by new resin, resulting in no need for the regeneration subsystem ['Ref. 6.1].

7.2.1 MUIR PU Evaluation of Discharge A0l - Since the regeneration system is no longer in use, an MUR PU has no effect on Discharge A0l. Wastes are not expected at Discharge A0l, and thus Acceptance Criterion #2 is met.

7.2.2 EPU Evaluation of Discharae A01 - Since the regeneration system is no longer in use, an EPU has no effect on Discharge A0 1. Wastes are not expected at Discharge A01, and thus Acceptance Criterion #2 is met.

~Exekn,

Calc No. L-003545, Rev. 000 ATTACHMENT A, Page A21 of A41 Exelon Nuclear S&IY*c Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 C. LaSalle County Generating Station ProJect No. 11333-120 Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact Page 20 7.3 Evaluation of Sewage Treatment Plant Effluent at Discharge B01 The sewage treatment at LSGS is not dependent on the reactor power since sewage discharge is not related to any power specific operations. OutfalU B01 receives waste from sanitary wastewaters and eyewash station wastewaters [Ref. 6.2]. The make up of the sewage, its quantity, and CBOD 5 treatment processes are not related to reactor power and thus, Discharge B01 is unaffected by a PU. This is supported by General Electric (GE) evaluations documented in Task 612: Systems Not Impacted Report [Ref. 6.3], which identifies the sewage treatment system as one not affected by plant power level.

7.3.1 MUR PU Evaluation of Discharge N01 - Per current DMRs [Ref. 6.19], Discharge fl01 is within the NPDES waste limits and is not expected to change under MUR PU, thus Acceptance Criterion #3 is met.

7.3.2 EPU Evaluation of Discharge B01 - Per current DMRs [Ref. 6.19], Discharge B01 is within the NPDES waste limits and is not expected to change under EPU, thus Acceptance Criterion #3 is met.

7.4 Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Effluent at Discharge C0l Discharge C01 receives wastewater from various plant operations such as the water (I softening processes, fire protection systems, service water systems, laboratory liquid wastes, ec[Ref. 6.2]. Teedischarges are ntsignificantly afetdbyPUThNDE Permit places restrictions on TSS, oil, and grease levels in the water. These sources of waste are dependent on housekeeping, equipment leakage, and the effectiveness of oil separators. MUR PU and EPU operation would not cause a significant increase in TSS, oil, or grease in Discharge C01.

7.4.1 MUR PU Evaluation of Discharge C01 - Per current DMRs [Ref. 6.19], Discharge C01 is within the NPDES waste limits and is not expected to change under MUR PU, thus Acceptance Criterion #4 is met.

7.4.2 EPU Evaluation of Discharge C01 - Per current DMRs [Ref. 6.19], Discharge C01 is within the NPDES waste limits and is not expected to change under EPU, thus Acceptance Criterion #4 is met.

7.5 Evaluation of Cooling Water Intake Screen Backwash at DischargeD01 Screen wash debris is dependent on river conditions and intake flows. As discussed in Section 7.1, evaporative losses increase under uprated power operation due to higher lake temperatures. This results in more makeup water needed to maintain lake water levels.

More makeup flows will result in more debris caught by the intake screen. Uptake flows are not expected to be drastically increased, but screen washes may become more C Exel n.

Caic No. L-003545, A7TACHMENT Rev. ",22 A, Page 000 of A41 Exelon Nuclear S&LatC Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0

c. LaSalle County Generating Station Project No. 11333-120 Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact

,Page Sfrequent. There is no NPDES limit placed on this discharge, but there is a requirement to 21 keep the trash basket clean and ensure proper intake screen maintenance, preventing flow blockage and debris from entering the cooling lake.

7.6 Evaluation of Radwaste Treatment System Effluent at Discharge E01 The NPDES Permit establishes radwaste treatment effluent compliance limits for TSS, oil, and grease. Radwaste treatment is an offline process which does not directly relate to the plant operating power. Rather, it closely relates to 1) general plant design and materials of construction, 2) operating experience with leaking fuel, and 3) outage activities and practices. None of these relate to the reactor power level. In addition, very little TSS are expected in liquid radwaste effluent, while oil and grease content is a result of plant cleanliness, equipment leakage, and oil separator effectiveness.

Radwaste is analyzed in detail in Task Report-44: Radwaste [Ref. 6.18]. There is no discharge of TSS, oil, and grease content; this is not expected to change under uprated power levels at Discharge EOI.

7.6.1 MUR PU Evaluation of Discharge B01 -Per current DMRs [Ref. 6.19], Discharge E01 is within the NPDES waste limits and is not expected to change under MUR PU, thus Acceptance Criterion #5 is met.

(7 7.6.2 EPU Evaluation of DshreE01 Per current DMPs [Rf .9,DshreE01 is within the N'PDES waste limits and is not expected to change under EPU, thus Acceptance Criterion #5 is met.

7.7 Evaluation of Auxiliary Reactor Equipment Cooling Water at Discharge F01 The reactor auxiliary systems function in the case of accidents to provide standby power, heat sink capacity, and an added assurance of reactor shutdown capability [Ref. 6.1t]. The reactor building closed cooling water system consists of five piumps, five heat exchangers, and control and instrumentation [Ref. 6.1]. The operation of this cooling water system, and associated discharge, is not expected to be affected by PU, especially when the main function of this equipment is to provide additional safety in the event of an accident. There are no specific NPDES restrictions on waste from this outfall.

7.8 Evaluation of Storm Water Runoff at Discharges G01 and H01 Storm water runoff is unaffected by PU, since discharge depends on sur-rounding structutres and geological features around the plant. The NPDES Permit does not have any specific restrictions on storm water rnmoff, but requires LSGS to conduct an annual inspection of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity and ensure that these sites are properly treated [Ref. 6.2, Special Condition #81.

C Exelono

Caic No. L-003545, Rev. 000 ATTACHMENT A, PageA23 of A41 Exelon Nuclear S&LLIc Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0

(-Y LaSalle County Generating Station Project No..11333-120 Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact Pale 22 7.9 Evaluation of Reverse Osmosis System Reject Water at Discharge 101 Reverse Osmosis reject water has a NPDBS limit on TSS concentration. TypicaLly, demineralized makeup flows at a nuclear power stations are limiting during startup, shutdown, and outages (i.e., for flushing and filling operations). Under a PUT, these practices are not expected to significantly change. Therefore, reverse osmosis effluent flows are not expected to see a significant change under an MUIR PUY or EPU.

7.9.1 MUIR PU Evaluation of Discharge 101 - Per current DMRs (Ref. 6.191, Discharge 101 is within the NPDES waste limits and is not expected to change under MUIR PU, thus Acceptance Criterion #6 is met.

7.9.2 EPU Evaluation of Discharge 101 - Per current DMRs ['Ref. 6.19], Discharge 101 is within the NPDES waste limits and is not expected to change under EPU, thus Acceptance Criterion #6 is met.

7.10 Evaluation of pH Levels The pH of each discharge line is reported in the monthly DMR (Ref. 6.19]. All discharge pH values fall in the acceptable range of 6.0 and 9.0 [Ref. 6.2]. Provided that all other limitations (residual oxidants, TSS, and oil levels) are within acceptable quantities at uprated power levels, the pH of each discharge is not expected to diverge from the C acceptable range stated in the NDPES Pernit. Per the above evaluations, levels of other pollutants are not expected to drastically change under MUR PU or EPU, and thus, pH levels are also expected to remain within the NDPES limitations.

7.11 Evaluation of the Illinois River Temperature The ambient temperature rise of the Illinois River as a result of blowdown discharge from Outfall 001 is analyzed per the methodology in Section 3.1.2. The upstream river temperatures used are shown in Assumption 4.1. The flow range of the river is taken from USGS data [Ref. 6.7]. This evaluation considers river flows of 2880cfs, 9350cfs, and 12200cfs. Per Assumption 4.2, the blowdown flow is taken as a constant 58,000 gpm. Fig. 7-1 shows the predicted ambient temperature rise of the Illinois River under MUR PU while Fig. 7-2 shows the temperature rise under EPU. Fig. 7-3 compares the ambient river temperatures with maximum values in the NPDES Permit (Ref. 6.2]. Data tables and calculations for CLTP, MUIR PU, and EPU are shown in Attachment 12.2.

C Exelrn.

Caic No. L-003545, Rev. 000 A1T'ACHMENT A, Page A24 of A41 Exelon Nuclear S&LI~c Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 LaSalle County Generating Station Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact Prolect No. 11333-120 Page 23 C

a.

I.-

4.~

E 444~ ~ ~

,~ c~p *~ ~

~P  ?(0 Fig. 7-1: AmbIent Temperature Rise of the Illinois River under MUR PU C 6 I 1 I

,--River Flow of 2880cfs I

I I I I I I River Flow of 9350cfs --U- River Flow of 12200cfsj 1 I NItbDES ,Imit C.

4, a

a 3 -

5-2----------------------

V tl(

    • ,, -- +
  • Fig. 7-2: Ambient Temperature Rise of the Illinois River under EPU C Exelon. Brgent& Lundy"

Caic No. L-003545, Rev. 000 A7TACHMENT A, Page A25 of A41 S&Lu+/-c Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 Exelon LaSalle Nuclear County Generating Station Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact Project No. 11333-120

  • Page 24 C
  • II II m 92

--82 S72 a.

E

  • 62 a 52 E

42 32 Fig. 7-3: Mixed Downstream Temps of the IlI~nois River C Per Fig.'s 7-1 and 7-2, the ambient temperature rise of the Illinois River under both MUR PU and EPU operation does not exceed 1.70 F, which is 3.3 0 F below the N'PDES limit of 50 F. This is a conservative analysis since the 1.70 F rise occurs at the lowest flow (2880cfs) the Illinois River has seen in the 89 year span the USGS has collected data at that site [R.ef. 6.71.

Based on the assumed upstream temperatures (see Section 4.1), the resulting ambient river temperatures remain below the NPDES maximums shown in Acceptance Criterion

  1. 8. This is shown in Fig. 7-3, which shows river temperatures under the minimum flow rate of 2880cfs, since this is the limiting case in this temperature analysis.

7.11.1 MUR PU Evaluation of the Illinois River -The temperature rise in the Illinois River, as a result of discharge from Outfall 001, is expected to be 1.60 F under MUR PU plant operation. This is below the 5°]F NPDES limit and thus, Acceptance Criterion #7 is met.

The ambient temperature of the Illinois River remains below the maximum limits set by NPDES Special Condition #3 (see Fig. 7-3) and thus, Acceptance Criterion #8 is met.

7.11.2 EPU Evaluation of the Illinois River - The temperature rise in the Illinois River, as a result of discharge from Outfall 001, is expected to be 1.7°F under EPU plant operation.

This is below the 5°F NPDES limit and thus, Acceptance Criterion #7 is met.

C Exelrn. Sa-ultm &- Luindy"

Ca/c No. L-003545, Rev. 000 ATTACHMENT A, Page A26 of A41 Exelon Nuclear S&La~c Evaluation NO. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 LaSalle County Generating Station Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact Project No. 11333-120

  • Pare 25 (7 The ambient temperature of the Illinois River remains below the maximum limits set by NPDES Special Condition #3 (see Fig. 7-3) and thus, Acceptance Criterion #8 is met.

7.12 Evaluation of Intake Discharge at Outfall1002 Outfall 002 discharges waste associated with the makeup water intake. This includes river intake screen backwash, trench wash water, river screen house stormwater and drain discharges, etc ['Ref. 6.2]. None of these operations is affected by a power uprate.

Increased makeup flows at uprated power (to account for evaporation loss) [Ref. 6.101 may necessitate more frequent screen washes. The NPDES Permit does not have any specific waste restrictions on Outfall1002, but no significant changes are expected at PU.

7.13 Evaluation of Air Emission from Diesel Generators Non-radiological pollutant emissions at LSGS are regulated by the illinois EPA operating permit [Ref. 6.20]. Radiological wastes (both Liquid and gaseous) are analyzed in Task Report 44: Radwaste [Ref. 6.18]. The BPA regulates fuel consumption and emissions from the five diesel generators on site at LSGS. The generators provide stand-by AC power to Units 1 and 2 and provide auxiliary power for safe shutdown in the event of a total auxiliary power loss [Ref. 6.1]. Since generator use is primarily during surveillance testing, maintenance evolutions, and emergency situations, the function and associated emissions are not expected to be significantly impacted by a PU. Fuel usage, storage, and C handling are also not expected to be affected by PU since corresponding generator and engine usage is independent of reactor power. Current emissions are taken from 2007 and 2008 annual reports [Ref. 6.211 and show that LSGS is within the restrictions of the EPA permit with a significant margin for MUR PU and EPU operation.

C Exelon. Sargen &*- L.urdy",

Caic No. L-003545, Rev. 000 ATTACHMENT A, Page A27 of A41 Exelon Nuclear S&La~c Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 cProject LaSalle County Generating Station No. 11333-120, Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact Page 26 8.0 MUR PU

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS 8.1 MUR PU Acceptability 8.1.1 Evaluation of Outfall 001.- The blowdown water is analyzed in Section 7.1. TSS levels are expected to increase approximately 1.6%. Residual oxide and chlorine levels may increase slightly due to increased CW temperatures, but not significantly under an MUR PU. Per Section 7.10, pH levels are expected to remain unchanged under PU. Individual waste contributions to Outfall 001 are analyzed is subsequent sections. Per Sections 7.1 and 7.10, Acceptance Criterion #1 is met under MUR PU.

8.1.2 Evaluation of Outfall A01 - Per Section 7.2, the regeneration system which contributed waste to Outfall A0l is no longer in use and thus, no discharge from the deinineralizer regenerant is expected. This outfall is unaffected by MUR PU, and thus Acceptance Criterion #2 is met under MUR PU.

8.1.3 Evaluation of Outfall B01 - Per Section 7.3, the discharge at Outfall B01, which accepts waste from the sanitary wastewater and the eyewash station, is unaffected by a PU. Since current operation is within NPDES limitations and discharge is not expected to change under MUR PU, Acceptance Criterion #3 is met under MUR PU.

CC 8.1.4 Evaluation of Outfall C0l - The TSS, oil, and grease levels in Outfall C0l are not expected to increase under MUR PU since the source of these wastes do not depend on reactor power. Since current operation is witbin NPDES limitations and discharge is not expected to change under MUR PU, Acceptance Criterion #4 is met under MUR PU.

8.1.5 Evaluation of Outfall B01 - TSS, oil, and grease levels in the radwaste effluent are not expected to increase under MUR PU since the source of these wastes do not depend on reactor power. Since current operation is within NPDES limitations and discharge is not expected to change under MUR PU, Acceptance Criterion #5 is met under MUR PU.

8.1.6 Evaluation of Outfall 101 - The reverse osmosis system operates mainly during start-up, shut downs, and outages, all of which are unaffected by the reactcr power. Even under uprated power conditions, start-up procedures and conditions are not expected to change.

Since current operation is within N'PDES limitations and discharge is not expected to change under MUR PU, Acceptance Criterion #6 is met under MUR PU.

8.1.7 Evaluation of the Illinois River - The analysis of the river temperature is conducted in Section 7.11. The effective rise in river temperature due to the discharge at Outfall 001 is expected to be less than 1.7°F, which is below the NPDES limit of 5°F. Thus, Acceptance Criterion #7 is met under MUR PU. The resulting river temperatures .areshown in Fig. 7-3 and compared to the NPDES maximum allowable temperatures. Each month, the river temperature is well below the NPDES Special Condition #3 maximum and thus, Acceptance Criterion #8 is met under MUR PU.

C Exel n.

Calc No. L-O03545, Rev. 000 ATTACHMENT A, Page A28 of A41 Exelon Nuclear S&LI+/-c Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 LaSalle County Generating Station Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact Project No. 11333-120 Page 27 C 8.1.8 Evaluation of Air Emissions - Air emissions are analyzed in Section 7.13 per the illinois EPA restrictions. Restrictions are placed on the five diesel generators, which provide auxiliary power to Units 1 and 2. Since the generators are used during surveillance testing and emergencies, operation and associated emissions are not expected to change under normal MUR PU operation. Thus, Acceptance Criterion #9 is met under MU PU.

8.2 Document Changes 8.2.1 USAR. Chan.e~s.

Section 2.0, 9.0, and 10.0 of the UFSAR were reviewed and no necessary changes were found.

8.2.2 Technical Specifications Technical Specifications for Units 1 and 2 were searched for the terms "waste" and "discharge" and no necessary changes were found.

8.2.3 Design Basis Documents No Design Basis Documents were used in this evaluation.

C 8.2.4 Design Calculations No calculations were used in this evaluation.

8.2.5 Other Document Chanees No other documents that would require modification were used in this evaluation.

8.3 Hardware Changes None.

8.4 Instrument Setpoint and Scaling Changes None.

8.5 Other Recommendations (Inspections, Surveillances, Testing)

None.

C Exelen. 5er'gantl ,1& Lundw',

Caic No. L-003545, Rev. 000 ATTACHMENT A, Page A29 of A41 S&LL+/-c Evaluation No. 2009-08466. Rev. 0 Exelon Nuclear LaSalle County Generating Station Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact Prelect No. 11333-120 Page 28 C 8.6 MUR PU Margin Assessment 8.6.1 Illinois River Ambient Temperature Rise - The maximum ambient rise in the river temperature due to the discharge at Outfall 001 is less than 1.70 F when the river ilow is 2880cfs in January. This is 3.3°F below the 5°F NPDES limit. The margin under CLTP is 3.40 F.

8.6.2 Resultiun Illinois River Temperature - The resulting temperatures of the Illinois River are shown in Fig.7-3. The minimum margin between calculated temperatures and NPDES maximum temperatures occurs in August with the river 12.5°F below the 90°F maximum, essentially the same as the margin under CLTP.

8.7 Summary of Recommendations None.

8.8 Comparison to Previous Studies [Ref.'s 6.13, 6.141 8.8.1 Stone and Webster Ap~endix K Power Uprate Study The Stone and Webster (S&W) Appendix K PUT study states that the main duty increase associated with a PUT is associated with the circulating water system, due to higher temperatures. Increases in lake temperatures are expected to be "much less than l°F",

C. which is consistent with the 0.2 0 F increase expected in Task Report 17: Cooling Lake

[Ref. 6.103. Non-radiological environmental impact related to a PU is not expected to cause any major issues with current NPDES Permits. This evaluation is consistent with that conclusion.

In regards to specific sources of waste, GE evaluation states that (among others) drains, oil disposal, radwaste drains, screen wash, sewage treatment, treated water, makeup demineralizers, chlorination, fire seals, and fuel storage systems are all unaffected or insignificantly affected by a PU [Ref. 6.3].

Exelrn. Sargent &. Lajndy.'*

Caic No. L.-003545, Rev. 000 A TTACHMENT A, PageA30 of A41 Exelon Nuclear S&Lu-c Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 LaSalle County Generating Station Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact

  • .-- Project No. 11333-120 Page 29 9.0 EPU

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS 9.1 EPU Acceptability 9.1.1 Evaluation of Outfall 001 - The blowdown water is analyzed in Section 7.1. TSS levels are expected to increase approximately 17%, which is still not expected to exceed NPDES limits. Residual oxide and chlorine levels may increase slightly due to increased CW temperatures, but not beyond NPDES limits. Per Section 7.10, pH levels are expected to remain unchanged under PU. Individual waste contributions to Outfall 001 are analyzed is subsequent sections. Per Sections 7.1 and 7.10, Acceptance Criterion #1 is met under EPU.

9.1.2 Evaluation of Outfall A0l - Per Section 7.2, the regeneration system which contributed waste to Outfall AOL is no longer in use and thus, no discharge from the demineralizer regenerant is expected. This outfall is unaffected by EPTJ, and thus Acceptance Criterion

  1. 2 is met under EPU.

9.1.3 Evaluation of Outfall B30 - Per Section 7.3, the discharge at Outfall B01, which accepts waste from the sanitary wastewater and the eyewash station, is unaffected by an EPUJ.

Since current operation is within NPDES limitations and discharge is not expected to change under EPU, Acceptance Criterion #3 is met under EPU.

Co 9.1.4 Evaluation of Outfall CO1 - The TSS, oil, and grease levels in Outfall C01 are not expected to increase under an EPU since the source of these wastes do not depend on reactor power. Since current operation is within NPDES limitations and discharge is not expected to change under EPU, Acceptance Criterion #4 is met under EPU.

9.1.5 Evaluation of Outfall E0I - TSS, oil, and grease levels in the radwaste effluent are not expected to increase under EPU since the source of these wastes do not depend on reactor power. Since current operation is within NPDES limitations and discharge is not expected to change under EPU, Acceptance Criterion #5 is met under EPU.

9.1.6 Evaluation of Outfall 101 - The reverse osmosis system operates mainly during start-up, shut downs, and outages, all of which are unaffected by the reactor power. Even under uprated power conditions, start-up procedures and conditions are not expected to change.

Since current operation is within NPDES limitations and discharge is not expected to Change under EPU, Acceptance Criterion #6 is met under EPU.

9.1.7 Evaluation of the Illinois River - The analysis of the river temperature is conducted in Section 7.11. The effective rise in river temperature due to the discharge at Outfall 001 is expected to be less than 1.7°F, which below the N'PDES limit of 5°F. Thus, Acceptance Criterion #7 is met under EPU. The resulting river temperatures are shown in Fig. 7-3 and compared to the NPDES Special Condition #3 maximum allowable temperatures.

C Exelkn

Caic No. L-003545, ATTACHMENT Rev. A31 A, Page 000 of A41 Exelon Nuclear S&LLYcEvaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 C- LaSalle County Generating Station Project No. 11333-120 rask Report 47 - Environmental Impact Page 30 Each month, the river temperature is well below the NPDES maximum and thus, Acceptance Criterion #8 is met under EPU.

9.1.8 Evaluation of Air Emissions - Air emissions are analyzed in Section 7.13 per the Illinois EPA restrictions. Restrictions are placed on the jive diesel generators, which provide auxiliary power to Units 1 and 2. Since the generators are used during surveillance testing and emergencies, operation and associated emissions are not expected to change under normal EPU operation. Thus, Acceptance Criterion #9 is met under EPU.

9.2 Hardware Changes None.

9.3 Other Recommendations (Inspections, Surveillances, Testing)

None.

9.4 EPU Margin Assessment 9.4.1 Illinois River Ambient Temperature Rise " The maximum ambient rise in the river temperature due to the discharge at Outfall 001 is less than 1.70 F when the river flow is C 2880cfs in January. This is 3.3 0 F below the 50 F NPDES limit. The temperature rise under C CLTP is -1.6 0 F, with a margin of 3.4 0 F.

9.4.2 Resultiun Illinois River Temperature - The resulting temperatures of the Illinois River are shown in Fig.7-3. The minimum margin between calculated temperatures and NPDES maximum temperatures occurs in August with the river 12.5 0 F below the 90°F maximum, essentially the same as the margin under CLTP.

9.5 Summary of Recommendations None.

9.6 Comparison to Previous Studies [Ref.,s 6.13, 6.14]

9.6.1 Stone and Webster EPU Power Uprate Study The Stone and Webster (S&W) EPU study states that the main duty increase associated with an EPU is associated with the circulating water system, due to higher temperatures.

Non-radiological environmental impact related to a PU is not expected to cause any major issues with current NPDES Permits. This evaluation is consistent with that conclusion.

~Exeloni

Calc No. L-003545, Rev. 000 ATTACHMENT A, Page A32 of A41 S&Lu-c Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 Exelon Nuclear LaSalle County Generating Station Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact Proiect No. 11333-120 Paae 31 C In regards to specific sources of waste, GE evaluations state that (among others) drains, oil disposal, radwaste drains, screen wash, sewage treatment, treated water, makeup demnineralizers, chlorination, fire seals, and fuel storage systems are all unaffected or insignificantly affected by a PU ('Ref. 6.3].

C C Exelon. 8argen~ & Lsjndy"

Caic No. L-003545, ATTACHMENT Rev.A33 A, Page 000 of A41 Exelon Nuclear S&LU~c Evaluation No. 2009.08466, Rev. 0 c LaSaile County Generating Station

_Project No. 11333-.120 Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact

, Pagle 32 10.0 LICENSING AMENDMENT REPORT 10.1 Recommended LAR Text The following text is proposed as input the Licensing Amendment Request for Environmental Impact in relation to MUTR PU:

6.4.2.1 DischargeLimits [T0605C]

The Illinois Department of Environmental Quality National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (N1PDES) Permit provides the effluent limitations and monitoring requirementsfor discharges at the site. The daily maximum discharge limits on total residual chlorine and residualoxidants are 0.2 mg/l and O.0S mg/I (respectively.). The discharge from the Cooling Pond Blowdown shall not increase the ambient river temperature more than 5°F'over its current temperature &&Ref. 6.2&&. Frequent monitoring of these parameters ensures that permit limits are not exceeded. The TPO uprate has minimal effect on the parameters, and no changes to NVPDES permit requirements are needed.

The state thermal dischargelimits, the currentdischarges, and bounding analysisfor the TPO uprate are shown in Table 6-7. This comparison demonstrates that the plant remains within the state discharge limits, during operation at TPO conditions.

C &&Section 8.1.7 and Ref. 6.19 &&

Table 6-7 Effluent Discharges :Currentand TPO [T0605CJ Parameter State Current TPO Umit Maximum River Temperature Rise (0F) 5oF 1.7 No change Daiiy Maximum Residual Chlorine mg/L 0.2 0.08k No change (Maximum TRC) 3 ________________

- Monitoring for TRC in the Cooling Pond Blowdown discharge is required only when chlorine is used for treatment in the Circulating or Service Water systems.

  • - Per February 2009 DMR.

10.2 Review of Applicable RAIs None.

Exelon.

Caib No. L-003545, Rev. 000 A'ITACI-MENT A, Page A34 of A41 S&Lu-c Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 Exelon Nuclear LaSalle County Generating Station Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact Project No. 11333-120 Page 33 (7 11.0 LIMITATIONS AND OPEN ITEMS I

11.1 Limitations None.

11.2 Open Items The following open items must be addressed:

11.2.1 Unverified Assumptions None.

11.2.2 Unverified Inputs None.

C° Exelkno 9osgew~t& Lundy~

Ca/c No. L-003545, FRev. 000 ATTACHMENT A, Page A35 of A41 Exelon Nuclear S&Lu-c Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 LaSalle County Generating Station Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact Project No. 11333-120 Paae 34 C 12.0 ATTACHMENTS List of Attachments SNo. D-e-cripton .... f. of P g-es--_ -_

1.1... USG-- ver Data or the; Ilinois River at Marse-lesiL....

Ri- ...... -2 . ...

12.2. iI.= River.Anaiss Equatio..ns and .Calulatons*

]_,,no,, ... 4..

C.

C- Exelrn. Sargent & Lundv~~

  • Caic No. L.003545, Rev. 000 A7T'ACHMENT A, Page A36 of A41 Exelon Nucrear S&LIL~c Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 LaSalle County Generating Station Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact Project No. 11333-120 Paqe 35 II I I
  • Attachment 12.1: USGS River Data for the illinois River at Marseilles, IL Table 12-1: Daily Average Discharge Data (Over 89 Year Span)

I 00060, Discharge (cfs)

I Mean of daily mean values for each day for 89 -89 years of record In, cfs (Calculation Period 1919.1)041.-2008.09-30)

Day of Imonth I *Calculation period reatrioted by USGS staff due to special conditions atlnear site jI 1

[ 110.7001 J~-I*--I I a-eb'! -I I"y 9,6901 13.2001 16,1001 15,100l Ma I J" iI JiI Aug ISep I ctI Nov 12,4001 9.900F7.650l7.92ol 7,5201 I

7,430[

Dec 9,600

!n I lO5 l llO ,I_

OOOi[12,900 16,7001 14,7001 2,8o0 [9,760I 7,610 1 7,7101 7,230 7,700 [ 9,730

[~13 110.200110O,000f 13,0001 16,6001 14.1001 12,4001 10,1001 7,6101 7,72017,5501I7,740[ 9,880 14 11o.4ool9,9301 13,8001 16,3001 13,8001 11.o01[ 9,69Ol 7,710j 7,4701 7,6201 7,74oI 10,100

[I 1 11,100l 10,3001 14,5001 16,2001 13,4001 11,4001 9,5301 7,9701 7,3601 7,6001 7,840 1 9,970 I61- 11,-i*2001 10.8o01 14.0011-6,'2001313,3003 11,-i*300191-,'330 7,[-4-1 7201- 7,-52-7-1

.- 0-17.8801 9,740 Ii 1111.oo01 11.2oo 14,3001 16r-',0001 13,-------*000 11,--*300191-,530j .~f7 7,-36-i .7--..--..-17,5077701 9,470 Vi 1 10,8o00110,900113,900 15--',3o001 13,200 11.700l[ .270l 7.8701 7,410 7,3*-10 7.54ol 9,950 19 I11.,1001 10,9001 13,900[ 15,4001 13.400'I 11,9001 9,1901 7,8501 7,66017,1-501l7,4501' 9,860

[110 1 10.700111.3001 13,800 [15l,.001 13,800112.0001 9.3301 8.0401 7.6001 7.41-

  • 7.7801 9,530 111 110,5001 11,100114.lo0[115.5001 14,6T.*00112.1001 9.3901 7,8601 7.2901 7,1- 9017.9*01 9.530 I112 110.300[ 11.0001 14.6001 16.5001 15,4001 12,4001 9,1101__7.690[7,2001 7,60017,8501 9,670 1~T13 F1050 11,.1001 15.100i 1*6.500115,-i*700112.9001 9,3701 7.5401 7,5901 7,6301"I7.9901 9,790 1~1 110,904 11[- 3001 15--20011--,1001 1--,.001 14.1001 9,6101 7.50[18.2601 7.5701 8.2501 9,690 116 I lO.9Ool 11,4001. 15,4001 16,10o0 53013,9001 9,32017.570[8.89ol 1 7,4o0]8,55ol 9.790 161 10l,500ol 11.oool 16.0001 15,9001 14,***70113[- ------- 9l',0201 7.7101 9,0301- 7,2701 8,5701
  • ,*00 9,660 I117 110.000l'111,100116.100[ "16,2001 14,1" *00 I12,01-* 8[-E,680 7.,7601 8,710'1' 7,34018.580ol 9,630 118 1 9.860f111.5001 16,1001 15,9001 13l,9001 212,001 9.o7ol17.9101 8.44o 71-6918,4801 9,610 i19 I 9,6001[12.200j1 6,5001~15,600 I 3,-5*9001 160 f 9,**700 7,560" .8-2'0" 7,730 I18,7601 9,240

[io[ 9,7301 12,5001 17,1001 15,9001 13,**4001 11,3001 9,6401 7,7001' 7,8601 7.r4901 9,1901 9,080 I :1 .2l1,0' 16.501,3001 ' 13[,0,200111.3001 9.50017.61017.7201 7.31019.1301 9,390 I 221 9,6901 13,6001 16,0001 16,.00o 13,-*200111,1001 9.3501 7.8401 7.4001 7.35018.7501 9,490 I 23f 9,870113,900112,7001 o1 2,800f21- _,011.000 9.11.5] . 1.418.9601 9,550 I 24 1 10,2001 14,2001 15,6001 15,8001 12,0110.6001 9,0201 8.1201 7,9101 7,500 I ,8901 9,650 26= 1 10,3001 14,400 1 15,4001 16,0001[12,5001 10,4001 8,570l 8.24016.o00017.540 86.501j 10,100 1261 10,3001 14,0001 15,2001 16,0001 12,500110,9001 8,44018.2601 8,2401 7,35018,5301 10,100 12=71 9,9301 13,9001 15,0001 15,500[ 21- 3.*01[10,5001 8,.5018.3201 8.2101_7.42018.8101 10,000 1I 1= Th,7 f1 3.0jI~ 1490 15,600 1 2,30*.0 110.4001 8.440l 8.30017.9101 7.32019.7401 10,300 2=9 9,7201 11,9001 15,2001 15,3001j*12.4001 10,4001 8.1901 8,0801 7.9101 7.1501 9,980 10,300 13 .11 s40 112.100[ 1 I 7.9301 7.6801 [ 7.2501 1I 11,100 (Q Exelon. Smrun*. Lunrdy*,,

Ca/c No. L-003545, Rev. 000 ATTACHMENT A, Page A37 of A41 S&LL+/-c Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 Exelon Nuclear LaSalle County Generating Station Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact Project No. 11333-120 *Page 36 0 l m Table 12-2: Statistics of Discharge Data Over 89 Year Span (as of 7/22/2009)

Oally discharge statistics, In cfs, for Jul122 based on 89 years of record Most Recent Mmn Instantaneous 20th

  • 80 " Max (2005) Value percentile Median Mean percentile (1998) 2880 I 4,110 5990 ]7740 I9350 12200 142100 0

0 Exel~n. 3m-'ge~nt & Luzndy,,

Caic No. L-003545, Rev. 000 ATTACHMENT A, Page A38 of A41 Exelon Nuclear S&LLac Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 LaSalle County Generating Station Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact Project No. 11333-120 Page 37 C Attachment 12.2: Illinois River Analysis Equations and Calculations Table 12-3: River Ternperature Analy sis: Excel Eq uations L

RI ie ep(F Impo)RleR~

I wowIlodw bsIO) Row ( em (o]Ena asu)

Rer sh) RWlsr)TmoF 1 (BTU~flbm) owwn Enthialpy (BTU~bm) -

NlRiver Enthialpy NC(BTU/lbm)

New RIverTemp (oF) ive

'l*nge I

136 342440 508.4 r9.5 =htst? 3 'Ilttat(3 *C-3'+3G)C =th=K1,H) Table 12-4: River TeneaueAa i:CLTP at RvrFlow of 2880cfs RvrepivroBowwnBlowdown River Blowdown New River River RierTepivlow lodonEnIhahlw EnthaIpy Enthalpy New Rive Tm (oF) (Ibs/h) (Ishr) Temp (oF) (BTU/Ibm) (BTU/Ibm) (BTU/Ibm) Temp (oF) Chang January 32.0 6.47E408 2.904E+07 64.52 0.00 32.57 1.46 33.47 1.45 February 35.0 6.47E+08 2.904E+07 71.28 3.00 39.33 4.63 36.62, 1.62 March 41.5 6.47E+08 2.904E+07 72.86 9.53 40.91 10.94 42.86 1.36 Aprl.... 52.0 6.47E÷08 2.9042+,'07 81.53 20.06 49.56 21.38 53.28 1.28 M 63.0 6.47E+08 2.904E+07 87.75 31.06 55.77 32.17 64.07 1.07 June 69.5 6.47E+08 2.904E=+07 94.70 37.55 62.71 38.68 70.59 1.09 July 76.0 6.47E+08 2.904E+07 97.63 44.04 65.63 45.01 76.93 ... 0.93 Auqust 76.5 6.472+08 2.904E+07 99.39 44.54 67.39 45.57 77.49 0.99 September 72.5 6.472+08 2.904E+07 93.10 40.55 61.11 41.47 73.38 0.88 October 57.0 6.472+08 2.904E+07 87.16 25.06 55.18 26.41 58.31 1.31 November 44.5 6.47E+08 2.904E+07 71.02 12.54 39.07 13.73 45.64 1.14 December 40.0 6.47E+08 2.904E+07 59.80 8.03 27.86 8.92 40.84 0.84 Table 12-5: Rie enerature nl~~:CLTP at River Flow of 9350cfs C. Rer RvrFoBowonBlowdown River :Blowdown New RiverNe RiverRvr FlowernRiverpFlonthaopyoEntha ew Tier Temp (oF) (lbsihr) Tlw lemp (oF) nhlyEthlyEtap Tenp (oF) Chan (Ibs/hur) (BTU/lbm) (BTUIIbm) (BTU/Ibmn) Cngo January 32.0 2.10E+09 2.904E+07 64.52 0.00 32.57 0.45 32.46 0.44 Februar 35.0 2.10E+09 2.904E+07 71.28 3.00 39.33 3.50 35.49 0.49 March 41.5 2.102+09 2.904E+07 72.86 9.53 40.91 9.97 41.89 0.39 April 52.0 2.10E+09 2.904E+07 81.53 20.06 49.56 20.46 52.37 0.37 May 63.0 2.1OE+09 2.9042+07 87.75 31.06 55.77 31.40 63.30 0.30 June 69.5 2.102+09 2.904E+07 94.70 37.55 62.71 37.90 69.81 0.31, July 76.0 2.10E+09 2.9042+07 97.63 "44.04 65.63 44.34 76.26

  • 0.26 August 76.5 2.10E+09 2.904E+07 99.39 44.54 67.39 44.86 76.78 0.28 September 72.5 2.10E+09 2.904E+07 93.10 40.55 61.11 40.83 72.74 0.24 October 57.0 2.10E+09 2.904E+07 87.16 25.06 55.18 25.48 57.38 0.38 November 44.5 2.10E+09 2.904E+07 71.02 12.54 39.07 12.91 44.82 0.32 December 40.0 2.10E+09 2.904E+07 59.80 8.03 27.86 8.30 40.23 0.23 Exelrn.
  • er*'glnt: & L.undy""

Calc No. L.003545, Rev. 000 ATTACHMENT A, Page A39 of A41 Exelon Nuclear S&LL~c Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 LaSalle County Generating Station Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact Project No. 11333-120 Page 38 (7 Table 12-6: Rvrerelt!r jasi:CLTP at River Flow of l2200cfs RvrRvrFoBlowdow River Blowdown New River NR River T iemp (o ve) Fblor BFodow Enthalpy Enthalpy Enthalpy Temp (oF)! Temp Tep(o)(bsh) (Ibs/hr) Temp (oF) (BTUIIbm) (8TUJIbm) (BTU/Ibm) Change January 32.0 2.74,E+091 2.904E+07 64.52 0.00 32.57 0.35 32.37 0.35 February 35.0 2.74E*09 2.904E+07 71.28 3.00 39.33 3.39 35.39 0.39 March 41.5 2.74E+09 2.904E+07 72.86 9.53 40.91 9.87 41.79 0.29 AI*] 52.0 2.74E+09 2.904E+07 81.53 20.06 49.56 20.37 52.27 0.27 May ,63.0 2.742+09 2.904E÷07 87.75 31.06 55.77 31.32 63.22 0.22 June 69.5 2.74E+09 2.904E+07 94.70 37.55 62.71 37.82 69.73 0.23 July 76.0 2.742+09 2.904E+07 97.63 44.04 65.83 44.27 76.19 ,0.19 August 76.5 2.74E+09 2.904E+07 99.39 44.54 67.39 44.78 76.70 0.20 September 72.5 2.74E+09 2.9042+07 93.10 40.55 61.11 4077 72.68 0.18 October 57.0 2.74E+09 2.9042+07 87.16 25.06 55.18 25.38 57.28 0.28 November 44.5 2.742+09 2.9042+07 71.02 12.54 39.07 12.82 44.74 0.24 December 40.0 2.742÷09 2.904E+07 59.80 8.03 27.86 8.24 40.17 0.17 Table 127 ie enerature Anlr~:MUR PU at River"Flow of 2880cfs --

River Temp River Flow Blowdown Blowdown River BIowdown New River Ne Rier River (oF) (Ibs/hr) Flow Tp(o Enthalpy Enthalpy Enthalpy Tomp (oF) Temp (lbs/hr) Tm(O)(BTU/lbm) (BTU/lbm) (BTU/ibm) Change January 32.0 6.472+08 2.9042+07 64.72 0.00 32.77 1.47 33.48 ,, 1.46 February 35.0 16.47E+08 2.9042+07 71.48 3.00 39.53 4.64 36.63 1.63 March 41.5 ;6.472+08 2.904E+07 73.06 9.53 41.11 10.95 42.87 1.,37 C April June July ay 52.0 63.0 69.5 76.0

!6.47E+08

'6.472+08 6.472+08 6.472+08 2.904E+07 2.9042+07 2.9042+07 2.9042+07 81.73 87.9;5 94.90 97.83 20.06, 31.06 37.55 4.4.04 49.76 55.97 62.91 65.83 21 39 32.18 38.69 45.02 53.29

,64.08 70.60 76.94 1.29 1.08 1.10 0.94 August 76.5 6.472+08 2.9042+07 99.59 44.54 67.59 45.58 77.50 1.00 September 72.5 6.47E+08 2.9042+07 93.30 , 40.55 61.31 41.48 73.39 0.89 October 57.0 6.47E+08 2.9042+07 87.36 25.06 55.38 26.42 58.32 1.32 November 44.5 6.472+08 2.9042+07 71.22 12.54 39.27 13.74 45.65 1.15 December, 40.0 6.47E+08 2.9042+07 60.00 8.03 28.06 .... 8.93 40.85 0.85 Table 12-8: River Teneaue~l:MUR PU at River Flow of 9350cfs - -

RieRvr lwBlowdown River Blowdown New River Ne .ie River Rie ie lw Flow Blowdown:Etap Enthalpy Enthalpy NewpRoF)ver p Temp (oF) (lbs~hr) (Ibsinr) Temp (oF), (BTU/Ibm) (BTU/lbm) (BTUIIbm) Change January 32.0 2.102+09 2.9042+07 64.72 0.00 32.77 0.46 32.47 0.45 February 35.0 2.102+09 2.9042+07 71.48 3.00 39.53 3.51 35.50 0.50 March 41.5 2.102+09 2.9042+07 73.06 9.53 41.11 9.97. 41.89 0.39 April 52.0. 2.102+09 2.9042+07 81.73 20.06 49.76 20.47 52.37 0.37 May 63.0 2 102+09 2.9042+07 87.95 31.06 55.97 31.40 63.30 0.30 June 69.5 2.10E÷09 2.9042+07 94.90 37.55 62.91 37.90 69.81 0.31 July 76.0 2.102+09 2.9042+07 97.83 44.04 65.83 44.34 76.26 0.26 August 76.5 2.10E+09 12.9042+07 99.59, 44564 67.59 44.86 76.78 0.28 September 72.5 2.102+09 12.9042+07 93.30 40.55 61.31 40.84 72.75 0.25 October 57.0 2.10E+09 2.9042+07 87.36 25.06 55.38 25.48 57.38 0.38 November 44.5 2.102+09 2.9042+07 71.22 12,.54, 39.27 12.91 44.83 0.33 December 40.0 2.102+09 2.9042+07 60.00 8.03 28.06 8.30 40.23 0.23 Exelkn. Sargent S,.. Luindy,"

Ca/c No. L-003545, Rev. 000 ATTACHMENT A, Page A40 of A41 S&Luc Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 Exelon Nuclear LaSalle County Generating Station Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact Prelect No. 11333-120 Paoe 39 C Table 12-9: River Tr eate~gi:MUR PU at River"Flow of 12200cfs --

Rie ie lo lwonBlowdown River Blowdown New River NwRvrRiver Temp (oF (bsh) (lbsa/y F) Fo Te nhapyEr)ap Temp (oF) Tm (lb Ibr s Tepr(F)(BTU/ilbm) (BTU/lbm) (BTU/Ibm) Change January 32.0 2.74.E+09 2.904E+07 84.72 0.00 32.77 0.35 32.37 0.35 February 35.0 2.74E+09 !2.904E+07 71.48 3.00 39.53 3.39 35.39 0.39 March 41.5 2.74E+09 2.904E+07 73.08 9.53 41.11 9.87' 41.79 0.29 April 52.0 2.74E+09 2.904E+07 81.73 20.06 49.76 20.37 52.27 0.27

.May 63.0 2.74E+09 2.904E+07 87.95 31.06 55.97 31.32 63.22 0.22 June 69.5 2.74E+09 2.904E+07 94.90 37.55 62.91 37.82 69.73 0.23 July 76.0 2.74E+09 2.904E+07 97.83 44.04 65.83 44.27 76.19 0.19 August 76.5 2.74E+09 2.904E+07 99.59 44.54 67.59 44.79 76.71 0.21 September 72.5 2.74E+09 2.904E+07 93.30 40.55 61.31 40.77, 72.68 0.18 October 57.0 2.74E+09 2.904E+07 87.36 25.06 55.38 25.38 57.28 0.28 November 44.5 2.74E+09 2.904E÷07 71.22 12.54 39.27 12.83 44.74 0.24 December 40.0 2.74E+09 2.904E+07 60.00 . 8.03 28.06 8.24 40.17 0.17 Table 12-10: River Tern~ert'e Aalysis: EPU at River" Flow of 2880cfs Blowdown River Blowdown New River River River Temp River Flow Flow TepoF) nthop Enthalpy Enthalpy New River (oF) (bsrnr) (lbs/hr) Tep (BTU/lbm) (BTU/lbm) (BTU/Ibm) ep(FTm (OF) (lbsbr)oF) emp oF)Change Januar', 32.0 6.47E+08 2.904E+07 65.72 0.00 33.77, 1.52 33.53 1.51 February 35.0 6.47E+0)8 2.904E+07 72.48 3.00 40.53 4.69 36.68 1.68 March 41.5 6.47E+08 2.904E+07 74.06 9.53 42.11 10.99 42.91 1.41 C; April May June July 52.0 63.0 69.5 76.0 6.47E+08 6.47E+08 6.47E+08 6.47E+08 2.904E+07 2.904E+07 2.904E+07 2.904E+07 82.73 88.95 95.90 98.83 20.06 31.06 37.55 44.04 50.76 56.97 63.91 66.83 21.43 32.22 ...

38.73 45.07 53.33 64.12 70.64 76.98 1.33 1.12 1.14 0.98 August 76.5 6.,47E÷08 2.904E+07 100.59 44.54 68.59 45.62 77.54 1.04

,September 72.5 6.47E+08 2.904E+07 94.30 40.55 62.31 41.52 73.44 0.94 October 57.0 6.47E+08 2.904E+07 88.36 25.06 56.38 26.47 58.36 1.36 November 44.5 .6.47E+08 2.904E+07 72.22 12.54 40.27 13.79 45.70 1.20 December 40.0 6.47E+08 2.904E+07 61.00 8.03 29.06 8.97 40.90 0.90 Table 12-11: Rie eneaueAa i:EPU at River"Flow of 9350cifs___

Blowdown River Blowdown New River River River Rive Flow Flow BlowdownNeRir ivr iv (

lbs/br)w Temp (oF) Enthalpy Enthalpy Enthalpy Tern Te mp Temp (oF) (lbs/br Ib/r) (BTU/Ibm) (BTU/Ibm) (BTU/Ibm) Tep (oF) Chang January 32.0 2.10E+09 2.904E+07 65.72 0.00 33.77 0.47 32.48 , 0.48 February 35.0 2.10E+09 2.g04E+07 72.48 3.00 40.53 3.52 35.51 0.51 March 41.5 2.10E+09 2.904E+07 74.06 9.53 42.11 9.98 41.91 0.41 Arl 52.0 2.10E+09 2.904E+07 827 00 50.76 2.8 5.8 03 May 63.0 2.10E+09 2.904E+07 88.95 31.06 56.97 31.42 63.32 0.2 June 69.5 2.1OE+09 2.904E+07 95.90 37.55 63.91 37.92 69.82 0.32 July 76.0 2.10E+09 2.904 E+07 98.83 44.04 66.83 44.36 76.28 0.28 Augqust 76.5 2.10E+09 2.904E+07 100.59 44.54 68.59 44.87 76.79 0.29 September 72.5 2.10E+09 2.904E+07 94.30 40.55 62.31 40.85 72.76 0.26 October 57.0 2.10E+09 2.904E+07 88.36 25.06 56.38 25.49 57.39 0.39 November 44.5 2.10E+09 2.904E+07 72.22 12.54 40.27 12.93 44.84 0.24 December 40.0 2.10E+09 2.904E+07 61.00 8.03 .29.06 8.32 40.25 0.25 Exelkn. Sargent & Lundy~

Caic No. L-003545, Rev. 000 ATTACHMENT A, Page A41 of A41 S&LL~c Evaluation No. 2009-08466, Rev. 0 Exelon Nuclear LaSalle County Generating Station Task Report 47 - Environmental Impact Project No. 11333-120 Page 40-FINAL C Table 12-12: River TeneaueAa i:EPU at River Flow or 12200cfs River Flow Blowdown RiverTep(o)(bsh) Flow River BlowdownNeRir Tm(o)Enthalpy Blowdown New River Enthalpy Enihalpy ewie River Temp (lbsdhr) (BTUflbm) (BTU/Ibm) (BTU/ibm) T p(o Change January, 32.0 2.741E-09 2.,904E÷07 65.72 0.00 33.77 0.36 32.38 0.36 February 35.0 2.74E+09 2.904E+07 72.48 3.00 40.53 3.40 35.40 0.40 March 41.5 2.74E+09 2.904E+07 74.06 9.53 42.11 9.88 41.80 0.30 Api 52.0 2.74E+09 2.904E+07 82.73 20.06 50.76 20.38 52.28 0.28, May 63.0 2.74E+09 2.904E÷07 88.95 31.06 56.97 31.33 63.23 0.23 June 69.5 2.74E+09 2.g04E÷07 95.90 37.55 63.91 37.83 69.74 0.24 July 76.0 2.74E+09 2.904E407 98.83 44.04 66.83 44.28 76.20 0.20 Au lust 76.5 2.74E+09 2.904E+07 100.59 44.54 68.59 44.80 76.72 0.22 September 72.5 2.74E+09 2.904E+07 94.30 40.55 62.31 40.78 72.69 0.19 October 57.0 2.74E+09 2.904E÷07 88.36 25.06 56.38 25.39 57.29 0.29 November 44.5 2.74E+09 2.904E+07 72.22 12.54 40.27 12.84 44.75 0.25 December 40.0 2.74E+09 2.904E+07 61.00 8.03 29.06 8.25 40.18 0.18 C

C Exelkn. ,ar'ganc &- Lundy,,"

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML15273A443&oldid=2446863"