ML18040A305
| ML18040A305 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1996 |
| From: | Conway J, Rademacher NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NMP1L-1108, NUDOCS 9608060163 | |
| Download: ML18040A305 (185) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION ATTACHMENTA STATE POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATIONSYSTEM (SPDES) PERMIT NUMBER NY-000-1015 PROPOSED CHANGES 9608060163
Change No.
- 1. Add footnote "h" to Outfall 001-002, Unit 2 storm drainage
- 2. Add demineralized water to footnote "h", Unit 2
- 3. Increase iron action level limit for outml 020, Unit 1
- 4. Add sand separators to footnote "h", Unit 1
- 5. Delta temperature, heat rate rejection exceedance limitations,'ootnote "a"
- 6. TRO analysis application to service water only and inclusion of Bromine, Unit 1 and Unit 2
- 7. Chlorine use reworded for once through systems, Unit 1 and Unit 2
- 8. Outfall 007 oil and grease monitoring frequency, Unit 2
- 9. Copper-Trol limit rewording, Unit 2
- 10. Rewording of Outfalls 041 and Oll, Unit 1 and Unit 2 11 ~ Addition of footnote "j" for reduced solids monitoring for high priority water, Unit 1 and Unit 2 ,(
- 12. Sulfite analysis in Sewage Treatment Plant, Unit 1
- 13. Change copper monitoring requirements for Outfall 040, Unit 2
- 14. Outfall 008 inclusion of cooling tower water during tempering
- 15. Proposed Decay Heat Removal modification at Unit 2
- 16. Proposed changes to permit for QAC limits for Outfall 010 and 040, Unit 1 and Unit 2
- 17. Impingement and Entrainment Schedule Deferral Enclosure A: Use of Demin Water Correspondence Enclosure B: Sand Separator Correspondence Enclosure C: Copy of SPDES Limit for z T (Dunkirk Station)
Enclosure D: Solids Monitoring Past Submittal Correspondence Enclosure E: EPA Form 2D for New Effluent Enclosure F: Zebra Mollusicide Technical Information Enclosure G: Biological Monitoring Deferment Correspondence
SPDES PERIVHT MODIFICATION NINE MILEPOINT NUCLEAR STATION Permit No. NY0001015 June 1996 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC) requests that footnote "h" be added to outfalls P 1. 001 and 002 which are storm drains for Unit 2. The addition of footnote "h" to these two designated outfalls will allow NMPC to discharge fire protection waters to the storm water conveyance system at Unit 2. Footnote "h" is currently listed for Outfall 020 (storm water drainage) for Unit 1. The fire protection system at Unit 2 is consistent with Unit 1 and has the ability to utilize both city and/or service waters within the system. Therefore, the addition of footnote "h" to Outfalls 001 and 002 will provide consistency in the discharge of these fire protection waters at the site for the two operating units. As part of the plant's operating license with the ¹clear Regulatory Commission, Unit 2 is required to continually monitor the plant's discharge locations for any inadvertent introduction of radioactive material, which could occur as a result of leaks in the norm'al noncontact process of the service waters. Therefore, there are radiological monitors that are in-place, which include components which must be periodically flushed with demineralized water to eliminate any buildup of lake sediment. This flushing activity is normally performed on a bi-weekly basis during the warmer months of the year and once per month for the remainder of the year. These Qushings utilize approximately 20-30 gallons of demineralized water which are introduced into the service water efBuent and is eventually discharged to the lake via Outfall 040.
On July 27, 1995, Mr. Tony M. Salvagno ofNMPC wrote a letter to Mr. Joseph F. Kelleher, chief of the Chemical Systems Section of the New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation. In the letter, Mr. Salvagno requested approval for the use of the demineralized water for this Gushing of radiological monitors in the Service Water System. In a letter dated August 2, 1995 &om Mr. Kelleher, approval was given for the use of the demineralized waters for this process. Both of these letters are attached (Enclosure A). Additionally, occasionally we have the need to lay up service water cooled heat exchangers. These heat exchangers are back-up redundant units that are a requirement under our operating Hcense &om the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Due to Microbiologically Induced Corrosion (MIC), it is beneQcial to lay the heat exchangers up with demineralized water. When the heat exchanger is returned to service, the demineralized water would be gradually valved into the Service Water System. With the above information provided, NMPC requests that demineralized water be added to footnote "h" on page 4 of 16 of our SPDES Permit. These demineralized waters will be discharged by way of Outfalls 010 and 040. Outfall 020 has an action limit 0.3 mg/l for the iron parameter and is required to be monitored on a quarterly basis. NMPC has monitored Outfall 020 for this action level parameter &om the effective date of the permit, and &om time to time, has experienced monitored levels above the 0.3 mg/l action level limit. As a result, NMPC, as required by the action level requirements contained in-the SPDES Permit, has initiated short-term high intensity monitoring programs throughout the calendar year of 1995. In addition, NMPC staff has taken samples from a local
I residence located approximately 1.5 miles west of Outfall 020. This residential well sample contained a level of 0.286 mg/I. The perimeter drain for the Unit 2 reactor building was also sampled, which would be representative of ground water Rom the site. This sample was found to contain iron at a level of 0.107 mg/l. Furthermore, NMPC contacted the Oswego County Health Department and was informed by this agency that the lakeshore area of Oswego County has localized areas of high concentrations of ferris bacteria which could be a contributing factor for Quctuating levels of iron in Outfall 020. The following results are &om the high intensity monitoring and/or the quarterly sampling as required by the action level requirement. Dates Irg~gglt (mg/I) 1/9/95 0.408 1/16/95 0.592 1/23/95 0.981 1/30/95 0.257 2/6/95 0.234 2/13/95 0.712 2/20/95 0.495 2/27/95 0.655 2/27/95 0.869 3/9/95 0.215 4/95-6/95 (Quarterly Result) 0.214 7/95-9/95 (Quarterly Result) 0.077 10/95-12/95(Quarterly Result) 0.151 1/96 - 3/96 (Quarterly Result) O.l 4/25/96 (Quarterly Result) 0.705 As shown above, the levels of iron in Outfall 020 have been higher than 0.3mg/I, which NMPC believes is related to groundwater concentration of iron and groundwater intrusion into Outfall 020. In addition, the facility has minimal carbon steel components within this drainage system., which would minimize the probability that the iron in Outfall 020 is due to operations at Nine
Mile Point. Therefore, provided with this information, NMPC requests that the action level for iron &om Outfall 020 be raised to 1.0 mg/1. Located within the Unit 1 screen house are the service water pumps. These pumps utilize service water which cools the bearings and seals of the pumps system and have sand separators in-line prior to where the service water enters the service water pumps. In order for the sand separators to function as designed, the drains &om these separators discharge via Outfall 010. The flow &om the drains of the sand separators is estimated at approximately 25 gallons per minute, discharging to Outfall 010 which has an approximate fiow of 280,000 gallons per minute (combined Qow of service and circulating water). The Qow &om the sand separators is a deminimis Qow in comparison to the overall Qow rate from Outfall 010 and the overall change of suspended solids concentration in the outfall is negligible. Therefore, NMPC requests the use of sand separators at the Unit 1 Seal Water System be included in footnote "h" of our SPDES Permit. The allowance for the use of the sand separators with the discharge going to Outfall 010 will enable NMPC to utilize these units as originally designed and will not cause any violation to the water quality standards for suspended solids. This was further documented in a letter dated July 6, 1995 from Mr. Tony M. Salvagno ofNMPC to Mr. William F. McCarthy of the New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (Enclosure B).
- 5. NMPC requests that the following be added to footnote "a" for the parameters of Discharge Temperature, Intake-Discharge Temperature Di6erence, and Net Rate of Addition of Heat:
"These limitations may be exceeded during periods when plant safety is at issue or during periods when the circulating water system is experiencing an emergency situation that is outside the normal operating envelope or routine maintenance, i.e. debris blocking the condensers, an emergency steam release, pump breakdown, etc. In the event of such an emergency/breakdown the permittee shall take corrective action as soon as possible. Where possible, situations resulting in these limitations being exceeded should be avoided &om June through September.
The permittee shall indicate on a Discharge Monitoring Report (l) the reason for operating outside of the permit limit, (2) the dates and times of the event. In no case shall these limitations be exceeded more than 5% of the time during the operating year." The above listed footnote is very similar to the operating footnote for'NMPC's Dunkirk Steam Station (see Enclosure C) which allows NMPC to operate its facility under other than normal operating conditions, for emergency/maintenance situations. NMPC is committed to taking corrective measures as soon as possible in a special event situation to bring the facility within the boundaries of the permit.
- 6. Outfall 040 (Cooling Tower Blowdown and Service Water - Unit 2) has two parameters that need clarification. Free Available Chlorine applies to the Circulating Water System (Cooling Tower Blowdown) monitoring. This parameter also has a footnote associated with it that states, "samples shall be obtained prior to combination with service water."
The second parameter is Total Residual Oxidant (TRO) which is intended to apply only to treatments of the Service Water System, but there is no designation in. the footnote to indicate this applicability. Therefore, even though the Cooling Tower Blowdown is isolated for biocide
treatments and is not released until the Bee available chlorine is below permit limits, NMPC is also conducting a separate TRO monitoring for each Cooling Tower Treatment. Therefore, provided with this information, NMPC requests that an additional footnote be added that corrects this situation. This footnote should read as follows:
"Total Residual Oxidant applies only to treatments of the Service Water System."
Furthermore, the term &ee chlorine is to include other department approved oxidants. Please see the additional suggested language listed below in Section 7.
- 7. Additional Requirement III.12 of the current permit states that "Chlorine use shall be limited to two hours per umt per day. ll Tins requ>res that the treatment for both the Urut 2 Sennce Water System and the Cooling Tower System be conducted simultaneously so as not to exceed this two-hour limitation. This current practice is manpower intensive. Therefore, NMPC requests that this requirement be modified to read as follows:
"Chlorine use for once-through systems shall be limited to two hours per day. The treatments are not to be limited to chlorine, but are to include other approved oxidants, i.e. bromine, etc."
- 8. For Outfall 007 (Hoor and Equipment Drains), NMPC requests that the monitoring &equency for the oil and grease parameter be changed &om three sampling events per month to two per month. AllowingNMPC to go to two events per month will provide consistency for the
monitoring'equency of the other parameters listed for the outfall(s).
- 9. For Outfall 040 (Cooling Tower Blowdown and Service Water), the discharge limitations and the monitoring requirements for the parameter of Copper-Trol CU-I should read as follows:
Daily Max 26.4 Frequency batch Sample Type grab The above information is reflective of the footnote on page 3 of the permit for these parameters.
- 10. The descriptions listed on pages 2 of 16 and 3 of 16 are not representative ofNMPC's method of processing wastewater and should read as follows: "011-Unit Pl Wastewater (Including water generated Rom Demineralization, Reverse Osmosis, Filtration, Electrodionization and treated Radioactive Wastewater).""
"041-Unit 82 Wastewater (Including water generated from demineralization, Reverse Osmosis, Filtration, Electrodionization and treated Radioactive Wastewater).""
I I. NMPC requests that footnote "j" be applied to the parameter of suspended solids for Outfalls 011 and 041. This request was originally set forth in NMPC's submittal dated September I, 1994 to Ms.-J-. L. March, comment 415 (see Enclosure D). Ifconductivity readings are of 10 umho/cm or less, the waters are considered high purity waste waters and willbe sampled on a
quarterly basis per the footnote. The addition of the footnote to the suspended solids parameter willrequire a monitoring &equency to be listed at once per calendar quarter. In the calendar year of 1995, 39 tank volumes were treated in the Unit 2 Radwaste operation that discharges to Outfall 041. Listed below are the suspended solids (ss) concentration and the conductivity reading for these treated volumes. 35 tanks with ss < 0.1 mg/I 2 tanks with ss of 0.1 mg/l 1 tank with ss 0.2 mg/l 1 tank with ss 0.6 mg/I Note: All 39 tanks had conductivities of < 1 umho/cm~ In 1995, Unit 1 did not have any discharges to Outfall 011 6om its Radwaste operation but the same results would be expected during a discharge &om Outfall 011. The above information demonstrates that these are high purity waste waters and the footnote "j" should apply to Outfalls 011 and 041 for the parameter of suspended solids.
- 12. In June of 1995 NMPC received a permit modification for the use of a dechlorination system at the Waste Water Treatment Facility (associated Outfall 030). Along with this modification came the monitoring requirement for the sulfite parameter. From the time of the modification, NMPC has continued to cany a detectable residual chlorine in its discharge for Outfall 030. This residual carry-over has been within the parameter limit. This is to ensure adequate disinfection of the discharge waters. NMPC requests a footnote be assigned to the sulfite parameter requiring analysis for sulfite only ifthe analysis for chlorine (total residual) is less than the detectable limit.
- 13. NMPC requests that footnote "g" be changed to read as follows:
"Total copper samples should be obtained &om the CWS blowdown line or the cooling tower basin. The total copper concentration for Outfall 040 willbe based on a calculated value taking into consideration the Qow &om the service water system."
This new language will allow NMPC to collect a more representative sample for this parameter. The existing sampling location does not allow for adequate mixing of the blowdown water with the Service Water System, therefore, a representative sample cannot be obtained. The reported value for the outfall based on the analytical results &om'a sample taken &om the basin or blowdown line willbe a calculated Qow based on blowdown and service water. The service water does not contain any copper alloy equipment, therefore, no copper concentration is contributed by this system.
- 14. Unit 2 is designed and operated to use a portion of the blowdown waters &om the Cooling Tower to temper service waters during given operating conditions. By design, a portion of the tempered Qow is returned to Lake Ontario via the unit s Fish Diversion System, which is Outfall 008. Therefore, any parameters that are present in the blowdown waters will be discharged through Outfall 008 at a dilute concentration. The maximum calculated concentration in Outfall 008 of a substance during a tempering operation would be approximately 11 percent of the measured concentration value that is in the Cooling Tower blowdown system. The total mass loading to the. receiving water willremain the same during the tempering operation.
This diagram demonstrates the "worst case" Sho~ below is a schematic for Unit 2 coo ling. Qow that is contri>uted to the Gsh return during tempering. Fish Return (14,900 GPM) Outfall 008 40,000 GPM Service Water 36,900 GPM Scfvlcc 48,900 GPM intake
>>y Water Pumps 2 ~ GPM Discharge llay To Lake
'Outfall 040 54,900 GPM
'8,000 GPM Tempering Line Cooling Tower 6,000 GPM 0 GPM Evaporation (Make-up) 12,000 GPM I',000 GPM/54,900 GPM = 10.9% or 11%
Therefore, provided with the above information, NMPC requests that a footnote be added to Outfall 008 that allows for a portion of blowdown/tempered water to be discharged via this outfalL This footnote should read as follows:
"During tempering of service waters with cooling tower water, a portion of the tempering waters may be discharged via this outfall."
- 15. Niagara Mohawk is proposing to install a cooling tower system that has a design throughput of 4000 gpm on-the closed loop side with a design blowdown rate of 120 gpm. The water used in this system will'be domestic city water &om the City of Oswego and willnot receive any 10
chemical treatment during the operation of this system. The purpose for the installation of this unit is to remove heat Rom the spent fuel pool at Unit 2 during fueling outage(s) so that both loops of the Residual Heat Removal System can be serviced simultaneously, resulting in shorter outage durations. Therefore, it is estimated that the discharge Rom this cooling tower system will be approximately 6 weeks every 18 to 24 months, the estimated duration of and &equency of refueling outages at Unit 2. This new outfall, Outfall 001A, will discharge blowdown waters to Outfall 001 currently listed on the facility's SPDES permit with no monitoring requirements. As mentioned above, these blowdown waters willnot receive any chemical treatments for biofouling or scale inhibitors. It should be noted that the basin to this cooling tower willbe constructed of stainless steel. The only addition (pollutant) willbe heat with the maximum design temperature discharge of 71' for the spring and fall outages, and a maximum of 85' for summer forced outages. Please find attached (Enclosure E) to this permit modification request, EPA form 2D entitled, "New Sources and New Discharges, Application for Permit to Discharge Process Wastewater" along with a process Qow diagram for this new discharge.
- 16. NMPC requests that the current permit limitations for zebra molluscicide be expanded to include Betz Chemical CT-2 and Calgon s H-130M in addition to ~~~ which utilizes quaternary ammonia QAC as the molliscide. These two additional chemicals also use quaternary ammonium (QAC) salt compounds as the molluscicide. The di6erence between the three chemicals is in the formulation. CT-2 and H-130M have a higher concentration of the QAC
than CT-1. Furthermore, the three formulations very in solvent vehicle composition. CT-1 uses ethyleneglycol; CT-2 and H-130M use ethanoL During a meeting with your sta6'on May 16, 1996, we discussed this issue in detail and a suggestion was presented to modify the permit for the use of a generic class of QAC containing molluscicides. Speci6cally, outfalls receiving the molluscicide would have monitoring requirements and limits on the QAC that could be applied to any molluscicide using QAC as the active ingredient per the Department's suggestion. NMPC concurs with that recommendation and has proposed changes to page 5 of 16 of the current permit as shown in Attachment F. We have provided an explanation of the detection limit comparisons for the three molluscicides CT-1, CT-2, and H-130M in Enclosure F. 1 7. In relationship to recent discussions with the Division of Fish and Wildlife (Enclosure G),
/
NMPC requests that Addition Requirement Section III(2) entitled, "Impingeme'nt and Entrainment Abundance Studies," be modiGed to correspond to the related activities schedule for impingement and entrainment studies that willbe conducted along with the ongoing activities at the New York Power Authority's James A Fitzpatrick Facility. 12
nc osure
DISCELMCiE,"iIOMTORZ4GREPORT PERIIIT NUii13ER i~A-000-1015 NINE OGLE POINT NUCLEAR STATION JULY 1995 AttaChment D Dq p. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-3505
+Z.VTIES A~el D. Zagaa August 2, 1995 Cammissicner Mr. Anthony M. Salvagno Act'ng Supervisor Environmental Prot ct'on Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation N'ne M 'e Point Nuclear Station P.O. Box 63 Lycom'ng, New York 13093 .
RE: Flush Wate Use for Off-line Rad'ation Monitors Nine Mile (NY 000 1015)
Dear M . Salvagro:
Your July 27, 1995 recuest for cont'".ed use of dern'ne =-.ized wate as the flush water scurce during ca " ation and ma'nte".ance of '.-.e Of = - 'e l Radiat'n Monitors is a" roved . Th' f:ush water will be d'scharged via Outfall 040 of ycu" permit. This d'sc'".arge must not cause or contribut to a violat'".". of New York State Water Quality Standa ds. modi ication can be processed at a later cate to add a footnote to the permit to address this d=sc'."arge. Should you have ary cuest'ns, please call Paul Kolakowsk', P. E., Pro j ect Engineer at (518) 457-2.632. Since (r' Josep.". "=. Kellehe, P. E. Envi" nmental Encineer 3 Phys'a'ystems Section JFK/pm cc: W. McCarthy, Region 7
"l)L)Lil'U(4L AJUi all ULC&Er LQ;l'Ul< l PER,"iQT NUi~iKER i~-000-1015 NPK iWIILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION
> NIAGARA JULY 1995 4 MOHAWK Attachment 41 NINE MlLE POINT UHrr 2/P.O. BOX 63. LYCOMING. NY 13093/TELEPHONE i315) 343-2110 July 27, 1995 Joseph F. Kelleher, P.E.
Chief, Chemical Systems Section NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233-3505
Subject:
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station SPDES Permit Number NY 000-1015 Rush Water for Offdine Radiation Monitors-Approval Request for Continuance Dear Mr. Kelleher. Pursuant to the direction provided by Mr. William McCarthy (Region 7) during his visit to Nine Mite Point on July 26, 1995, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC) hereby requests approval for the continued use of demineralized water as the flush water. source during the calibration and maintenance of the Off-line Radiation Monitors. The monitors are associated with Permit Outfall 040 for Nine Mile Point Unit 2 (NMP-2). A description and a diagram covering this activity are attached. NMPC requests that any approval to this request be coiTes ponded in writing. At a later date, NMPC will propose that a footnote be added to it's SPDES Permit to identify the use of demineralized water as flush water for these monitors as part of a permit modification request. The modification request will be the long term action to address this issue. The request for permit modification is planned for October 1995. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at (315) 349-1456. Sincerely,
~~~ ~~.-4-4 Anthony M. Salvagno Acting Supervisor Environmental Protection pc: P. Kolakowski, P.E. (NYS DEC)
W. F. McCarthy, P.E. (NYS DEC) M. J. McCormick Jr. T.W. Roman W.J. Hoizhauer, Esq. G.M. McPeck G.H. Montgomery C.D. Howes DMR File;
11C OSUI'C
DISC+47Jr illVihli VI~ 4 > PZarnrr NUMB'. NY~O-IOi5 iiZ:E MILE POIlG'UCLEAR STATION Y NlAGARA 3UNE r995 ATTACHMENT 2 N1NE M1~ PQINT NVCLEAR SfATlONI P O. BOX 63. LYCOMING. NEVI YGRK 13093ITELEPHONE (315) 343 2110 AMS95.042 July 6, 1995 William F. McCarthy, P.F Environmental Engineer II NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation 615 Erie Boulevard West Syracuse, New York 13204-2400
Subject:
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station SPDES Permit Number NY 000-1015 Sand Separators
Dear Mr. McCarthy:
I I. This letter is submitted per your request following our telephone conversation of June 28, 1995, regarding the use of the subject sand separators at Nine Mile Point Unit One (NMP-l). This letter will be referenced in the June 1995 DMR. On June 16, 1995, while investigating restricted seal water lines for the service'water pumps in the NMP-1 Screenhouse, System Engineering identified that the drain valves on the sand separators used in the supply of service water {lake water) to the seal water lines were closed. In order for the separators to function as designed, the drain valves needed to be opened. Subsequently, on that same day, the drain valves were opened on two such systems which are located in the NMP-1 Screenhouse. The dischar e of the sand separator drain lines is to the Condenser Cooling Water Unit 41 {SPDES Permit Outfall 010) Discharge. Flow through the open drain lines is estimated to be less than approximately 25 gallons per minute by the System Engineer. During normal plant operation, the flow for Outfall 010 is approximately 280,000 gaQons per minute. On June 23, 1995, operations personnel and System Engineering identified that this configuration could possibly be outside the requirements of the SPDES Permit due to the potential discharge of solids. Solids is not a listed efQuent parameter for Outfall 010. Furthermore, a with several operators revealed that in some instances in the past, the valves were 'iscussion opened to flush the drains during operator rounds. This concern was brought to the attention of the Environmental Protection Department on June 23, 1995, via an internal deviation event report process. The drain valves have been closed via a mark-up {on June 23, 1995) until a resolution is determined.
AMS95.042 7/6/95, Pg. 2 A partial copy of Piping and Instrument Drawing (No. C-18022-C) showing the sand separators and a "Detail" sketch of a separator fmm another plant drawing are included as Attachments 1 and 2. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation plans on applying for a modification to it's SPDES Permit to address this issue as well as the issue of circulating and . service water fotebay cIeaning around October 1995. Should you have any questions concerning this netter, please contact me at (315) 349-1456. Sincerely, Anthony M. Salvagno Acting Supervisor Environmental Protection pc: M.J. McCormick Jr. T.%. Roman G.M. McPeck W.J. Holzhauer, Esq. ZC.D. Howes DMR File
nc osure
9$ -20.2 (I/89) NEW YORK STATE OEPARTMCNT OF ENVIRONMENTALCONSE~ATION Page 1 of 16 State Pollutant Discharge Efiiiination System (SPDES) DISCHARGE PERMIT Special Conditions (Part I)
~@ad ndustrial Code: SPOES Number: NY- 0002321 Discharge Class (CL): OEC Number. 9&603W0021 00001&
'Toxic Class (TX): 'Effective Date (EDP): December 1 1989 Major Drainage Basin: 01 Expiration Date {ExPD): Decanber 1 1994 Sub Drairiage Basin: 05 ModiTication Date(s): Feb 10 1992 Water Index Number. Attachment(s): General Conditions Part II) oait:: 11 g0 Compact Area:
This SPDES permi't is issued in compliance with Title 8 of Article 17 of the Environmental Conservation Law ol New York state and in compliance with the Qean water Act, as ainended. (33 v.s.c. i1251 et.seq.)(hereinafter referred to a- the Act.). PERMITTEE NAME AND ADDRESS: Attention: Th:xnas J. Boone Affairs Director Name: Nia Mohawk Power Comoration Street: 300 Erie Boulevard Nest City: cuse State: NY Zip Code: is authorized to discharge from the facility described below: FACILITYNAME AND ADDRESS: Name: Dunkirk Steam Station Location (C,T.Y): Dunkir County: Facility Address: 106 Point Drive rth City: Dunkirk State: Zip Code: NYTM-E: 142 ' NYTM+l: 4 8 From Outfall No. 001 at Latitude: into receiving waters known as: Dunla.rk HaI~r
& Longitude: ~o,Qass:
and: (list other Outfalls, Receiving Waters & Water Classifications) 002 Dunicirk Harbor Class B in accordance with the effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and other conditions set forth in Special Conditions (Part I) and General Conditions (Part II) of this permit. DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT (OMR) MAILINGADDRESS Mailing Name: Nia mohawk Pctwer Co ration Street: 106 Point Dri.ve No City: Dunkirk Responsiole Official or Agent: Stalin tendent This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire on midnight of the expiration date shown above and the permi:tee shall not discharge after the expiration date unless this permit has been renewed, or extended pursuant to law. To be authorized to discharge beyond the expiration date. the permittee shall apply for permit renewaf not less than 180 days prior to the expiration date shown above. OISTRISUT Ictt 1 Pt:rait Achttinistrator: t BA File No. 9&603&0021/00001& Paul D. Eismann Ad re*s. ~SD~ ~ Regicn 9
. G. Palumbct/Mr. M. Jackson Mr. R. Hannaford, BWIK>MSS, Albany 2 NY 14203-2 5 I9cNcUI c 101t'CC Mr. P. Kolalowski; Mr. M. Calaban Mr. L Nelson; Mr. We Culligan ~io 9Z EPA, B gion EE; EPA, N J~ey; L7C; M - R. B~h s Mr. S. Johnson Chautauctua County Health Departrrent N'm Moh k Power Corporation
0 2tL (1/89) Part t, Page 2 oK ~6 EFFLUENT UMITATIONSAND MONfTORING REQUIREMENTS During the period beglnnlng EDM December 1994 the discharges from the permitted facility shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: Minimum Monitoring Requirements Outfall Number 8 Discharge Umltations Measurement Sample ENuent Parameter Dally Avg. Dally Max. Units Frequency Type 1 Condenser Cooiin Wat r Roof Drains Floor E ui ment Dralna Fl Monitor 576 MGD Houtly Calculated Discharge Temperature~ NA 95(35) 4F('C) Continuous Metered Intake-DIscharge~ ' Temperature Difference Summer NA 16(E9) 'F('C) Coritinuous Metered Winter NA 20(11.1) OF( C) Continuous Metered Net Rate of Addition of Heat NA 3~0'A BTV/hr i Hourly Calculated kcal/hr 2/month Grab o.a+0'.0-9.0 pH (Range) SU il & Grease NA 15 mg/I Quarterly Grab 2 orm Drain Di r Em re Ovrfi n in R r E imntDrain B iirBiw wn vrfi nWa hOv rfi Row NA Monitor MGD Per Storm Event Inst. 01' Grease NA Monitor mg/I Per Storm Event Grab Suspended Solids Monitor Monitor mg/I Per Storm Event Grab pH 6.0-9.0 (Range) SU Per Storm Event Grab 003 Settiin S stem Dischar e inciudin Floor and E ui ment Drains Bo1ier Blowdown Bottom Ash Sluice Water Ash Ho r Overflow Demin ratiz r Re eneration Waste Roof Diains Flow Monitor Monitor MGD Continuous Recorder Oi1 8 Grease NA 15 mgfl 2/month Grab Suspended Solids 30 50 mg/I 2/month Grab Iron 2.0 4.0 mgfl 2/month Composite pH ~ 6.0-9.0 (Range) SU 2/month Grab 5 Waste Treatment Fac1i Flow . Monitor Monitor GPD Continuous Metered OII & Grease NA 15 mg/I Monthly Grab Suspended Solids 30 50 mg/l. Monthly Grab Iron NA 3.0 mg/1 Monthly 124r. Comp. Copper NA 0.16 mg/I Monthly 124r. Comp.
0 i'
SPDES No.: NY 000 2321 Part 1,Page 4 of ~6 FOOTNOTES
'These limitations may be exceeded during periods when one or more condensing units are operating with only one cir'culation water pump (per unit) due to pump breakdown or routine maintenance. In the event of pump breakdown, the permittee shall take corrective action as soon as possible.
Where possible, routine pump maintenance resulting in these limitations being exceeded should be avoided from June through September. The . permittee shall indicate on a Discharge Monitoring Report (1) which circulating water pumps, if any, were not in operation, (2), the dates and times such pumps were not operating, (3) the reason(s) for such pumps not operating, and (4) the period(s) (dates and times) during which these limitations were exceeded. In no case shall these limitations be exceeded more than 54 of the time during the operating year. "The intake temperature shall be considered that temperature existing after intake water tempering. Intake water tempering is undertaken to prevent ice damage to circulating pumps and improve plant efficiency. 'onitoring requirements may be altered following DEC review and approval of wastewater treatment facility engineering report. Monitoring frequency may be reduced following DEC review of the monitoring results for six months of waste treatment facility operation. "Net effluent limitations are not applicable to oil and grease or coal pile runoff. Only 576 MGD can be condenser cooling water. ~An increase in the maximum Intake-Discharge Temperature Difference, from 16'F to 20'F for Outfall 001, 'is authorized during the winter period when the facility has reduced its normal cooling water withdrawal. The winter period for reduced withdrawal shall be defined as the period beginning when average cooling water intake temperature falls below 50 F for a minimum of five consecutive days, continuing until average cooling water intake temperatures return to 504F for a minimum of five consecutive days. any time during this period, conditions require that normal cooling water If at withdrawal be resumed, then the maximum Intake-Discharge Temperature Difference for Outfall 001 shall be. returned to 16'F.
/
Y NIAGARA N LI MONZWK NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION/P,P, BOX 63. LYCOMING. NEW YORK 130 3~TELEPHONE l3151 3> '3'C September 1, 1994 Ms. Joanne L. March Environmental Analyst 1 Division of Regulatory Affairs NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 615 Erie Boulevard %est NY 13204-2400 'yracuse, RE: Comments on Draft SPDES Permit (August 1994) Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Scriba (T), Oswego County SPDES Permit ¹NY-000-1015 Application ID¹7-3556-00013/0001-0
Dear Ms. March:
1 In accordance with NYSDEC correspondence dated July 21, 1994, (March to Flanagan), attached are Niagara Mohawk comments {dated August 1994) for the draft SPDES Permit
~ ~
(NY-000-1015) for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station. The comments represent a
~
thorough review of the final draft Permit and of station operating conditions. An attempt has
~ ~ ~
been made to provide comments that meet the intent of the draft Permit requirements while
~
providing Niagara Mohawk some regulatory flexibility. Niagara Mohawk would like to be provided the opportunity to discuss those comments which the Department finds to be inappropriate or unclear. Please contact me at (315) 349-2428 for any questions or additional information. R lly, Hugh J. Flanagan Supervisor Environmental Protection IIpsc Attachment (kQF94.075) P. J. Kolakowski {NYSDEC) M. J. McCormick Jr. R. B. Abbott K. A. Dahlberg J. A. Miakisz v
NET MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION PERhGT NUMBER NY0001015 DRAPI'ERMIT COMMENTS Continued AUGUST 1994 0'14) Contd. adequate mixing, the following footnote is requested for the bottom of page 5 and "Sa".
"Note: For those situations where an effluent sample result is greater than 0.2 mg/liter due to suspected inadequate mixing of detox, an additional sample of greater than 0.2 is required to verify the initial result."
115) Niagara Mohawk requested in the previous set of comments for the draft Permit (submitted May 23, 1994) that total organic carbon analyses be substituted for the normal oil and grease analyses. The NYSDEC did not authorize this request. Because oil and grease analyses are very time consuming and since many of the discharges from the Station are high purity wwtewater (demineralized water), Niagara Mohawk will continue to seek regulatory relief. An inquiry to the New York Power Authority (James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant - SPDES Permit Number NY0020109) provided information that oil and grease requirements for high purity wastewater at the FitzPatrick facility are significantly less than the Niagara Mohawk draft Permit requirements. Niagara Mohawk requests, therefore, that oil and grease monitoring requirements, as well as total suspended solids requirements for high purity wastewater (i.e., conductivity of 10 pmho/cm or less) be once per calendar quarter. A footnote is proposed for page 4 of 16 of the draft Permit that reads as follows: High purity wastewater discharges that have a conductivity of 10 pmho/cm or less are permitted for an oil and grease and total suspended solids measurement frequency of once per calendar quarter." Footnote "j" should be provided for Outfalls 007, 011, 020, and 041. 016) The description for Outfall 041 on page 3 of 16 of the draft Permit should
~,'U'glW U ld'gD R v m i El i i n and Regeneration Wastes, gg~im~n Qrg~n, Filter Backwash, Floor Drains, and Treated Radioactive Wastes . The underlined words are new additions to the description in order to more accurately reflect potential wastewater sources.
nc osure
EPA lO Number /copy /r in//en I u/Forrrr ll Form A/iiiroveo OM8 No. 2040 0086 Please ivoe oi orini in iiie unsnaoeo areas oniv Anoioval rxoiies 7.31 e// 2D New Sources and New Dischargers NPORS aS'E PA Application for Permit to Discharge Process Wastew: I. Outfall Location For each outfall. list the latitude and longitude. and the name of the receiving water. Outfall Number Latitudel,Longitude ', Receiving water Inamel Ilisll Oeg; Mini Sec,'egl Mini Sect
~'7'l7< z4'3e~ C3~ Nc II. Discharge Date IWhen do you expect ro begin dischargu>gr'I Ill. Flows. Sources of Pollution. and Treatment Technologies A. For each outfall, provide a description of (1) All operations contributing wastewater to the effluent, inclu process wastewater, sanitary wastewater, cooling water, and stormwater runoff; (2) The average flow con uted by each operation; and (3) The treatment received by the wastewater. Continue on additional sh if necessary.
Outfall ) 1. Operations Contnbuung Flow . ~ 2 . Average Flow 3. Treatment Number llisrl Iinclude unirsl (Description or Lisr Codes Irom Table
+ I o p EPA Form 3510-2D f9-86) Pa
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~
~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ o
~ ~
~ ~
J aa e e + a j) 4 ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ k ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ' ~
~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~
~ ~ a sP X~+~ az
~ ~
CONTINUED FROM THE FRONT V. Effluent Characteristics td CentZS'nX EPA ID Number scopy Irorft lrem l ol Form ll Outfall Numper, A A. and B: These items require you to report estimated amounts(both concentration andmassJ of the pollutants.to be discharged from each of your outfalls. Each part of this item addresses a different set of pollutants and should be completed in accordance with the specific instructions for that part. Data for each outfall should be on a separate page. Attach additional sheets of paper if necessary. General Instructions (See fable 20-2 for Polluranrs) Each part of this item requests you to provide an estimated daily maximum and average for certain pollutants and the source of information. Data for all pollutants in Group A, for all outfalls, must be submitted unless waived by the permitting authority. For all outfalls, data for pollutants in Group B should be reported only for pollutants which you believe will be present or are limited directly by an effluent limitations guideline or NSPS or indirectly through limitations on an indicator pollutant.
- 2. Maximum 3. Average Daily Daily
,1. Pollutant Value Value 4 Source lseeinsrrucrionsl (include unirsl linclude unirsl re T i
57Z~~i K>> ~@ed c<<n e<<<<beckon> I 5 ftt 50 rttc C4 EPA Form 3510-20 f7-89) Page 3 of 5 CONTINUE ON REVERSE
CONTINUED FROM THE FRONr EPA ID Niiinoer icupy I oin Ir n I ol Forni I/ C. Use the space below to list any of the pollutants listed in Table 20-3 of the instructions which you know or have reason to believe will be discharged from any outfall. For every pollutant you list. briefly describe the reasons you believe it will be present. I. Pollutant i 2. Reason for Discharge
~e Ji~oha I I
Cll~+~ ~ ~Ah<> L'~ I>> ii>>K ~h>>c Qo~t
~e 4t~g~
Cia A N~4~t'-44 C>~;~~. U~ W~ienlg.vi(( L,a MdeJ
~ e (t'~ 4~~, ~ we oip p it~mA
,~~+me di~~
e ~~-<ene~e uuVi'( I cv cu(akim&-.ck(ai-ice p-r~r ~ Ji~
~ a~>>~-
(~ p~~ z+ i~ in +he. rit i
~.~
~
e., r%e vduwe4~4tii~ to(~Low,i
'ok'~((
(20 Sp~ (o J~>> s i>> cc= (4s>> 4~ di~clnarg'Qw~ o~<4 II ohio.
,~.(l L p~~~~,~~m L,)c 3~+ a'~,
+ ~ pz,((~
A)a~ (>>.
>> (>~
Ik' ie ~~ e r VI. Engineering Report on Wastewater Treatment A. If there is any technical evaluauon concermng your wastewater treatment, including engineering reports or pilot plant studies. check Ihe appropriate box below. Q Report Available No Report B. Provide the name and location of any existing plant(s) which, to the best of your knowledge, resembles this production facility with respect to production processes, wastewater constituents, or wastewater treatments. Name ~ Location Lv~ (&(a'. cPA Form 3510 2D (9.86) Page 4 of 5 CONTINUE ON NEXT PAGE
II. Other Information laptionall QOC~ 'r EPA IO Number (copy rom tttfm one XQ ol For Use the space below to expand upon any of the above questions or to bring to the attention of the reviewer ar other information you feel should be considered in establishing permit limitations for the proposed facilit Attach additional sheets if necessary. III. Certification l certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction t supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather ar evaluate theinformation submitted. Based on myinquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, t l those persons directly responsible for gathering theinformation, theinformation submittedis, to the best oi rr. knowledge andbelief, true, accurate, and complete. lam aware that there are significant penalties for submittir,
~'~
I l falseinformation, including the possibtrt'ty of fine andimprisonment for knowing violations. I
~
. Name and Official Title (type or printl B+Phoee Mo.
C. Z Signature I C Ho~a cr Ljn+i -2. O. Oate SignP d 8 EPA Form -20 I9-86) Page
HX IA
nc osure
91-20-2a (1/89) SPDES No.: NY 000 10'5 Part t, Page o o la EFFLUENT LIMITATIONSAND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS During the period beginning EDP 12/1/94 and lasting until EDP + 5 YEARS 12 1 99 the discharges from the permitted facility shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: Minimum Monitoring Requirements Outfall Number 8 Discharge Limitations Measurement ample Effluent Parameter Daily Avg. Daily Max. Units Frequency . Type Oto 040 cree NA ay/h Duration of Multiple Grab r'"'""'r) P.~ntonrri~ chemical application and disch. Cr 'tgf >eaatd
- For purpose of this authorization multiple grab is defined as individual grab samples collected on during duration of chemical application and discharge. rrifrr~nls Into) /c r'p.crrd 74I rrr Ilki,rtrg S ecial Conditions The-Betz-eamR~W1~rogram-foraebramussebcontrolr submitted by.fetters<ated June-14;1996-,May-23~994,
~
ember-1-,-1994-and the program-for unit +.Intake4erebay-recirculation-treatment-mpecified-bpletter.dated-July-16,
~
993-to NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation)R-7/rezpprove&ithdhe-following-conditions: r BlKI- 4ds Fer-8etz-Glara-T~oI-GT-1-,thesedimitations vNi-be. achieved by-llmltlrig-eNuent-whole-product-eonceatratioris.
- 2. Detoxification with bentonite clay or other Department approved adsorption medium is required.
PIP. rr JAagig recirculation treatment.
- 4. Records of product use, effluent flow and concentration of product during application and discharge must be maintained.
- 5. The Regional Water Engineer shall be notified not less than 48 hours before initiation of zebra mussel control program.
- 6. Upon elimination of initial infestations, treatments are limited to not more than 4 times annually.
- 7. The reports describing the results of the effectiveness of the zebra mussel control program and effluent analyses for
-shall be submitted annually to Regional Water Engineer, NYSDEC.
/i)0/l~~r.'.4
- 8. This permit modification is issued based on the best environmental and aquatic toxicity information available at this time. This authorization is subject to modification or withdrawal any time new information becomes available which justifies such modification or withdrawal.
Ohr J(p,lr.vy, l>~t ~ OTE: For those situatioris where an eNuent sample result is greater than@4-ragrqiter due to suspected inadequate mixing of detox, an additional sample shall be obtained as soon as possible to verify the initial result.
'!NTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE hI V NIAGARA H U MOHAWK M B Holloway Nine Mile Point Unit 01 C Merritt l Iii" DATE SUBJECT June 10, 1996 FILE CODE SPDES Permit Change for Zebra Mussel Treatments, Biocide Detection Limit The discussion that follows should answer some of the questions that Paul Kolakowski of the DEC had expressed at our May 16, 1996 meeting, concerning the lower detection limits for the analyses of Betz Laboratories Clam-Trol CT-1 and CT-2, along with Calgon's H-130M. First let me review these products. Betz product CT-1 is a mixture of two active ingredients, alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (ADBAC) and dodecylguanidine hydrochloride (DGH). C H, ADBAC (C )-N'-CH,-C,H, CL CHs H H N DGH (C I 12 H25 )-NC N' H CL H
The active ingredient for Calgon's H-130M is a common product used in disinfecting cleaners, its name is didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride (DDAC). Cio>~i DDAC CH,
' CH, CL 10+21 Our current method for zebra mussel treatment directs us to utilize the CT-I chemical in the service water system. The SPDES permit requires that we verify the discharge waters are less than 0.2 mg/I (ppm) of CT-I as whole product. The concentration of the active ingredients in CT-I whole product are 13 wt%. Of this, 8 wt% is the ADBAC reagent, and 5 wt% is the DGH.
The individual discharge limits for these products can then be calculated, and result to be; 0.016 mg/I (ppm) for ADBAC and 0.010 mg/I (ppm)for the DGH. This would imply that the method detection limits for the ADBAC should be capable of the 0.016 mg/I and that of the DGH at 0.010 mg/I. In actuality, this is not the case. The analytical method detection limit is 0.2 mg/I for CT-1 as whole product, in other words 0.026 mg/I for active ingredients ( this includes both ADBAC and DGH). This is due to the analytical method which does not distinguish between the two compounds. The analysis for these compounds is an organic solvent extraction from a pH buffered sample after complexing with a reagent. This analytical method is designed for quaternary ammonium compounds (QAC) that contain a significant hydrocarbon attached to the charged nitrogen, described by the following general formula. R~ l Quaternary Ammonium R4-N'-R CL Compound R, Comparing both of the Betz CT-I active products to the general QAC formula, it can be seen that each fits the general formula, and because of this, the analysis for CT-I is unable to distinguish between them. The conclusion from this is that the lower detection limit for the analysis of CT; I is approximately 0.026 mg/I as quaternary ammonium compounds, the sum of the ADBAC and DGH. The determination that the lower detection for CT-I active products is at approximately 0.026 mg/I, is consistent with Betz's reported lower detection limit of 0.050 mg/I for CT-2 whole product (0.025 mg/I of ADBAC active ingredient QAC). This detection limit is also
approximated by communication from Calgon for their product, H-130M. In Calgon's letter, they claim the lower limit of accuracy is 40 ppb (0.040 mg/I) for the whole product, this is equal to 0.020 mg/l for their active ingredient DDAC (at 50 wt% active). This leads us to the conclusion that regardless of the product used, the apparent lower range for QAC analyses are in the 0.020 to 0.025 mg/l range. Both of the product manufacturers have volunteered to answer any question that you have, or that may arise from DEC communications. Pete Wrede Calgon Corp. 1-800-955-0090 (3365) Mark Pencak Betz Water Management Group 1-800-324-7589 During our conversation with Paul Kolakowski in May, he was interested in any water dilution information that we may have, concerning our discharge structures and calculations. I have made copies of relevant sections of our UFSAR and Offsite Dose Calculation Manuel for both Unit 1 and Unit 2. This information should be useful to the DEC when evaluating our zebra mussel biocide request. Please pass this information of to Paul for me. Ifquestions arise that I can help explain, give me a call.
APPENDZX A LZQUZD DOSE FACTOR DERZVATZON Uak I ODClf Rcrbbs l6
Appendix A Liquid Effluent Dose Factor Derivation, A. A (mrem/hr per pCi/ml) which embodies the dose conversion factors', pathway transfer factors (e.g., bioaccumulation factors), pathway usage factors, and dilution factors for the points of pathway origin takes into account the dose from ingestion of fish and drinking water and the sediment. The total body and organ dose conversi.on factors for each radionuclide will be used from Table E-11 of Regulatory Guide 1.109. To expedite time, the dose is calculated for a maximum individual instead of each age group. The maximum indivi.dual dose factor i.s a composite of the hi.ghest dose factor A. of each nuclide i age group a, and organ t, hence A>. It should be noted that the fish ingestion pathway is the most significant, pathway for dose from liquid effluents. The water consumption pathway is included for consistency with NUREG 0133
'I The equation for calculating dose contributions given in section 1.3 requires, the use of the composi.te dose factor A for each nuclide, i.. The dose factor equation for a fresh water site is:
-l,)t~ -iL)t~
] (DFL) g + ~ ~ ~
D
+ 69.3 uw e
-X,{:-{.,t~
" {1-e ) {Dps),{
{D.{ {>i) Where: Is the dose factor for nuclide i, age group a, total body or organ t, for all appropriate pathways, (mrem/hr per pCi/ml) . Ko Is the unit conversion factor, 1. 14E5=1E6pCi./pCi x 1E3 ml/kg ->>.- 8760 hr/yr. U Water consumption (1/yr); from Table,E-5 of Reg. Guide 1.109. Up Fish consumption (Kg/yr); from Table E-5 of Reg. Guide 1. 109. U, Sediment Shoreline Usage (hr/yr)y from Table E-5 of Reg. Guide 1.109. (BF); Bioaccumulation factor for nucli.de, i, i.n fish, (pCi/kg per pCi/1), from Table A-1 of Reg. Guide 1.109. (DFL) 4I Dose conversion factor for age, nuclide, group a, total body or organ t, (mrem/pCi); from Table E-ll of Reg. Guide 1.109. (DFS)[ Dose conversion factor for nucli.de body, from standipg on contaminated ground i and total (mern/hr per pCi/m ); from Table E-6 of Reg. Guide 1.109. D Dilution factor from the near fi.eld area withi.n one-quarter mile of the release point to the potable water intake for the adult water consumption. This is the Metropolitan Water Board, .Onondaga County intake structure located west of the City of Oswego; (unitless). Uall I ODCM Ribs l6
) Appendix A {Cont'd) D, Dilution factor from the near field area within one quarter mile of the release point to the shoreline deposit (taken at the same point where we take environmental samples 1.5 miles; unitless) . 69.3 conversion factor -693 x 100, 100 ~ "K, (L/kg-hr)
+40*24 hr/day(.693 in L/m -d, and K, ~ transfer coefficient from water to sediment, in L/kg per hour.
t~t tel Average transit time required for each nuclide to tp reach the point of exposure for internal dose, it is the total time elapsed from release of the nuclides to either ingestion, for water (w) and fish (f) or shoreline deposit (s), (hr). Length of time the sediment is exposed to the contaminated water, nominally 15 yrs (appioximate midpoint of facility operating life), (hrs)- decay constant for nuclide i (hr ).
~ l Shore width factor (unitless) from Table A-2 of Reg.
Guide 1.109. Example Calculation For I-131 Thyroid Dose Factor for an Adult from a Radwaste liquid effluents release: (DFS); 2.80E-9 mrem/hr per pCi/m (DFL) 4( 1.95E-3 mrem/pci t~ ~ 30 hrs. (w water) BF< 15 pCi/Kg per pCi/L t< ~ 24 hrs. (f ~ fish) Ur 21 Kg/yr t, ~ 1.314ES hrs.>.(5.48E3 days) D 40 unitless U ~ 730 L/yr D, 12 unitless Ko = 1.14E5 Ci ci ml k U, 12 hr/yr {hr/yr) W 0.3 3.61E-3hr 5.5 hrs (s ~ Shoreline Sediment) These values will yield an A, Factor of 6.79E4 mr'em-ml per pCi-hr as listed in Table 2-4. 2-1 It should be to 2-8. These noted that only a limited number of nuclides are listed on Tables are the most common nuclides encountered in effluents. If a nuclide is detected for which a factor is not listed, then included in a revision to the ODCM. it will be calculated and In addition, not all dose factors are used for the dose calculations. A maximum individual is used, which is a composite of the maximum dose factor of each age group for each organ as reflected in the applicable chemistry procedures.
Nine Mile Point Unit 1 FSAR can be isolated for unwatering and work on the corresponding pump. A, lateral branch leads off to the east from the secondary forebay. Three chambers off this branch, separated from it sluice gates, supply water to each of two service by water pumps with straine s and a pair of fire pumps. One of these fire pumps is driven by an electric motor, the other by a diesel engine. The screenhouse is also ecpxipped with a floor-operated electric overhead traveling bridge crane. This crane 'serves the various functions. o p3,acing and removing stop logs, and servicing the trash racks, rack rakes and traveling screens, maintenance of the two circulating water pumps. and all pumps mounted above the secondary forebay. The service water pumps, their stxainers and the fire pumps are serviced for maintenance work by overhead beam runs, txolleys and hoists. 2.0 Intake and Discharge Tunnels As shown in Figure III-21, water is drawn from the bottom of Lake Ontario about two-tenths/of a mile of shore and returned to the lake about one-tenth of a mile offshore. 2.1 Design Bases The water intake and discharge tunnels are designed to conform to the recpxirements for Class II structures. The intake and discharge tunnels are concrete-lined bores through solid rock. As such, they are highly rigid structures with extremely small nat:ural periods of vibration and a seismic response of only 11 percent of gravity regardless of the damping factor. 2.2 Structure Design Water is admit:ted to the intake tunnel thxough a bellmouth-shaped inlet. The inlet is surmounted by a hexagonally-shaped guaxd structuxe of concrete, the top of which is about 6 lake bottom and 14 ft ft above the below the lowest anticipated lake level. The structure is covered by a roof of sheet piling supported on steel beams, and each of the six sides has a water inlet about 5-ft high by 10-ft wide, with the latter openings guarded by galvanized steel racks. This design provides for watex to be UFSAR Revision III-57 June 1994
0 p
I III-58 l NTAKE AND DlSCHARGE Ting lgLS PLAN AND PROFlLE 4
'o n II I
FOLIC
~
l4<<ST OT<< Tll TUN>>CL II TVt4ICL 2 IKC 5U>>.OII4O Cl J 24SN
/ 0
>>OO 0 SCRCCN 4 >>ISI5 PULIO lA2USC IS IOW ISTIC%'
IUTAKC TUMLICL 25'4'O 4 21'6 Lw tL 244.0'W PLALI IS CL T44A) 27 '5 Q RC ACTOR IIISIP>>IS IA'IitdsalTS 8 115:C TL 225 <<'<<' C'45~2<<S CL 2224
'g L 2IS'<'LTSdd- A-~-
CI tSOO't-RCT<< I I I y
~OA N I I I I
0 I 00 200 SOO ELCVATIOM ORAnrclC IM TAKE 0 ISC H ARG E 01440 O QQQ~ CRAPHIC CL. 2CSA) I CQCCN IIOUSC IIILCT LICAAI'MLS. CI '14L'5 MAX.W.S. CL245 0 S. CL. 242.5 LCW WA.CI 244 0 CL. '111.5 STOIC OIKC CL I SAD
>>00 0 PNX ILE ALOM6 INTAKE TURNE L 50 0 SO OUTLCT CI.. 2 SO.O C.I..TCS.O'TOMC OIKC Ce I54.0'SO SECTIOM l-i TYPICAL SECTION Z 2 TYPICAL 5 0 5 l0 555 IO ORADIIIC QRADHtC PROI-ILE ALONG DISCHARGE TUNNEL SO O 50 IOO FIGURS III-2I.
I
~ I J
A
drawn equally from all directi.ons with a minimum of disturbance and with no vortex at the lake surf ace, and guards against the entr ance o f unmanageable flotsam to the circulating water system The water dzops through a vertical concrete-lined shaft to a concrete-lined, tunnel in the rock through which it flows to the foot of a conc ete-lined vertical shaft under the forebay in the screenhouse. The foot of this shaft contains a
.sand trap to catch and store any lake-bottom sand which may wash over the sills of'he inlet structure. The top of the shaft has a bellmouthed dischar ge.
Water is returned to the lake at a point about one-tenth of a mile .offshore through a bell-mouthed outlet surmounted by a hexagonal-shaped discharge structure of concrete. The top of this structure is about 4 feet above lake bottom and 8-1/2 feet below the lowest anticipated lake level. The geometry of-the structure closely resembles the inlet structure, although reduced in size. The six exit ports are about 3-feet high by 7-1/3 feet wide. The discharge tunnel from the screenhouse is identi.cal in cross-section with the intake tunnel. The vertical shaft connecting the discharge tunnel with the di.s charge channel under the sczeenhouse also has a sand trap at its foot. Water is discharged directly to the vertical discharge shaft.. A submerged diffuser in the vertical shaft ensures a good dilution before dischazge to the lake. Samples are drawn at a lower point in the shaft. 3.0 Safet Anal sis The selection and arrangement of equipment and components of the screenhouse and circulating water tunnels is based on the knowledge gained over many years of experience in the design, construction and operation of such facilities for coal-fired steam-electric stations. All components of the system which might possibly be subject to unscheduled outage and by such outage affect, the operability of the Station are duplicated. In the case of the duplicate fire pumps, the prime movers are also totally independent. The gates are simple and rugged in constzucti.on, and their operation is simple and straight forward, with the possibility of inadvertent erroneous operation cut
Nine Mile Point Unit 1 FSAR to a minimum. The pump suctions are amply submerged below the lowest low water surface elevation of the lake surface adjusted for the friction and velocity drops in the supply tunnel and channels. The supply of water by d'rect gravity from the lake is inexhaustible. The main portion of the superstructure, a single-story structu e elastic frame of one bay width, has a relat'vely long natural period of vibration, and being bolted, has a comparatively high damping factor. As a result, the dynamic loads which could be applied to it by wind pressure and al'so operation of the crane are more cr'tical than those due to the seismic loading,. Thus, wh'le no dynamic analysis of the framing was required or made, it is quite probable that the building superstructure meets Class I conditions instead of only Class ZZ, as specified in the First Supplement to the PSSR. Shearing forces in the walls and in the bottom chord plane of the roof truss system are resisted by systems of diagonal bracing. The sizes of the members of these systems were governed bv detail and minimum allowable slenderness rather than by calculated forces, which resulted in excess strength being available in the system. I UFSAR Revision 12 ZZZ-60 June 1994
XVII-107 l B- LIMNOLOGY 1.0 Introduction In 1963 an extensive limnological program was carried out in the region of Nine Mile Point, Lake Ontario, off the site of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (Figure XVII-56). More than 80 cruises were made to gather information about the waters of the lake. The data obtained and conclusions drawn were presented in the Preliminary Hazards Summary Report (PHSR)," Volume II, Appendix B. The material presented in was concerned, with the following. that'ocument
- a. Defining the offshore currents at Nine Mile Point.
- b. Correlating these currents with various wind regimes which might then be used as indicators of water current patterns.
- c. Determining dilution factors applicable to effluent water released at the Nine Mile Point site.
In 1964 the limnological studies were continued mainly to provide more precise information on dilution of liquid Station effluent at selected areas. In addition, a study was conducted to determine the nature of aquatic life in the vicinity of the site. Extensive field work was conducted to assure satisfactory conclusions for each of these objectives. This report includes a brief description of this work, as well as a summary of results. 2.0 Summa Report of Cruises The results of 35 cruises are used in this report. The areas worked in detail were off Oswego and Nine Mile Point. In the Oswego area three types of work were carried out. a0 Bathythezmograph (BT) temperature profile data were collected along transects out into the lake. This was done in conjunction with similar transects off Nine Mile Point. The purpose of these profiles was to establish the instantaneous height of the isothermal layers at each area.
- b. Intensive BT profiles were taken across the City of Oswego water intake.
0 SOUTHEASTERN LAKE ONTARIO
$ ~
I: 0 ee: (4 le I: I A A E 1 ~ ( ll A R III le
\:
I, j
~ ~ e
) e' (e
//OP 7 H roe/O I
)
( )
/;
I O'CLICIOO
/ /e' IJOOeOOO
)I j )','e SslkhOI khoroe
~ loco herE
/ ~
t~ I r,(t.-. Ie e rA eeCO I eee I4444 hl 44I OOeht I ~ 4 4 ~ ~ 4 4 cf h FIGURE XVIZ ~
XVII-109 c ~ Current studies were made using chloride concentration, temperature and current direction data. This work was done only during periods when there was a definite westward moving current. Off the Nine Mile Point site the work was concentrated on the inshore and covered the following. a ~ BT profiles were coordinated with similar data off the Oswego area. Chloride, temperature and current direction data were taken to determine the inshore current directions, particularly as to possible beaching.
- c. One cruise involved the release of dye at the discharge area to estimate diffusion and mixing activity.
- d. Samples were taken throughout the summer and fall at three prescribed lake stations to determine the distribution of plankton and possible presence of fish eggs and larvae in the area.
- e. One cruise was devoted to exploration of the lake bottom.
3.0 Dilution of Station Effluent in Selected Areas In the PHSR, calculation of dilution factors 1 for liquid Station effluent was based on surface dilution data as found for the Oswego River and modified by Lake Ontario current data. Part of the 1964 program was directed toward developing dilution factors at selected areas. For this study, considerations such as dilution of the effluent from a submerged discharge, surface drawdown into a submerged intake, tilting of isothermal planes in the lake, and velocity of local lake currents also enter into the dilution calculations. 3.1 Dilution of Effluent at the Lake Surface Above the Discharcre With the discharge structure at the lake bottom, dilution will take place because of shear stresses between the effluent jet. and the lake water, resulting ultimately in turbulent diffusion throughout the entire effluent water column. Calculation of the dilution upon effluent rise to the surface is based on work by Rawn et al., discussing the dilution factor in a paper entitled
'p "Diffusers for Disposal of Sewage in Sea Water."(~) Such diffusers are subsurface discharge structures similar in principle to that for this Station. Density differences between the fresh water of the sewage and the sea water referred to in Rawn's work are paralleled by temperature (hence density) differences in the discharge of the coolant water and the lake water at Nine Mile Point. Each of the six vertical ports of the discharge structure is considered as an independent discharge opening. The dilution (S ) of the effluent on rising from, the lake bottom is a function of two variables (the ratio of depth to port diameter, and the Froude Number)- S = f(y /D.F) where: y depth from center of discharge port to surface (ft). diameter of the discharge port (ft). r, D F = the Froude Number. The Froude Number for a jet discharging horizontally into water is: i' where: V = velocity of jet (ft/sec). g b,s g' s (ft/sec2). g = acceleration of gravity = 32.2 ft/sec2. s = specific gravity of effluent,. bs = difference between specific gravities of the effluent and lake water. (~) A. M. Rawn, F. R. Bowerman, and N. H. Brooks, Journal of the Sanita Enaineerina Division, (Proceedings of the Amer'.can Society of Civil Engineers, Volume B6, No. SA2: 65-106, March, 1960.
XVII-llew Prediction of the dilution factor is based upon an extrapolation o f the graph in Figure 8 in Rawn, and presented here in Figure XVII-57. In this solution the number on the ordinate is the ratio y /D. Using the average annual depth of 14.75 feet to the center of one port of 5.72-feet equivalent diameter will give a number of approximately 2.6 for this ratio. I For the number on the abcissa, two calculations of F (the Froude Number) were mhde since the density between waters of 14C difference will vary considerably, depending upon whether this difference is in cold or warm water. Thusone calculation is for water between 4C and 18C and the other for 24C and 38C. This 14C difference is approximately equal to the expected 25F temperature rise of the water used for cooling in the Station condensers. For 4C to 18C difference: 3.90 F (.0445 x 5.72) / 7 74 For 24C to 38C difference: 3 90 ' F (.1403 x 5.72) 1/2 In Figure XVII-57, with y /D = 2.6 and F ranging from 4.35 to 7.74, an axial dilution factor of between 2.5X and 3X at the lake surface is obtained. This dilution will be partially dependent upon a continuous supply of lake water to the area of the rising effluent plumes in the amount required for the calculated dilution. If, for example, a dilution factor of 2X is to be achieved, been calculated that a minimum lake it current has on the order of .07 mph will assure a sufficient supply of water for dilution. Likewise, a current of .14 mph will assure a sufficient supply of water if a dilution factor of 3X is to be achieved. Current velocities at the discharge site calculated from current meter data and shown in Figure XVII-58 were over 0.7 mph 66 percent of the time and over
.14 mph 54 percent of the time. Lake water temperature in excess of 24C will occur less than 6 percent of the time.
DlLUTION OF RfSlNG PLUME 10 I I I CD CI 4 C) UJ UJ CD I CD CI I 4J CD ID I CD II CD O 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sp ~ OILUTION ON AXIS OF RISING COLUMN FIGURE XVII-
XVII "- ESTlhhATED LAKE CURRENTS AT COOLlNG SATER DlSCHARGE 1.5 1.0 ALL CURRENTS 0.5 iEASTWARD CUR RE NT 0 10 20 30 40 50 70 80 90 100 PERCENT OF YEAR FIGURE ZVII-'
On this basis sufficient lake water will always be supplied to the discharge area to assure an average annual effluent dilution of at least 2X at, the surface above the discharge structure. Even when no natural lake current exists, active mixing may be expected. The flow of the effluent from the discharge ports will result in mixing eddies at the lower periphery and sides of the plumes. These will entrain lake water which will
,be carried along with the effluent. outward and upward from each of the six ports. As a water must be drawn from the bottom of the result,'ooler lake toward the discharge structure to replace that water captured by the effluent.
3.2 Dilution of Effluent at the Site Boundaries 3.2.1 General The dilution factors at the borders of the Nine Mile Point site were derived primarily from local current and temperature data. The results are summarized below. a~ On one of the cruises a gallon of dye was released at the surface'bove the location planned for the discharge structure. By the time the dye patch reached the eastern border of the Nine Mile Point site, the dye had spread over a surface area approximately 400 feet by 2,800 feet, covering more than 1,000,000 square feet. There can be no direct correlation between the dispersion of the dye and an effluent release of about 600 cfs. However, the results indicate that in the shallow inshore area, there is a very strong mixing movement due to active upwelling and turbulence arising from flow over the rough, shallow, rocky bottom. Thus, under normal conditions of eastward moving currents, the near shore effluent will be completely mixed with the lake water available for mixing.
Studies of Currents in the Station Area The permanent current meter data for the period between November 6, 1963 and February 26, 1964 (recorded at the 35-foot water depth "off the Station shore) were analyzed and used in estimating expected current velocities and dilution factors. Comparison of the wind data for this three-month period with cumulative data for 1963 and 1964 showed that percent distribution of winds by quadrants and average wind velocities, respectively, were. almost identical. Periods of calm for the three-month period, however, were lower than in the two-year distribution by about 3.2 percent. Eastward currents of low velocity would, therefore, occur 1.6 percent more than indicated since approximately half of the wind-generated currents ,are eastward. Otherwise, this analysis may be considered to be within expected yearly variation limits. In general, the localized currents off the Station site were consistent with the more widespread patterns recorded in the 1963 study and reported in the PHSR. Beaching of surface water occurred more frecpxently in the 1964 data but coincided with the wind pattern in the same manner as established in the 1963 study. During the cruises it was observed that the top surface water responded almost immediately to wind stress, changing direction with each shift of the wind. The layer of water down to approximately 2 feet, as indicated by surface drogues, also responded very quickly to wind stress. The tendency of water at the 5-foot depth, however, was to continue flowing in the established current pattern. As many as five different current directions and velocities were plotted throughout a 50-foot water column. Normally these currents were in the same general direction, but in some cases were completely opposite. Subsurface currents were often of greater velocity than surface currents.
Even though the water closest to the surface may respond to wind stress and direction, complete mixing may be expected several feet in depth. More rapid mixing will occur in water 30 feet or less in depth over rough, rocky bottom. In the open lake, wave activity and upwelling are the principal forces of mixing. c Dilution Factor as Related to Current Velocities at Nine Mile Point Dilution is directly related to current velocities which will supply varying amounts of water for dilution. Expected percent of time of various magnitudes of dilution vere calculated, using current velocity data recorded by the permanent current meter anchored offshore from the Station. In making this calculation, the recorded data vere modified to give approximate surface current values. The dilution calculation vas concerned only with near shore water where the current is generally parallel to shore. Zt vas assumed that the water available for mixing in this area was that portion between the discharge structure and the shore, and that only half the effluent water need be considered; the other half of the effluent, mixes with water lakeward of the discharge structure. 3.2.2 Dilution of Effluent at the Eastern Site
~o~dazo The wind data indicate that the effluent vater 50 vill be moved eastward approximately percent of the time, following the same general current patterns diagrammed in the PHSR. In addition,, there are a number of associated factors vhich will markedly affect actual dilution at the border of the Station site.
a 0 Associated Factors Affectin Dilution i." Wind direction will greatly influence actual dilution. For more than half the time when the '
current is moving eastward, the wind is blowing offshore causing upvelling along the shore vith increased dilution.-
~
l3.
~
The eastward current pattern at Nine Nile Point is such that the main current flow parallels the shore betveen Oswego and the western extremity of Nine Mile P'oint, then flows out into the lake. In only five of the 82 cruises in 1963 were eastward . currents plotted that actually paralleled the shore beyond the site. In all other cases of eastvard currents, there was a divergence of the current from the shore and subsequent upwelling. This divergence vill occur even with winds from the northvest vhen surface vaters down to 5 feet,".may be carried shorevard. 111 With northwest winds surface water may be beached, but again vind and current data indicate that northwest winds are consistently of higher'elocity and are associated in time with stronger currents and high mixing conditions due to onshore wave activity. iv. Periods of surface calm would be expected to produce periods of lowest dilution, yet calms are most often associated with southerly winds, periods of current, reversals in the immediate vicinity of the discharge structure and, at times, with residual currents vhich flow at velocities of up to .4 mph. During periods of surface calm there vill be local currents induced by the flow of the effluent water from the underwater discharge structure.
'he resultant mixing produced by this flow was discussed in Section 3.1.
XVII-1I ~* Dilution Calculation Table XVII-30 represents of dilution Based on Water a based upon the amount calculation of water available due to current velocity in the immediate vicinity of the discharge structure. It assumes complete mixing in the shallow water area between the discharge structure and shore due to a combination of the active mixing'produced by the discharge of the effluent at the bottom, and turbulence in the shallow water as flows over the rough, rocky bottom. it The tabulated dilution factors do not include credit for water drawn from the lake by the effluent plumes or the added dilution potential available from upwelling. Dilution Factor Corrections for Low Current Velocit eastward movement of the water
/'ith past Nine Mile Point about 48 percent of the year, currents of less than
.07 mph will be expected to occur about, 16 percent of the time. This velocity will result in less than 2X total dilution if no credit is taken for upwelling or the current induced by the effluent plumes. During these periods several factors may bring about an increase in the dilution factor at the eastern border of the Station site, as a result o f the modification of the time factor listed in Table XVII-30. Any wind south of west, will tend to move surface water away from the Nine Mile Point shore, produce upwelling and increase dilution. Once an eastward current, along the Oswego-Nine Mile Point shore is established, this current will also create a similar upwelling and dilution. From studies reported in the PHSR, the surface water will be carried away from shore about half the time there is an eastward current. Significantly,
TABLE XYlI-30 DILUTION CALCULATIONF'R EASTWARD CURRENTS BASED ON WATER AVAILABILITY Current in MPH Percent of Year Dilution Factor
<,07 16. 1 <2X .07 - .14 5.5 2X - 3X .l4 - .2 3.7 3X - 4X .2 - .5 10. 1 4X - 8X .5 - 1.0 9.4 8X - 1.6X 1.0 - 2.0 3.0 16X - 30X Total 47. 8 Average 6X
this includes some 15 percent of the time (of a total of 63 percent) when winds are less than 10 mph. Under these conditions, dilutions greater than 2X will occur at the eastern border of the Station even with current velocities less than
.07 mph. The 16 percent of the time when conditions would normally result in less than 2X initial dilution will, therefore,-
be reduced to 8 percent. If an eastward current falls below .07 mph with possible dilutions of less than 2X, and this period of low velocity is less than fourteen hours before a current reversal, then the effluent of less than 2X dilution will not reach the eastern border of the Station. Instead, this low dilution water will be carried westward and out into the open lake from the northwest bend of the Nine Mile Point promontory. Permanent current records show that when current velocities fall below'".07 mph, about 50 percent of this time is within the fourteen-hour time limit before reversal. This would reduce by half again the probability of effluent of less than ZX dilution,from reaching the eastern border of the site. Total time of this low dilution at the eastern border would thus be reduced to 4 percent of the year. With current reversals from west to east, water without effluent would flow along the Oswego-Nine Mile Point shore and separate the returning diluted effluent water from the Station effluent discharged after the current reversal. With winds north of 'west., particularly strong winds, effluent will be driven against
XVII-121 the Nine Mile Point shore. Although it may not produce a noticeable current near the bottom, as indicated by the permanent current meter data, such winds vould bring vater to the shore. This would result in sinking of the water along the shore, mixing by wave activity, and dilution of the effluent. Mind data indicate that vinds from the northwest quadrant blow about 15 percent of the time, oz about one-third of the time. when eastward currents are expected. Such winds, if sustained, will produce a reversal of the eastward current. Increased dilution due to such winds will reduce to less than 3 percent the time when dilutions of less than ZX'ill reach the eastern border of the Station site. Calculation of Average Annual Dilution Factors at Eastern Border of Station Sate and 4,000 Feet East of, Border From Table XVII-30, the average dilution factor of the effluent being carried toward the eastern border of the Station site is 6X. Since eastward currents occur during only half the total time, there is an annual dilution factor due to current velocity alone of twice this amount, or 12X. From the discussion in the last section, water of less than 2X dilution will reach the eastern border of the Station site less than 3 percent of the time. Also, for half the time of eastward movement of the water, the strong current along the Oswego-Nine Mile Point shore will increase the dilution of the effluent moving eastward by a factor of at least,- two. If these factors are considered, then the annual dilution factor at the eastern border of the Station site will be in the 20X to 24Z range. Since the northeast bend
XVII-122 of the Nine Mile Point promontory is almost a mile eastward of the eastern
- border of the Station site, the annual dilution factor of 21X as given on page B-37 of the PHSR is conservative.
A reexamination of current patterns along the northern shore of the Nine Mile Point promontory shows that this current normally moves out into the open lake where the shore turns southward. Dilution factors here along the shore are, thus, eastward'rom in the 40X or greater range, or equivalent to that predicted for Mexico Point (as described on page B-38 of the PHSR). 3.2.3 Dilution of Effluent West of the Station Site In the 1963 limnological study, efforts were directed mainly to delineate the currents in the eastern'end of the lake. Of lesser significance at that time was the acquisition of data on those factors which would affect dilution rates to the west of the Station site. In the 1964 studies considerable time was spent on such factors as tilting of the isothermic planes in the eastern end of the lake and westward movement of water. Also, an examination of water movement in the immediate area of the City of Oswego intake proved to be of value in dilution factor calculations. The various individual factors are discussed below. Also included are the factors which directly affect the dilution of the effluent in the City of Oswego intake. Effluent moving westward will tend to be carried out into the open lake more than it half the time. If is beached, complete mixing will have taken place and immediate dilution factors equal to that of water moving eastward may be expected. On this basis an annual dilution factor of greater than 40X is predicted for the western boundary-of the Station site.
XVII-123 3.3 Dilution of Eff3.uent at the Cit of Oswego Intake The nearest public drinking water supply drawn from Lake Ontario is located near Oswego, approximately 8 miles southwest of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station. The next closest domestic water supply inlets are over 35 miles distant at Sodus Point and at Sackets Harbor. The location, depth and rate of pumping'or the City of Oswego water intake are important aspects in making any estimate of dilution factors for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station effluent that enters the intake. The intake is about 6,000 feet from shore and 8,200 feet west of the Oswego Harbor lighthouse in about 58 feet of water. The intake structure rises several feet from the bottom and is open at the top, drawing water in through a protective heavy wooden grid. The opening is about 16-feet wide. In June of 1967, the Onondaga County Water District, expects to complete a water treatment plant which will use the same water intake tunnel as,"the City of Oswego. The rate of pumping is expected to be 32 MGD, comprised of peak pumping rates of up to 12 MGD for the City of Oswego, and 20 MGD for the Onondaga County Mater District. Design capacity of the water treatment plant is 36 MGD with a possible ultimate capacity of 72 MGD. Tiltin of the Isothermal Planes and /'.3.1 Subsequent Dilution BT soundings were made in transects from the shore off Nine Mile Point and Oswego. Sets of soundings were always made on the same day to establish the slopes of the isothermal planes between these two points. These experiments. were conducted as a result of findings from the 1963 limnological program which showed that with changes of wind direction and/or speed, isothermic planes tilted to the east or west. With the heated effluent water spreading out over the surface of the lake in a 2-foot layer, reversal of the tilt isothermal layers from east to west will of the result in upwelling beneath the effluent and subsequent dilution. Since rising of the isothermal planes in the Nine Mile Point area was found to be associated with
XVII-124 westward moving currents, this tilting is an important factor in diluting effluent in the surface waters.(~) Depth differences between the same isothermal plane at Oswego and Nine Mile Point were found to range between 7 feet and 27 feet, with an average difference of about 14 feet. With a reversal of an eastward flow, isothermal planes will slope in the opposite direction; an average annual dilution factor of at least 7X may be predicted-with confidence. 3.3.2 'Dilution as a Function of Current Velocity Several cruises, using the BT, established temperature profiles about the City of Oswego intake along the direction of the current. At least four BT soundings were taken in each case at about 100-foot intervals. The plotting of one of these profiles is shown in Figure XVII-59. Knowing the width of the intake, amount of depression of the isothexms, rate of flow of the current, and rate of pumping, the following conclusions were drawn from the study: / a ~ In a down-current direction, water is normally drawn from an area almost directly over the intake structure, an area believed to be parabolic in shape.
- b. The height o f this parabola is determined by the velocity of the lake current which will bring an amount of water over the intake equal to the pumping rate. Some water will probably always be drawn in from the sides of this parabola.
(~.) Note, however, that tilting is merely an indication of upwelling at the eastern end of the lake, and continuing easterly winds will result in continued upwelling and dilution.
II TEMPERATURE PROFILES IN AN EASTVfARD CURRENT AT THE OSWEGO CITY YIATER INTAKE XVII-12'TATION GENERAL CURRENT DIRECTION E STATI B
.A I
I I I I I I 10'0'0'8'80 I I ee'2'9 e4'o' CITY INTAKE LAKE BO'ITOM 305'00'EMPERATURE PROFILE CURRENT VELOCITY DATA VELOCITY AT VARIOUS DEPTHS (mph) STATION LAKE SURFACE 25'EPTH 50'EPTH
.25 at ENE .36 at NNE .08 at ENE
.42 at E .28 at ENE .15 at E FIGURE XVII-c
1* XVII-12< c With lower velocities, as the parabolic area of drawdown becomes higher and higher, greater and greater percentages of water will be drawn from the sides of this parabola. It can be calculated, under completely isothermal conditions, that current flow must be about .057 mph on the average throughout the water column (at 32 MGD) to supply sufficient water to the parabolic " area above the intake to prevent surface. water drawdown. This average current is equal to a flow of about .038 mph at a depth of 55 feet. At the ultimate capacity of 72 MGD, the corresponding 55>>foot current flow recpxired is about .085 mph. Prom data recorded by a permanent current meter in 55 feet of water at Hine Mile Point,, it can be shown that currents of less than .038 mph occur about 7 percent of the time, while currents of less than .085 mph occur about 15':percent of the time. The possibility of surface drawdown for 32 MGD under isothermal conditions would be about 1:14; a minimum annual dilution factor of 14X would thus exist':due to current velocity. At 72 MGD, the possibility of surface drawdown under similar conditions would be about 1:7, yielding a minimum annual dilution factor of 7X. It is anticipated that at a 72 MGD pumping rate, a modification of the intake structure would be required to prevent any vortex activity, and surface drawdown would be eliminated. Even under least favorable conditions {zero current), only a small amount of surface water will be drawn down to the intake. As a conservative figure, one part in 100 has been estimated. Thus, there is a total annual dilution factor of 1400X resulting from various aspects of current velocity (at 32 MGD}.
XVII-127 3.3.3 Percent of Time Effluent Mill be Carried to the Oswego Area After considering the wind data (direction, variability, duration and speed), it found that the combination of these factors was that would bring effluent water over the intake would occur only 4 percent of the time. This would mean that an annual dilution factor of 25X may be credited to wind activity. 3.3.4 Mixin With Distance On page B-40 of the PHSR, it was calculated that effluent water reaching the Oswego area would mix with distance traveled and have a dilution of 20X. 3.3.5 Oswego River Water as a Buffer to Prevent Effluent, From Passin Over the Intake Data on the dispersion of the Oswego River over the lake surface, when lake currents were flowing westward, were gathered on two cruises in each year (1963 and 1964). In only one of these cases did the Oswego River water fail to cover the water intake. Insufficient data exist to suggest more than a possibility of 3X dilution due to this effect. This figure, however, was not used in the final dilution calculation. 3.3.6 Summary of Annual Dilution Factors for the Cit of Oswe o Intake Dilution resulting from tilting of isothermal planes (i.e., upwellzng) t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 7X Dilution resulting from water velocity over the intake Dilution resulting from mixing on drawdown 100X Dilution resulting from wind direction and other wind var lab 1 es ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~ o ~ ~ 25X
Appendix A Liquid Effluent Dose Factor Derivation. Ai (mrem/hz per uCi/ml) which embodies the dose convezs'on factors, pathway trans fez factors (e. g., bioaccumulat ion actors ), pathway usage factors, and dilution factors for the points of pathway origin takes into account he dose fom ingestion'f fish and d"ink'ng water and the sediment. The total body and organ dose conversion factors foz each radionucl'de will be used from Table E-ll of Regulatory Guide 1.109. To expedite t'me, the dose is calculated for a maximum individual 'nstead of each age group..he maximum individual dose factor is a composite of the highest, dose factor.A, of each nuclide i age group a. and organ t. hence A,. Zt should be noted that the fish ingestion pathway 's the most significant pathway forconsistency dose from liquid eff'uents. The water consumption pathway is included for with NUREG 0133. The equation foz calculating dose contributions given in section 1.3 requires the use of the composite dose factor A<< for each nuclide. i. The dose factor equation for a fresh water site is:
-Lit l,tyc D
+ 69.3
(>.) U N e (4)
' (1-e 'I (DFS),>
Where: Aiac Zs the dose factor for nuclide i, age group a, total body or organ t, for all appropriate pathways, (mrem/hr per uCi/ml) Ko Zs the unit conversion factor,'.14ES='1E6pCi/uCi x 1E3 ml/kg -:- 8760 hr/yr U Water consumption (1/yr); from Table E-5 of Reg. Guide 1.109 Uc Fish consumption (Kg/yr); from Table E-5 of Reg. Guide 1.109 UI Sediment Shoreline Usage (hr/yr); from Table E-S of Reg. Guide 1.109 (BF) i Bioaccumulation factor for nuclide, i, in fish, (pCi/kg per pCi/1), from Table A-1 of Reg. Guide 1.109 (DFL)iac Dose conversion factor for age, nuclide, i, group a, total body or organ t, (mrem/pCi); from Table E-11 of Reg. Guide 1.109 (DFS)i Dose conversion factor for nuclide i and total body, from standing on contaminated ground (mern/hr per pCi/m'); from Table E-6 of Reg. Guide 1.109 D Dilution factor from the neaz field area within one-quarter mile of the release point to the potable water intake for the adult water consumption. This is the Metropolitan Water Board, Onondaga County intake structure located west of the City of Oswego. (Unitless) D, Dilution factor from the near field area within one quarter mile of the release point to the shoreline deposit (taken at the same point where we take environmental samples 1.5 miles; unitless) Unit 2 Revision 10 004337LL ZZ 62 December 1995
0 XVII-12. Dilution resulting from mixing with distance 20X dilution factor........ Total calculated annual 4,900,000X Minimum instantaneous dilution would be a function of mixing on drawdown and distance. Thus, the probable minimum instantaneous dilution would, be on the order nf 2,000X. 3.4.. Dilution of Effluent at the Nine Mile Point Intake The antivortex intake structure and the thermocline between the heated discharge and the lake'water supply assure that significant recirculation will not occur between the discharge and intake structures. Therefore, recirculation between these two structures has not been further considered in this report. 3.5 Summary of Dilution in the Nine Mile Point Area
/
a ~ Analysis of local current, velocities near the discharge as a factor in dilution makes it probable possible to construct a table of dilution and percent of the time of such dilutions (Table XVII-30).
- b. Based on current velocity dat'a'lone, dilutions o f less than 2X within the Station site near-shore area may occur about 16 percent of the time. Upwellings will further reduce this time.
c Factors such as wind direction, current reversals and strong onshore winds may be expected to result in an annual dilution factor of at least 20X at the eastern border of the Station site.
- e. Since the westward currents at the site boundary follow a pattern of lakeward movement. similar to the eastward currents beyond the promontory, an annual dilution factor of greater than 40X is predictable for the western boundary of the Station site The annual dilution factor for the Station effluent't the City of Oswego water intake will be at least 4,900,000X.
~ ' The concentration of adioact'vity from Liquid Radwaste. Service Water A and B and the Cool'ng Towe Blowdown are included '.. the calculation. The calculation is pe formed for a specc per'od o= time. No credit is taken for averaging. The limiting concentration
~ . is calculated as follows:
FMPC = Ks (Es/Es (Fs) L (Cas+MPCa) ) Where: FMPC The fraction of MPC, the ratio at the point of discharge of the actual concentration to the lim t'ng concentzation of 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table ZZ, Column 2, for radionuclides other than dissolved or entrained noble gases, unitless Can The concentration of nucl'de i 'n a particular effluent stream s, uCi/ml'he flow rate of a particular effluent stream s, gpm The limiting concentration of a MPCg specific nuclide Appendix b, i from 10CFR20, Table IZ, Column 2 (for noble gases, the concentration shall be limited to 2E-4 microcurie/ml), uCi/ml Ea (Cis/MPCg) The MPC fzaction of stream s prior to dilution by other streams E,(F.) The total flow rate of all effluent streams s, gpm A value of less than one for MPC fraction is required for compliance. 1.3 Liquid Effluent Dose Calculation Methodology
/
The dose or dose commitment to a MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC from radioactive materials in liquid effluents released, from each unit, to UNRESTRICTED AREAS (see Figure 5.1.3-1) shall be limited:
- a. During any calendar quarter to less than oz equal to 1.5 mrem to the whole body and to less than or equal to 5 mrem to any organ, and
- b. During any calendar year to less than or equal to 3 mrem to the whole body and to less than or equal to 10 mrem to any organ.
Doses due to Liquid Effluents are calculated monthly for the fish and drinking water ingestion pathways and the external sediment exposure pathways from all detected nuclides in liquid effluents released to the unrestricted areas using the following expression from NUREG 0133, Section 4.3. Da = L tAaa L(hTa.Caa,Fa.) ) Where: D>> The cumulative dose commitment to the total body or any organ, t, from the liquid effluents for the total time period L(dT~), mrem The length of the L th time period over which Caa, and F are averaged forull liquid releases, hours Unit 2 Revision 10 004337LL IZ 7 December 1995
The average concentration of radionuclxde, undiluted liquid effluents during t'me period hT. from any liquid release, uCi/ml The site related ingestion dose commitment factor for the maximum individual to the total body or any organ t for each identified principal gamma or beta emitte , mrem/h" per uCi/ml. Table 2-2. The near field average dilution factor fo" C,. duz'ng any liquid effluent release. Defined as the ratio of the maximum undiluted liquid waste flow during release to the product of the average flow from the site d'charge structure to unrestricted receiving waters t'mes 5.9. (5.9 is the site specific applicable factor for he mixing effect of the discharge structure.) See the Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Environmental Report - Operating License Stage, Table 5.4-2 footnote 1. 1.4 Liquid Effluent Sampling Representativeness There are four tanks in the radwaste system designed to be discharged to the discharge canal. These tanks are labeled 4A, 4B, SA, and 5B. Liquid Radwaste Tank 5A and 5B at Nine Mile Point Unit 2 contain a spazger spray ring which assists the mixing of the tank contents while it is being zecirculated prior to sampling. This sparger effectively mixes the tank four times Easter than simple recirculation. Liquid Radwaste Tank 4A and 4B contain a mixing ring but no sparger. No credit is taken for the mixing effects of the ring. Normal recirculation flow is 150 gpm for tank 5A and SB, 110 gpm foz tank 4A and 4B while each tank contains up to 25,000 gallons although the entire contents are not discharged. To assure that the tanks are adequately mixed prior to sampling, it is a plant requirement that the tank be recirculated Eor the time required to pass 2.5 times the volume of the tank: Recirculation Time = 2.5T/RM Where: Recirculation Time Is the minimum time to recirculate the Tank, min 2.5 Is the plant requirement, unitless Is the tank volume, gal Is the recirculation flow rate, gpm. Is the factor that takes into account the mixing of the sparger, unitless, four for tank SA and B, one for tank 4A and B. Additionally, the Alert Alarm setpoint of the Liquid Radwaste Effluent monitor is set at approximately 60% of the High alarm setpoint. This alarm will give indication of incomplete mixing with adequate margin to exceeding MPC. Service Water A and B and the Cooling Tower Blowdown are sampled from the radiation monitor on each respective stream. These monitors continuously withdraw a sample and pump it back to the effluent stream. The length of tubing between the continuously flowing sample and the sample spigot contains less than 200 ml which is adequately purged by requiring a purge of at least 1 liter when grabbing a sample. Unit 2 Revision 10 004337LL II 8 December 1995
Append'x A (Cont,'d) 69.3 conversion factor .693 x 100. 100 = K (L/kg-hr) 40 24 hr/cay/.693 in L/m'-d, and K, = rransfer coefficient from water to
" sediment in L/kg per hour.
Average transit time required for each nuclide to reach the D!
'I point of exposure for internal dose, it is the t.or.al t'me elapsed from release of the nuclides to either ingest.'on for water (w) and fish (f) or shoreline deposit, (s) (hr)
Length of t'me the sediment, is exposed to the contamina ed water, nominally 15 yrs (approximate midpoint of fac' ity operating life), (hrs). decay. constant for nuclide i (hr ') Shore width factor (unitless) from Table A-2 of Reg. Guide 1.109 Example Calculation For Z-131 Thyroid Dose Factor for an Adult from a Radwaste liquid effluents release: 2.80E-9 mrem/hr per pCi/m~ (DFS)L (DFL)@ac BFi 1.95E-3 mrem/pCi 15 pCi/Kg per pCi/L t tDC 40 24 br'w = water) hrs. (f = fish) U 21 Kglyr 1.314E5 hr (5.48E3 days) D 62 unitless U 730 , Llyr D, 17.8 unitless Ko 1. 14ES Ci/uCi ml/k U, 12 hrlyr (hrlyr) W 0.3 3.61E-3hr i tD~ 7.3 hrs (s=Shoreline Sediment) These values will yield an A, Factor of 6.65E4 mrem-ml per uCi-hr as listed in Table 2-2. Zt should be noted that only a limited number of nuclides are listed on Tables 2-2 to 2-5. These are the most common nuclides encountered, in effluents. zf a nuclide is detected for which a factor is not listed, then will be calculated and included in a revision to the ODCM. it Zn addit'on, not all dose factors are used for the dose calculations. A maximum individual is used, which is a composite of the maximum dose factor of each age group for each organ as reflected in the applicable chemistry procedures. Unit 2 Revision 10 004337LL ZZ 63 December 1995
~ i Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS ping due to the operation of three major power plants at the eastern end of Lake Ontario has a minimal effect on fish populations. Because the cropping at Unit 2 is an extremely small increment of mortality, the conclusions of the previous analyses are not changed when Unit 2 mortality is added to the existing effect. This is also true for the conclusions of an analysis of the lakewide effects of crop-ping which included all operating power plants on Lake Ontario. 5.3.2 Discharge System 5.3.2.1 Thermal Description and Physical Zmpacts ... 5.3.2.1.1 Hydrothermal Description of Affected Area The Unit 2 discharge consists of cooling tower blowdown flow, service water bypass flow, and waste treatment system and liquid radwaste discharge flow which pass through a 1.4-m (4.5-ft) diameter pipe within one of the Unit 2 intake tunnels. The pipe emerges from the lake bed at a point ap-proximately 450 m (1,500 ft) from the existing shoreline, where the discharge flow enters a 1.4-m (4.5-ft) diameter steel riser leading to a two-port diffuser located on the lake bottom. Section 3.4 provides a complete description of Supplement 6 5.3-19a March 19S4
Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OIS THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Supplement: 6 5.3-19b March 1984
Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS the cooling system and its expected flow rate and associated temperature rises for different operating conditions. The discharge consists of a two-port diffuser, each 0.5 m (1.5 ft) in diameter, off a common header with a horizontal angle of 120 deg between the ports (Figure 5.3-4). Each port is located 1. 1 m (3.8 ft) above the lake bottom and an-g led e 5 deg up to reduce jet contact with the bottom, which could result in local scour. The centerline submergence of the ports at the point of discharge is 10.7 m (35.2 ft); to the minimum controlled lake level (el 74.4 m 'elative f244.0 ft)). To evaluate the performance of the discharge system, maximum surface temperatures and associated dilution factors were computed for a range of total discharge flows and associated temperature rises. The range was selected to include normal seasonal operating modes as well as low probability extreme cond'x ons . 5.3.2.1.2 Theoretical Framework of Mathematical Model The theory of submerged discharges indicates'that effluent dilution is dependent on the exit densimetric Froude number, relative port spacing, and relative submergence of the dis-charge when momentum and buoyancy forces dominate the plume dynamics. The Froude number represents the ratio between the discharge inertial force and buoyancy and is given by: c' U F
~r,o Where:
V = Exit velocity D = Port diameter G = Gravitational acceleration
= Density difference of 'the effluent relative to the ambient water Relative port spacing is the ratio of the port centerline spacing to the port diameter; relative submergence is the ratio of the port centerline submergence to the port diameter.
- 5. 3-20
Nine Mile Point Unit, 2 ER-OLS A complete analysis of the trajectory, the extent (length, width, area), and the temperature distribution of the jet plume system must consider all of the following factors:
- 1. Hydrodynamics of the lake (velocity field and am-bient turbulence).
- 2. Lake geometry (depth, bottom roughness, and local topography).
- 3. Ambient temperature distribution in the vicinity of the discharge.
- 4. Effluent characteristics (flow rate, density dif-
, ferences from ambient lake water, and discharge velocity).
5 ~ Discharge port characteristics (location, orientation, submergence, size and shape of outlets, number and spacing of ports). Koh and Fan applied an integral method in solving the dif-ferential equations of mass, momentum, and /energy conser-vation under various assumptions encompassing the preceding factors. The mathematical model developed by these in-vestigators for a row of equally spaced round jets discharg-ing at an arbitrary angle of inclination to the horizontal has subsequently been used to generate standard nomograms published by EPA '. The nomograms can be used to;:predict the surface temperature rises and nearfield temperature dis-tributions resulting from either single or multiple sub-merged discharge j ets. The temperature rise distribution between the discharge and the point of jet surfacing is determined by the densimetric Froude number, the relative submergence, and the relative port spacing of the discharge system. Robideau introduced the concept of the effective depth of dilution to the theory of submerged jets'~4'. Briefly, Robideau's analysis indicates that, depending on the relative submergence and the exit Froude number, dilution of the jet occurs over only some portion of the full depth of submergence since the overlying surface plume precludes dilution of the effluent in the surface layer. Thus, Robideau's effective submergence leads to more realistic predictions than those of Koh and Fan. The main thrust of Robideau' formulation is the con-sideration of the finite water depth in limiting the avail-able supply of ambient water for dilution. 5.3-21
q Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS "The j.et is deflected upward, or toward any boundary, because the water available for jet entrainment is not unlimited. This results in the creation of vortices in the ambient fluid and an associated decrease in pressure."'~ Therefore, Robideau's approach was to assume a surface impingement, or surface mixing region, in which there is no further dilution of the jet. In order to present a synopsis of his analysis, the two primary zones of jet flow are-defined. The 'region in the immediate vicinity of the dis-charge is called the zone of flow establishment and extends from point o to point e (Figure 5.3-5). In this region, the velocity and temperature distributions undergo a transition from the profile of turbulent flow through a port to the Gaussian distribution which characterizes a free jet. In the zone of established flow, which begins at point e, the jet is unaffected by boundaries and is treated as in an infinite environment until it enters the if it surface were mixed region at point c. This mixing region constitutes a control volume over which the equations for the conservation of mass, momentum, and energy are written in integral form. These equations are combined with the description of the jet in the zone of established flow to give the maximum surface temperature resulting from a submerged jet with various dis-charge conditions and water depth. One of the basic assumptions in the analysis is that no fur-ther dilution of the jet by ambient water occurs in the" sur-face mixed region. Because the control volume is a mixing region, the surface temperature there is necessarily higher than the average temperature of the incoming plume flow, but, less than the maximum temperature. To ensure conservative results in the analysis presented here, this mixing was not considered. It was assumed that the maximum surface tem-perature is the same as that on the jet centerline as ters the control volume at point c. From Figure 5.3-5 it it en-can be seen that point c is a relative distance yc above the discharge. The jet is diluted as it rises to yc, but the remaining distance, h-yc (where h is the dimensionless water depth), provides no further reduction in the jet temperature. The algorithm developed by Robideau departs from the clas-sical formulations of jet plume dilution by substituting a polynomial distribution for the assumed Gaussian velocity distribution of velocity in the plume. Gaussian : u = ue (r/b) 5.3-22
Nine Nile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS Polynomial: u' u'l- (r/r ) 2 2 Where: u and u'= Centerline velocity for Gaussian and polynomial distributions r = Coordinate normal to the round jet centerline r = Maximum radius of the round jet with polynomial distribution b = Local round jet nominal radius Gaussian distribution The polynomial expression is a very close approximation of the Gaussian and, in fact, agrees with the experimental data just as well, or better, than the Gaussian form. This key mathematical substitution enables a numerical solution of the velocity and temperature over depth based on the dis-charge characterized according to its Froude number. The plots of the ratio of the effective depth for dilution, y , to the actual depth, h, versus the discharge Froude number, Fo, for various dimensionless depths, h, have been verified by comparison among the dilutions 1) measured in hydraulic model studies' and in recent thermal surveys', 2) predicted according to Robideau's effective depth of dilution, and 3) predicted with the use of the total sub-mergence rather than its effective submergence. When the depth correction is not included, predicted dilutions are greater than those actually measured. Because these experimental data agreed with Robideau's find-ings and a conservative design was desired to ensure com-pliance with standards, the depth correction presented by Robideau was used to predict the temperature distributions resulting from the Unit 2 discharge. 5.3.2.1.3 Isotherms and Velocity Vector Data Maximum surface temperature rises for a range of plant operating conditions and temperature distributions in the nearfield submerged plume were predicted for the most severe operating conditions. Given the low potential impact of the small volume Unit 2 discharge and the high dilution achieved by the diffuser in the nearfield region, complex modeling. of .. temperature distributions beyond the nearfield is not necessary. This is consistent with the NRC guidelines, which state: "Where the thermally affected discharge will 5.3-23
Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS be relatively small and have low ecological impacts, only simple methods of analysis using conservative assumptions need be applied." The results of the surface temperature rise predictions are given in Table 5.3-8, along with the associated discharge onditions con and plant operating conditions. The detailed is providedd i'n 1 description of worst-case conditions Section 3.4. Worst-case discharge conditions were based on the maximum cooling tower evaporation and, /he .maximum cooling tower.blowdown temperature differential during sum-mer and winter conditions. An annual average condition was also modeled. Two worst-case conditions were modeled because discharge parameters and factors af fecting di luti ons vary. The winter case (March) has the worst discharge conditions of highest temperature rise and lowest exit velocity; however, the cold ambient temperatures allow for a less buoyant plume. The summer case ( July) has the highest temperature rise during the summer months when the ambient temperature is 21oC (704F) or higher and near lowest flow (August worst flow was 1.635 cu m/s [25,954 gpm] vs July's "1.637 cu m/s [25,984 gpm]). The summer ambient temperatures will have a more buoyant plume which should surface quicker with less dilution. The use of Robideau' findings to predict the surface tem-perature rises required a slight alteration os- his procedures. Because of the Unit 2 discharge design and flow rates, the modeled conditions had Froude numbers of 68.4 (annual), 42.2 (summer), and 60.6 (winter), which were significantly higher than the maximum Froude number (30) used in his study. Since the dilution increases with an in-creasing Froude number, a conservative alternative procedure was selected; i.e., use a Froude number of 30 for all con-ditions with higher Froude numbers. The result of this al-ternative procedure is that the predicted dilution of the discharges with higher Froude numbers (annual and winter) are lower than may actually occur. Even with these conser-vative estimates, the predicted maximum difference in the surface temperature is only 1.3DC (2.34F). The impact of the alternative procedure on effective depth is not as clear as with dilution. According to Robideau, increasing Froude numbers (in the range of 0 to 30) will de-crease the effective depth. However, it is unlikely that this relationship would continue with Froude numbers higher than 30; most likely the curve will level off at a set ef-fective depth. The changes in effective depth have no im-5.3-24
0 CV
Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS pact on the dilution calculations and may be noticeable only in the predicted temperature distributions. As indicated in Table 5.3-S, the initial discharge tem-perature rise is diluted in excess of 10:1 for all discharge conditions, and surface temperature rises are thus all less than 1.3 C (2.3 F). The dilution is achieved in the near-field and thus will not vary with meteorological conditions. Since maximum surface temperature rises are less than 1.3 0 C (2.3 F) under all operating conditions, the discharge is in full compliance with New York State surface temperature .criteria governing Lake Ontario as described in Sections 704.2 and 704.3 of the New York Codes, Rules,'nd Regulations and does not require the allowance of a surface mixing zone. The effects of the worst-case discharge conditions on lake temperatures were further evaluated by predicting the dis-tribution of temperature rises in a vertical section through the centerline of each discharge jet. The computational method for determining the temperature distribution in the nearfield is based on various relationships described in the literature. Previous studies'"'ave indicated that the dilution of temperature along the centerline of the plume outside the zone of flow establishment is proportional to the centerline distance raised to some power, a. T~(S T Sa 0 Where: T(S) Surface temperature To Discharge temperature S Centerline distance Constant a = Constant The solution of this equation yields the temperature rise with distance along the centerline of the plume. To deter-mine the shape of the isotherms in the vertical plane, the nomograms developed by Shirazi and Davis'~~'ave been em-ployed since the Robideau analysis does not explicitly 5.3-25
1 l
Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS describe the plume shape. The Shirazi and Davis analysis is based on a normal or Gaussian distribution of temperature wi'th perpendicular distance from the centerline. Figures 5.3-6 through 5.3-8 show the cross-sectional dis-tribution of temperature rises in a typical jet under the three modeled conditions with no ambient lake current. The rapid dilution of the discharge in the submerged nearfield zone of the plume and the small size of the zones affected by the higher temperature rises are evident. Based on the predictions in Figure 5.3-8, the winter worst-case initial discharge temperature rise of 15.6 C'28.0 F) will be diluted by 2 8 1 to 5 5 C (10 F) within 3 7 m (12 ft) of each discharge port, and by 5.6:1 to 2.8 C (5.0 F) within 11 m (36 ft) . Under other, less critical discharge con-ditions with higher velocities and lower discharge tem-perature rises, dilution in the submerged j et will be increased, reducing the zones bounded by the hi gher isotherms. It should be noted that this temperature distribution plot shows dilution over the entire water column, whereas the Robideau approach does not credit any dilution in the upper mixing region. A more detailed submerged plume prediction following Robideau's type of analysis would predict broader (less elongated) isotherms with more rapid centerline dilution. The volume of water entrained by the plume in either model is comparable. Consequently, the model used does not substantially alter the cross-sectional area encom-passed by the isotherms, . as illustrated on Figures 5.3-6 through 5.3-8. Abramovitch has shown that velocity in the nearfield plume must decay along the centerline at least as rapidly as temperature'. If velocity and temperature in the near-field plume are assumed to decline at approximately the same rate, velocities and turbulence would both be greatest when the temperature rise is greatest in the nearfield. Table 5.3-9 lists the predicted plume velocities for selected isotherms. In summary, the temperature distribution resulting from the Unit 2 discharge complies with applicable Lake Ontario water quality standards, and temperature rises in excess of 1.7 C (3.0 F) are predicted to be confined to a small sub-merged region in the immediate vicinity of the discharge structure. The submerged nearfield regions subjected to higher temperature rises are also associated with high velocity and turbulence levels. The thermal effects of the discharge beyond the immediate discharge vicinity are minimal because of the low temperature rises 5.3-26
'I Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS (0.5 C and 1.0 C [1.0 F and 2.0 F)) and relatively low volume of discharge. The minimal farfield surface temperature effects, combined with the offshore orientation of the discharge, serve to minimize the potential for recirculation of any measurable portion of the plume through either of the inshore submerged intake structures. The buoyancy of the plume tends to res-it trict to the upper levels of the water column, whereas the intakes draw from the lower levels. The high velocities of the initial discharge jet may cause some local benthic scouring of fine sediment where the bot-tom of the jet contacts the lake bottom. However, the'p-ward orientation of the discharge ports and the relatively low discharge flow serve to minimize the extent of bottom scour. Based on the prediction of submerged plume size, the scoured area will extend, at most, approximately 45 m (150 ft) from the discharge structure with deposition occurring on the periphery. Although the benthic community in the scoured area would be disrupted, the small area in-volved would not have a significant adverse impact on the benthic community as a whole.
- 5. 3.2. l. 4 interaction With Other Discharges As described in Section 3.4, the Unit 2 discharge is located between the two existing thermal discharges of Unit 1 and the JAF plant. r ~
While the initial discharge temperature rise for the three discharges is similar, the Unit 2 discharge flow rate is between 6 and 13 percent of the flow rate of either Unit 1 or the JAF plant. Because of its extremely- low volume of discharge (compared with that of Unit 1 and JAF plant discharges) and the sub-merged high velocity mode of discharge, the Unit 2 discharge will have little thermal effect beyond its immediate dis-charge area. The Unit 1 and JAF plant discharges, however, can exert a thermal effect at greater distances from their respective discharges, and therefore may affect temperatures at the lake surface in the vicinity of the Unit 2 discharge. Thus, the greatest effect of plume interactions would occur in the immediate vicinity of the Unit 2 discharge when natural lake conditions cause the plume from either the Unit 1 or the JAF plant discharge to be in the vicinity of the Unit 2 discharge. Since the predominant currents in the area are alongshore in either an easterly or westerly direc-tion and the Unit 2 discharge is between the Unit 1 and the 5.3-27
Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS JAF plant, discharges, it is improbable that both discharges would interact simultaneously with the Unit 2 plume. Section 2.3.1.1.6 describes the Unit 1 and JAF plant plumes. Temperature elevations associated with the Unit 1 plume have not exceeded 6.0 C (11.0 F) at the surface. The JAF plant plume is even more diluted than that of Unit 1 and has a lower temperature elevation. When either the Unit 1 or JAF plant plume is in the vicinity-of the Unit 2 discharge, it will be confined by its buoyancy to the upper half of the water column, usually the upper 2.1 m (7 ft). The method used to predict the surface tem-perature rises from the Unit 2 discharge alone includes dilution of the jet only in the lower half of the water column and assumes no dilution from mixing with upper layers. Therefore, the presence of a surface plume in the vicinity of the Unit 2 discharge will not alter the conser-vatively predicted surface temperature rises at the point of plume surfacing. Any interaction between the Unit 2 plume and either the Unit 1 or the JAF plant plume will involve the mixing of the Unit, 2 surface plume, after jet surfacing, with the sur-rounding surf ace plume. The temperature rises resulting from the mixing of the two plumes must necessarily be between the temperature rises in the separate plumes prior to mixing. I When the surface temperature rises resulting from the Unit 2 discharge are less than or equal to the temperature rises in the surrounding plume, the result of the interaction of the plumes will be to reduce the higher temperature rises in the plume of the existing station. This results from mixing with the cooler Unit 2 plume and increased mixing with un-derlying ambient waters caused by turbulence in the combined plume. The Unit 2 discharge will contribute to the volume of the combined plume contained within the lower temperature rise isotherms; however, the contribution based on the relative discharge flow between Unit 2 and the JAF plant or Unit 1 will be less than 10 percent. When the portion of the Unit 1 or JAF plant plume that in-teracts with the Unit 2 plume has temperature rises less than the Unit 2 surface temperature rise, the result will be an area of slightly increased temperature rises within the combined plume. Even with the increase, however, the sur-face temperature rise will not exceed the maximum previously described for Unit 2 alone, since the required dilution will occur in the lower portion of the water column. 5.3-2B
NI2S5185.42 t.5'g E545NO. 16 iO PLAN W.S.EL.244.0 (MEAN LOW WATER) f EL. $
%.75'L 204.0'54
/
2.5'LEVAT) ON FIGURE 5.3-4 DISCHARGE DIFFUSER NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MlLE POINT-UNIT 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT-OLS
LAKE SURFACE V I I I I I Bc I gU "mc CONTROL VOLUHE POINT C Bo LAKE BOTTOM 0 DISCHARGE FIGURE 5.3-5 A VIEW OF THE PLANE CONTAINING THE CENTERLINE OF A ROUND BUOYANTJET DISCHARGING INTO WATER OF FINITE DEPTH (SOURCE: ROBIDEAU I~>) NIAGARA MQHAWK POWER CORPORATION NlNE MlLE PalNT-UNlT 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT-OLS
12 WATER LEVEL (ELEVATION 74.tm)
/
E 9 LIJ O X I-M O 6 O I K 2 O' 5.0'F 2.0'F 4.0'F 1O.O' 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 HORIZONTALDISTANCE (e) PARAMETERS NOZZLE DIAMETER: 0.5m (1.5II) DISCHARGE FLOW: 1.81m 3/s (28,752 gpm) NOZZLE ANGLE: 54up DISCHARGE'~T: 9.8'C (17.64'F) NUMBER OF NOZZLES: 2 DISCHARGE VELOCITY: 5.51m/s (18.1 fps) FIGURE 5.3-6 PREDICTED TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION VERTICAL SECTION ALONG CENTERLINE ANNUALAVERAGE CONDITION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NlNE M!LE POINT-UNIT 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT-OLS Rl IPPI I=MI=NT3 c:PPTI=hARPR 1ARR
12 WATER LEVEL (ELEVATION 74.1m)
/ 2.0 F E
ul O 9 r~ I th ~ O 8 O K UJ 3.0'F 2.0 F
.0'F 2.5 F 4 O' 10 0'F 8.0'F 15 18 21 24 27 30 HORIZONTALDISTANCE (m)
PARAMETERS NOZZLE DIAMETER: 0.5m (1.5tt) DISCHARGE FLOW: 1.64m 3/s (25,984 gpm) NOZZLE ANGLE: 5'up DISCHARGE 6T: 14.4'C (25.83'F) NUMBER OF NOZZLES: 2 DISCHARGE VELOCITY: 4.99m/s (16.38 fps) FIGURE 5.3-7 PREDICTED TEMPFRATURE DISTRIBUTION VERTICAL SECTION ALONG CENTERLINE SUMMER WORST CONDITION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT-UNIT 2 ENVIRONMENTAL,REPORT-OLS
WATER LEVEL (ELEVATION 74.1m) 2.0'F I E 9
/ l uj O
X I tO r D 6 0 I K 2.5'F W 4.0'F 2.0'F 3 O' 10.0 F 5.0'F 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (m) PARAMETERS NOZZLE DIAMETER: O.Sm (1.Sit) DISCHARGE FLOW: 1.45m 3/s (23,055 gpm) NOZZLE ANGLE: 54up DISCHARGE 6T: 15.5'C (27.99'F) NUMBER OF NOZZLES: 2 DISCHARGE VELOCITY: 4.42m/s (14.5 <ps) FIGURE 5.3-8 PREDICTED TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION VERTICAL SECTION ALONG CENTERI INE WINTER WORST CONDITION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT-UNIT 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT-OLS
Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS TABLE 5 4-2 ESTI HATED RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN EFFLUENT AND RECEIVING WATER Final Effluent Flew Rate = 66.80 cfs (pCi/I) Edge of Nearest Metropolitan Discharge Nearfield Accessible Water Board
~I80t0 8 Concentration Dilution Zone<< > Shoreline<*i Ononda a Count <*i H-3 8 56t02 1 45+02 2.78i00 1 85+00 Na-24 1. 81-01 3 07-02 7- 17-05 3 72-05 P-32 6. 92-03 1 17-03 2 05-05 1 35-05 Cr-51 2 14-01 3 63-02 6 65-04 4 39-04 Hn-54 2 47-03 4 19-04 8 00-06 5 30-06 Hn-56 3 29-02 5 58-03 4 78-10 7 61-11 (Fe-55 3 62-02 6. 14-03 1 18-04 7.80-05 Ee-59 1. 09-03 1.84-04 3 43-06 2 27-06 Co-58 7 08-03 1 20-03 2 26-05 1 50"05 co-60 1 48-02 2 51-03 4 82-05 3 19-05 Ni-63 3 62-05 6 14-06 1 18-07 7 81-08 Ni-65 1 81-04 3 07-05 2 29-12 3 59-13 Cu-64 4 45-0 1 7 54-02 1 ~ 22-04 6 '7-05 t,n-65 7. 25-03 1 23-03 2 34-05 1-55 Br-83 3. 46-03 5 '6-04 2 01-11 2 88-12 Br-84 9 06-09 1 54-09 1 64-37 9 92-41 Sr-89 3 79-03 6 42-04 1 20-05 7 93"06 SR-90 2 47-04 4 19-05 8 03-07 5 32-07 Sr-91 4 61-02 7 81-03 5 27-06 2 37-06 Sr-92 7 90-03 1 34-03 2 08-10 3.55-11 Y-91 1. 81-03 3 07-04 5 76-06 3- 81-06 Y-92 4 78-02 8-09-03 1.96-08 4 60-09 Y-93 5 10-02 8.65-03 7 37-06 3. 41-06 tr-95 2 80-04 4 74-05 8 92-07 5 90-07 tr-97 1 10-04 1 87-05 5 39-08 2. 87-08 Nb-95 2 80-04 4 74-05 8 77-07 5.79-07 Ho-99 6 09-02 1.03-02 1 23-04 7.68-05 Tc-99m 1 22-01 2-07-02 2 F 05-06 7 37-07 Ru-103 7 08-04 1 20-04 2 23-06 1 47-06 Ru-105 6 59-03 1. 12-03 1 69-08 4 90-.09 RLI<<106 1 10-04 1. 87-05 3 58-07 2.37-.07 Ag-110m 3 62-05 6 14-06 1. 17-07 7 77-08 Te-129m 1. 45-03 2. 46-04 4 53-06 2 99-06 Te-131m 2 47-03 4 19-04 2 79-06 1. 64-06 Te-132 3 13-04 5 30-05 6 77-07 4 28-07 I-131 1 ~ 50-01 2 54-02 4 14-04 2.69-04 1 of 2
Nine Hile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS TABLE 5.0-2 (Cont) Edge of Nearest Hetropolitan Discharge Nearfield Accessible Mater Board Concentration Dilution Xone<< i shoto>toe< ~ > onond~aa Coun~t<>> I-132 2.63-02 4 47-03 8 06-11 1 07-11 I-133 1 22+00 2. 07-01 8 63-00 0 79-00 I- 134 7 57-05 1 28-05 0 35-23 0.33-25 I- 135 3 95-01 6 70-02 05-05 3 98-06 Cs-130 5 10-02 8 65-03 1 66-00 1 10-00 Cs-136 3 06-02 5 86-03 1 02-00 6.66-05 Cs-137 1.03-01 2 03-02 0.66-00 3 09-04 cs-138 8 73-07 1.48-07 6 23-35 4 03-38 Ba-139 2. 96-00 5.02-05 1. 10-16 5. 39-18 Ba-100 1 02-02 2 00-03 4 15" 05 2-72-05 La-142 3. 29-00 5.58-05 1 20-15 7 32-17 Ce-141 1-09-03 80-00 3 39-06 2 20-06 Ce-103 7 ~ 7 0-00 1 31-00 9 62-07 5 71-07
)Ce-104 1. 10-00 1 87-05 3 57-07 2 37-07
'IPr-143 1 05-03 2 46-00 0 28-06 2 80-06
'Nd-107 1 ~ 05-00 1 79-05 3 04-07 1 99-07 M-187 6 75-03 1 10-03 5>>82-06 3 31-06 Np-239 2 ~ 31-01 3 91-02 4 29-00 2 66-00 NOTEt 8 56102 ~ 8.56x10<
caoDilution factor 5 9 Travel time = 0.0 hr
<< >Dilution factor 307 0 Travel time ss 45.8 hr <<>>Dilution factor ~ 063.8 Travel time = 51.1 hr 2 of 2
Maximum Dose Equivalent Pathway (Cont'd) The majority of thWose for a radwaste liquid batch release was received via the fish pathway. However, to comply with Technical Specifications for dose projections, the drinking water and sediment pathways are included. Therefore, all doses due to liquid effluents are calculated monthly for the fish and drinking water ingestion pathways and the sediment external path~ay from all detected nuclides in liquid eNuents released to the unrestricted areas to each organ. The dose projection for liquid batch releases will 'also include discharges from the emergency condenser vent as applicable, for all pathways. Each age group dose factor, A is given in Tables 1-1 to 1-8. To expedite time the dose is calculated for a maximum individual instead of each age group. This maximum individual will be a composite of the highest dose factor of each age group for each organ, hence A. The following-expression from NUREG 0133, Section 4.3 is used to calculate dose: D, ~ Z, (~(hTi.CiLFi.) ] Where: D, The cumulative dose commitment to the total body or any organ, from the liquid effluents for the total time period ( hT), mr em. The length of the L th time period over which Cz and Fi. are averaged for all liquid releases, hours. The average concentration of radionuclide, i, in undiluted liquid effluents during time period hT from any liquid release, pCi/ml. The site related ingestion dose commitment factor to the total body or any organ t for each identified principal gamma or beta emitter for a maximum individual,,mrem/hr per pCi/ml. / The near field average dilution factor for C~ during any liquid effluent release. Defined as the ratio of the maximum undiluted liquid waste flow during release to the average flow from the site discharge structure to unrestricted receiving waters, unitless. A values for radwaste liquid batch releases at a discharge rate of 295 ft'/sec (one circulating water pump in operation) are presented in tables I-l to 1-4. A values for an emergency condenser vent release are presented in tables 1-5 to 1-8. The emergency condenser vent releases are assumed to travel to the perimeter, drain system and released from the discharge structure at a rate of .33 ft'/sec. See Appendix A for the dose factor A. derivation. To expedite time the dose is calculated to a maximum individual. This maximum individual is a composite of the highest dose factor A of each age group a for each organ t and each nuclide i. If a nuclide is detected for which a factor is not listed, then it will be calculated and included in a revision to the ODCM. hold'nk All doses calculated in this manner for each batch of liquid eNuent will be summed for comparison with quarterly and annual limits, added to the doses accumulated from other releases in the quarter and year of interest. In all cases, the following relationships will I ODCM Rcrbios 16 Dcrtmher 199$
nc osure
r rlslt~n D4J
~O., New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 84 Q>ee', . i/* DIVISION QIISH AND WILDI.M Bureau of Environmental Protection 0~ ~Q-50 Wolf Road Room 530 Albany, NY 12233<756 +<NTA~
A century of commitmcnt... Michael D. Zagata a foundation for the future Commiaaioncr October 24, 1995 Mr. Carey M. Merritt Environmental Protection Supervisor Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station P.O. Box 63 Lycoming, New York 13093
Dear Mr. Merritt:
In our telephone conversation on September 19, 1995 and your follow up letter soon thereafter, we discussed the possibility of delaying the commencement of biological monitoring at the NMP-1 facility until December 1996. This would allow the synchronization of sampling programs at both the NMP-1 and J.A. FitzPatrick stations for the purposes of a full one year evaluation of a reconfigured sonic fish deterrent system at the J.A. FitzPatrick intake. The NMP-1 intake will serve as a study control facility, as it did during Spring 1993 evaluation of the originally designed sonic system. I will, therefore, begin procedures to modify additional Requirement III. 2. c. and III. 2. d. of your facility's SPDES permit (NY 000 1015), by changing the study startup date to EDM + 24 months, and the submittal of the six month data summary to EDM + 32 months. By this letter you may proceed to adjust any contract agreements with EA Engineering, Science and Technology. Please call me at 518-457-9439 if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, ichael ban Conservation Biologist cc: E. Radle L. Wedge P. Kolakowski 'Ve MC02/NM PE/I.MOD}}