ML18040A342
| ML18040A342 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1997 |
| From: | Terry C NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NMP2L-1778, NUDOCS 9805180347 | |
| Download: ML18040A342 (20) | |
Text
'CATEGORY 1 REGULATv Y INFORMATION DISTRIBUTIO SYSTEM (RIDS)
DOCKET FACIL:50-410 Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Niagara Moha 05000410 AUTH. NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION TERRY,C.D. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp; RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION for Nine Mile 0501 ltr.231 C DISTRIBUTION CODE: C001D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR ENCL SIZE: A TITLE: Licensing Submittal: Environmental Rept Amdt E Related Correspondence, T
NOTES:
E RECIPIENT COPIES RECIPIENT ( COPIES ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL HOOD,D 1 1 INTERNAL: ACRS 1 1 ILE CENTER 01 1 1 NUDOCS-ABSTRACT 1 1 OGC S 1 0 RGNl DRS/RSB 1 1 EXTERNAL: NOAC 1 1 NRC PDR 1 1 D
E N
NOTE TO ALL "RIDS" RECIPIENTS:
PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTE. TO HAVE'YOUR NAME OR ORGANIZATION REMOVED FROM DISTRIBUTION LISTS OR REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COPIES RECEIVED BY YOU OR YOUR ORGANIZATION, CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK (DCD) ON EXTENSION 415-2083 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR 8 ENCL 7
NIAGARA MOHAWK C E N E RAT I 0 N NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION/LAKEROAD, P.O. BOX 63, LYCOMING. NEW YORK 13093/TELEPHONE (315) 349-7263 FAX (315) 349-4753 BUSINESS CROUP May 1, 1998 CARL D. TERRY NMP2L 1778 Vice President Nuclear Safety Assessment and Support U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 RE: Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Docket No. 50-410
Subject:
Tnrnsmittal of 1997 Annual Environmental Operating Report Gentlemen:
In accordance with Appendix B of the Operating License (Environmental Protection Plan) for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (NMPNS) Unit 2, enclosed is the f u p 'dJ M1,1997h ghD b 31,1997.
'1 In the event you have any questions concerning the report, please contact Kent E. Stoffie, Environmental Analyst at Nine Mile Point (315) 349-1364.
Very truly yours, Carl D. Terry Vice President Nuclear Safety Assessment & Support CD T/KES/kap Enclosure XC: Mr. H. J. Miller, Regional Administrator, Region I Mr. B. S. Norris, Senior Resident Inspector Mr. D. S. Hood, Senior Project Manager, NRR William Holzhauer, Esq.
Records Management 9805i80347 'V7i23i PDR ,ADOCK 050004i0 a PDR
NIAGARAMOHAWKPOWER CORPORATION January 1, 1997 - December 31, 1997 for Mji'G'ILEPOINT NUCLEAR STATION U&HT 2 Facility Operating License NPF-69 Docket Number 50-410
Section 5.4.1 of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), as contained in Appendix B of the Operating License for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 2, requires that an Annual Environmental Operating Report be submitted to the Commission prior to May 1 of each year.
The following addresses the requirements found in Section 5.4.1 of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) for the submittal of the Annual Environmental Operating Report; Provide summaries and analyses of the results of the environmental protection activities required by Section 4.2 (ifany) of the EPP, including a comparison with related preoperational studies, operational controls (as appropriate), and previous non-radiological environmental monitoring reports; and an assessment of the observed impacts of plant operation on the environment. Ifharmful effects or evidence of trends toward irreversible damage to the environment are observed, a detailed analysis of the data and a proposed course of mitigating action shall be provided.
Section 4.2 of the EPP denotes three areas of monitoring:
~ Section 4.2.1 (Aquatic Monitoring) has no specific monitoring requirements although it is noted that the Commission will rely on the decisions made by the State of New York under the authority of the Clean Water Act for any requirements. Aquatic monitoring is specified in the station's State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (SPDES Permit) which is a site permit applicable to Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 1 and Unit 2. The SPDES Permit requires a limited Aquatic Monitoring Program (referred to in the permit as a Biological Monitoring Program) which, at the present time, is only applicable to Unit 1. Therefore, no Aquatic Monitoring Program is presently required for Unit 2.
Section 4.2.2 (Terrestrial Monitoring) and Section 4.2.3 (Noise Monitoring) of the EPP also do not contain any monitoring requirements.
- 2. Provide a list of EPP noncompliances and corrective actions.
A review of the EPP requirements showed that there were no conditions of noncompliance with these requirements during 1997.
- 3. Provide a list of all changes in station design or operation, or of any tests or experiments which involve a potentially significant unreviewed Environmental question (non-radiological).
A review of plant records showed that there were three changes in station design/operation that involved a potentially significant unreviewed environmental question (non-radiological). In all three instances, an environmental evaluation was performed and the changes did not create an unreviewed environmental question. A brief description of the changes is included below:
Change to the lake water temperature limit for tempering from 38'F to 45'F.
Lake temperature fluctuations are causing plant operations to enter and exit tempering actions in the cool water months (October - May). To remedy this, a change to increase the tempering temperature to 45'F was instituted. A review of the environmental impact of raising the lake temperature limit for tempering from 38'F to 45'F was performed by Environmental Protection (EP). The change to the lake water temperature limit for tempering will not affect compliance with the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit. Service water flow, delta temperature, discharge temperature, and copper limits are not significantly affected by tempering at lake water temperatures up to 45'F. It was concluded that there was no significant impact to the environment by increasing the lake water temperature limit for tempering.
In addition, the New York State Department of Conservation (NYSDEC) expressed an interest in both Unit 1 and Unit 2 increasing tempering during the cool water months (October through May). The reason for the desire to increase the tempering was to reduce the amount of water withdrawn from lake Ontario thus reducing the potential to impinge or entrain small aquatic wildlife (e.g., minnows, plankton, etc.). A copy of the NYSDEC letter requesting NMPNS to evaluate the increase in tempering is attached.
Change lake water intake temperature from 77'F to 82'F.
It was determined that the Service Water System (SWP) calculation A10.1-N-130 used 77 F lake water inlet temperature, rather than the technical specification analytical limit of 82'F (design maximum) to determine the maximum SWP effluent temperature following a reactor scram. A review of the calculation indicated that the maximum effluent temperature would be less than 110 F when SWP inlet temperature is 82 F instead of 77'F. The SPDES Permit allows for a maximum SWP effluent temperature of 110'F. It was, therefore, concluded that there was no significant impact to the environment by increasing the lake water inlet temperature limit from 77 F to 82'F.
Evaluation of degraded fish return flow to the lake.
The Environmental Report and the Final Environmental Statement (FES) reference the fish diversion system as the major design component installed to minimize fish
t V
impingement at the Unit 2 lake water intake structure. The FES references total fish diversion system flow at 13,400 to 14,900 gallons per minute (GPM). Following the recalibration of the fish diversion system flowmeter, current flow monitoring shows the system flow to be near 11,000 GPM. Operations procedures direct operators to check the system if the flow rate falls below 11,000 GPM. Although this flow is below the system flow referenced in the FES, levels of fish impingement indicate that the fish diversion system is performing satisfactorily with the reduced flow. It was concluded that there was no significant impact to the environment by the reduced fish diversion flow.
- 4. List all non-routine reports that were submitted during 1997 in accordance with Section 5.4.2 of the EPP.
During 1997, there were no non-routine reports were submitted to the Commission in accordance with Section 5.4,2 of the EPP,
I S iL I~
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road, Albany. New York 12233%756 Michael D. Zagata Commissioner January 16, 1996 Mr. Carey M. Merritt Supervisor of Environmental Protection Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Ooerations Building Unit 2 P.O. Box 63 Lycoming, NY 13093
Dear Mr. Merri tt:
This letter is to follow up on our January 11 1996 telephone conversation discussing the report entitled "Reduced Cooling Water Flow Evaluation for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Stations Unit-1 and Unit 2", submitted in December 1995 to fulfillSPDES permit additional requirement No. III. 6.
After reviewing the report and from our conversation, that nuclear power plant design does indeed present some 'rather I agree formidable challanges when looking at flow management options.
Although most of the items in the report were addressed satisfactorily, a couple of issues we discussed require some follow up. Briefly:
- 1. A discussion of the potential for use of variable speed pumps is needed, and should include information on both costs and benefits (water use reductions possible) . Indian Point Nuclear Station, for example, has achieved some rather substantial reductions in winte~ cooling water use with variable speed pumps.
The report stated that continuous tempering would reduce station efficiency and is beyond the design basis of the plant. As other stations, such as J.A. FitzPatrick, utilize tempering quite regularly during the winter period (tempering up to 30 per cent of flow is possible), more detail is needed on the past use of tempering at Nine Mile Point (e.g.
estimated tempering volumes), and the constraints that have prevented further use of tempering, including the impact of various tempering flows and intake temperatures on plant thermal efficiency.
J I look If you forw'ard to further discussing have any questions, please call me these matters with you-at 52.8-457-9439-Thank you.
Sincerely, M chael . Calaban onservat 'on Biologist (Ecol ogy) cc: E. Radle I. Kedge, Region 7 MC02./NMPFLOW.MGT
L FIGURE 3 gI-3
~
%Q Q gi si~
~$ I ~
t
~e 0 1 o
~ ~VZY sovasss
~o "'.1
~ mecwar gmrr~
q~i as gg masons'to xma.ts 5~
~
~s nawae ross
@loco thos
~ ~scsssst toe tats a
I oaCsctc ~t uo thos A, SIKKIMSlLDIHJ B, ICSOSC OJLOSO C. a.v.r.n. OCIIOIa O. VASK.DICFDCSC. NLOFO E, Omt 4 FCPPIOJQ' Fe CFF Cks StlLO SO D, SC7CSIIQttSTIOC OtlLOIO Cs o o Cl CK CD 4l ttl CJ ttl CA C)
X ttt CK go~(8~397- 0 (
ling~
~~ev Cp
~ see
<o~
) ~
" '59)c)
~ s
@ I I.
I
~ ~
C 0
1
~ I 4 ~ ~ ~
o +r O
$ CI 8 LEGENG F MAIN STACK
~~ TOP/BKR k 284im EL 26).00 A REACTOR BUILOING 265.00'OKNTIFICATION TURBINE WILOING
~u 8
OIBE 2 REVE'IMENT DITCH SYSTEM UIIIY IOP EL RAOWAST f BUILOING
'6 N T A
\
0 26%00'LII 0'NIT TOP/BERM EL 0
K F
NEATER BAYS SCREKHWELL CONOENSATE BUILOING STORAGE TAI8( ROG L t BUILOIHG G CONTROL H 'ORMAL SWITCNGEAR BUILOIHG SNORE LINE' J ADMINISTRATION BUILOIHG INFO uATION CEHTER
/ lc2
+
~ ON QE E.
1-t Qb H I 285000 I SE T TII HT T
Jl TRAHSMISSON LIHKS LEGEHO'-
l I 1)] IN 'NICINAL CNNNe EONIININ IC'C.l
/BERM lF <<YCF4 256.00' g )ATE l
O l << AREAL LOT .
NEW GROUIQ COHTOUR
~ CEO ll ~ FENCE UNE ll I
'luII C
l a I ~ FN PAVE CION C lOP/6ERM EL LOT TOWER
~
/ 'N E
~ C4 Nl 282 000 2.00'AIL NOTKS
'OEN I. GRIO COOROIHATES REFER TO l /BKR NSM 10 l[l HEW YORK STATE COOROIHATE lCO 'l SYSTEII II ~ ~ LINE
\ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
Z. ELEVATIOHS REFER TO MEAN l I ill ROAO SEA LKVKL COI I ill X ORIGINAL COHTOUR IHTERVAL
-2 FEE'T
<<COO STNG L NCNNI EIN O NI 28I 000
~ ~
~ ~
I
, FIGURE 1.2-1
+RAILROAO TOP/
E N EL 22 P LOT PLAN fI ~
0 A~
)
". 'c5lAGARA'pHAWKPplgER CpRPORATtpM I
SCALE IN FEET bltNE MlLE Pa)gy Ugp'
~O fF,,'NAL 'SAFETY ANAI YSIS SEPQRT cr t505 (f0597 - CQ
'1 s
l b l
I