ML18191A296

WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2 (Formerly Hanford No. 2) Cooling Tower Make-up Water Intake

ML18191A296
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	02/25/1975
From:	Stein J Washington Public Power Supply System
To:	Case E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
G02-75-53
Download: ML18191A296 (11)

Text

NRC DISTRIBUTION FOR PART 50 DOCKET MATERIAL (TEMPORARY FORM)

CONTROL NO:

FILE' FROM. Washington Public Power Supply System

Richland, Wash J.J. Stein DATE OF DOC 2-25-75 DATE R EC'D 2-28-75 LTR TWX RPT OTHER TO:

Mr. Fdson G. Case CLASS UNCLASS PROPINFO XXXX ORIG 1-signed INPUT CC OTHER NO CYS REC'D SENT AEC PDR xxx SENT LOCALPDR DOCKET NO:

50-397 D E SC R I PTION:

Ltr furn comments on WPPSS Nuclear Project No.

2 Cooling Tower Make-up Water Intake'

trans the followingL Dist ~ Per M. Maigret PLANT NAME:

Hanford y2 ENCLOSURES:

~ ~-..~..~~

Figure A WNP-2 Intake Location In Columbia River Figure B

Artisths Concept WNP-2 Intake In Columbia River fl FOR ACTION/INFORMATION 3-0-75 JGB UTLER (L)

W/'(Copies CLARK (L)

W/ Copies PARR (L)

W/ Copies KNI EL (L)

W/ Copies SCHWENCER (L)

W/ Copies STOLZ (L)

W/ Copies VASSALLO (L)

W/ Copies PURPLE (L)

W/ Copies ZlEMANN (L)

W/ Copies DICKER (E)

W/ Copies KNIGHTON (E)

W/ Copies YOUNGBLOOD (E)

W/ Copies REGAN (E)

W/ Copies LEAR (L)

W/ Copies SPELS W/ Copies W/ Copies TECH REVIEW R

SCHROEDER

~GC, ROOM P-506A MACCARY GOSSI CK/STAFF KN IG HT CASE PAWLICKI GIAMBUSSO SHAO

~YD STELLO MOORE (L)

HOUSTON

~YOUNG (L)

NOVAK SKOVHOLT (L)

ROSS GOLLER (L) (Ltr)

IPPOLITO P. COLLINS

~ESCO DENISE MONG

~G OPR LAINAS FILE 5 REGION (2)

BENAROYA T.R. WILSON VOLLMER STEE LE v

4,. C INTERNALDISTRIBUTION DENTON G R I MES R.

GAMMILL H.

KASTNER E.

BALLARD P.

SPAN G LE R J.

vSI.

ENVIRO a<5:

CRULLER M.

DICKER S.

KN IG HTON M.

YOUNGBLOOD H.

MEGAN S

PROJECT LDR G.

V.

HARLESS R.

LIC ASST DIGGS (L)

GEARIN (L)

GQULBOURNE '(L)

KREUTZER (E)

LEE (L)

MAIGRET (L)

REED (E)

SERVICE (L)

SHEPPARD (L)

SLATER (E)

SMITH (L)

TEETS (L)

WI LLIAMS (E)

WILSON (L)

INGRAM (L)

EXTERNALDISTRIBUTION A/T IND

~

BRAITMAN SA LTZMAN ME LTZ PLANS MCDONALD CHAPMAN.

DUBE (Ltr)

E. COUPE PETERSON HARTFIELD (2)

KLECKER EISENHUT WIGG I NTON v~

LOCALPDR Richland, Wash 3 TIC (ABERNATHY)

(1)(2)(10) NATIONALLABS

~1 NSIC (BUCHANAN) 1 W. PENNINGTON, Rm E-201 GT

~1 AS LB 1

CONSULTANTS f

1 Newton Anderson NEWMARK/8LUME/AGBABIAN l 7-ACRS HOLDING/SENT 1 P DR-SAN/LA/NY 1 BROOKHAVEN NAT LAB 1 G. ULRIKSON, ORNL 1 AGMED (RUTH GUSSMAN)

Rm B-127 GT 1 J. D. RUNKLES, Rm E-201 GT

~

~

~ ~

V

Washington Public Power Supply System A JOINT OPERATING AGENCY P~",fg I~~p+6 II'g piJO Cy.

P. O. 8OX 968 3000 GRO. WASHINGTON WAY RICHLAND, WASHINGTON 00352 PHONR (SO9) 946.968I February 25, 1975 G02-75-53 Mr. Edson G.

Case, Acting Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Division of Reactor Licensing U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.

2 (FORMERLY HANFORD NO. 2)

COOLING TOWER MAKE-UP WATER INTAKE DOCKET NO. 50-397

',<<~El(g "

Argy(g

~Il3gpg~ lT QI

Dear Mr. Ca'se:

In our construction permit application for WPPSS Nuclear Project No.

2 (HWNP-2",

formerly Hanford No. 2), one of the principal criteria for design of the cooling tower make-up water intake was the provision, of low',water velocities to minimize the effect on juvenile salmonids.

Initially, we expected to implement this criterion by designing and installing an infiltration bed intake system for the cooling tower make-up water.

However, as was made clear during the testimony before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on January 26, 1973, (see e.g.,

P.

225 of the hearing transcript) the Supply System was then investigating the possibility of alternatives to the infiltration bed intake system.

This was because of possible operational and attendant environmental disadvantages of the candidate infiltration system.

As the Licensing Board found in its Initial Decision:

"The intake and discharge systems are being designed to minimize environmental impact.

The discharge design provides mixing ex-pected to result in an insignificant impact.

The Applicant is continuing its review of the design of the proposed infiltration intake system which would provide very low approach velocities (0.02 fps) but which, in view of experience at other installations, might entail turbidity and operational problems if frequent backflushing were required.

The Applicant is conducting optimization studies with respect to the intake design in order to provide a final intake sys-tem design which will result in both overall minimal environmental impact and reliable operation."

(Washington Public Power Supply System (Hanford No.

2 Nuclear Power Plant),

LBP-73-10, Para.

55, RAI-73-3, 197, 206 (March 15, 1973))

V 0

/'

~

~

~ Mr. Edson Case February 25, 1975 The studies referred to in the Initial Decision regarding alternative intake systems resulted in two reports which were received by the Supply System in March of 1973 (References 1 and 2).

These reports recommended that the infil-tration bed intake system design be abandoned for the reasons noted in the Initial Decision and that a perforated pipe located offshore in the Columbia River be used instead.

These recommendations for the perforated pipe system were based upon the environmental and operational advantages of such a system.

The recommended perforated pipe system was presented to the Washington State Thermal Power Plant Site Evaluation Council

("TPPSEC") in May of 1973.

In June of 1973, TPPSEC agreed that the Supply System should proceed with the detailed design and analysis of the perforated pipe intake system.

Detailed model studies on the flow characteristics of the perforated pipe intake system were completed in early 1974 (Reference 3).

The results of these studies were presented to TPPSEC in February and April of 1974.

In conjunction with review of the Supply System's application for a Corps of Engineers permit for construc-tion in navigable waterways, the National Marine Fisheries Service

("NMFS") of the National Oceanic and Atomospheric Administration of the United States Depart-ment of Commerce was briefed in May of 1974.

Additional meetings with TPPSEC and NMFS resulted in minor modifications to the pumpwell to include additional monitoring facilities.

In October of 1974, both TPPSEC and NMFS reviewed the detailed contract bid and specification plans for the intake facility. NMFS withdrew their objections to, and TPPSEC approved this intake system for WNP-2 based upon the requirement, for certain monitoring to be conducted by the Supply System (References 4 and 5).

Throughout the period of these studies and discussions with other agencies, the Commission's Regulatory Staff has been kept informed on an informal basis.

This letter will serve to document the selection of the intake design in accordance with the Licensing Board's Initial Decision.

As noted below, the information contained herein will be appropriately reflected in the operating license stage Environmental Report.

1/

Richards, R. T., "Intake for the Makeup Water Pumping System, WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2", Burns 8 Roe, Inc., March, 1973.

2/

Schreiber, D. L. et al., "Appraisal of Water Intake Systems on the Central Columbia River", Battelle Northwest, March, 1973.

3/

4/

Adam, S. et al.,

"Hanford Nuclear Project No. 2, Air 5 Hydraulic Model Studies of the Perforated Pipe Inlet and Protective Dolphin", LaSalle Hydraulic Laboratory,

February, 1974.

Letter from Joseph B. Knotts, Jr. to Daniel M. Head, et al., dated November 5, 1974 (copy to Mr. Ronald Loose) and enclosed letters from WPPSS to NMFS dated October 28, 1974 and October, 1974; letter dated October 18, 1974 from NMFS to Daniel M. Head.

+5 Letter from Joseph F. Lightfoot, Executive Secretary, Thermal Power Plant Site Evaluation Council, dated November 4, 1974, subject:

TTPSEC Review of Bid Specifications for Intake and Outfall Structures.

~

N-.

Edson Case -

February 25, 1975 The intake system for WNP-2 is similar to that described in the Environmental Report for the WNP-1 and 4 plants (Docket Nos.

50-460, 50-513; see ER Section 3.4).

Figure A, attached

hereto, shows the location of the WNP-2 perforated pipe intake.

A sketch of the intake and pump house system is shown in Figure B, also attached.

The perforated pipe intake consists of two "T" sections located approximately 350 feet offshore in low water.

Each "T" section consists of an inner sleeve with 7% of the surface area comprising openings of 3/4 inch

each, and an outer sleeve with 40K of the surface comprising openings of 3/8 inch each.

The outer sleeve is designed to limit fish and trash entrainment and the inner sleeve is designed to produce uniform velocity along the entire length of the "T" section.

The system withdraws water from the river through the "T" section.

The water then flows by gravity to the pumpwell through two 36 inch lin'es.

The water is then pumped from the pumpwell to the plant through a single 42 inch line.

Moveable monitoring cages, which were requested by NMFS, are presently being designed to fit over the ends of the 36 inch pipes as they come into the pumpwell.

These cages will be fitted with small mesh nets to collect salmonid fry, should they be entrained in the system.

This intake was selected to minimize the impact of the make-up water withdrawal from the Columbia River, with particular emphasis on salmonid fry.

Two character-istics of this intake minimize fish entrainment.

First, the intake location is well offshore where the number of downstream salmonid fry are expected to be relatively small.

Second, the low intake approach velocities near the perforated pipe are on the order.2 -.4 feet per second.

A monitoring program will be developed in detail with TPPSEC and NMFS represen-tatives.

This program will include monitoring in the pumpwell to determine any impact of the system by entrainment of salmonid fry.

Details of this intake system will be appropriately reflected in the updating of the WNP-2 Environmental Report at the operating license stage.

Very truly yours, JJS:WWW:sic Enclosures J. J.

STEIN Managing Director

0

~

'I

'I g

i%12500 E 15500 E'16000

. '.E16500 330 E 17000 320 M Q I

C)Q m N 12000

~m Fl I

RO M C) le ~

CD

/

380 380

~'w

~ I 350 340

, a48

~

~

EDGE OF RIYER AT

,120,000 cfs WNP-2 INTAKE R I YER MlLE 35L 75 WNP-2 Dl SCHARGE Pl PE EDGE OF RIVER I AT 36,000 ct's

(c C

C C ~

/s I

I I

I I

I I

I I

Il

/

I I

Il I

I I

I I

'~L

/

FIGURE 8

ARTIST'S COffCEPT

!AMP-2 INTAKE rl< COLUtSIA RIVER

1 y4 1