ML20039E895
| ML20039E895 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1981 |
| From: | CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20039E891 | List: |
| References | |
| ENVR-811231, NUDOCS 8201110593 | |
| Download: ML20039E895 (16) | |
Text
-
i MIDLAND 1&2-ER (OLS)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADDING REVISION 13 TO THE MIDLAND PLANT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT This Revision 13 to the Environmental Report (ER) of the Midland Plant consists of pages that are to be inserted into your copy of the ER.
Vertical bars in the margin indicate the location of the revisions in' text and tables. Pages without bars are either unchanged pages furnished for continuity or contain minor spelling or editorial corrections which do not change the text content. The pages to be removed and inserted are as follows:
REMOVE INSERT Volume 1 After Tab, LOEP-1/LOEP-2 LOEP-1/LOEP-2 LOEP-15 thru LOEP-18 LOEP-15 thru LOEP-18 5-1/5-11 5-i/5-11 5.5-3 thru 5.5-9 5.5-3 thru 5.5-8 1
5.5R-3 5.5R-3 gb 1
O REVISION 13 - DECEMBER 1981 1 of 1 AD 0
C
MIDLAND 1&2-ER(OLS)
LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES CP Co Transmittal Letter NRC Receipt Tendered ER 02/28/78 03/01/78 Docket 04/12/78 04/14/78 4
Revision 1 - April 1978 05/08/78 05/12/78 Revision 2 - June 1978 06/29/78 07/05/78 Revision 3 - November 1978 11/10/78 11/16/78 Revision 4 - December 1978 12/07/78 12/12/78 Revision 5 - January 1979 01/29/79 02/01/79 Revision 6 - February 1979 02/27/79 03/06/79 Revision 7 - March 1979 03/30/79 03/30/79 Revision 8 - April 1979 04/30/79 05/03/79 Revision 9 - June 1979 06/29/79 07/05/79 Revision 10 - November 1979 11/30/79 12/03/79 Revision 11 - September 1980 09/15/80 09/23/80 Revision 12 - June 1981 07/13/81 07/22/81 Revision 13 - December 1981 01/04/82 Latest Sheet ID Rev
%'LUME I O
i 12 11 12 iii 12 iv 12 LOEP-1 13 LOEP-2 12 I.0EP-3 12 LOEP-4 12 LOEP-5 12 L0EP-6 12 LOEP-7 12 LOEP-8 12 LOEP-9 12 L0EP-10 12 LOEP-11 12 LOEP-12 12 LOEP-13 12 LOEP-14 12 LOEP-15 13 LOEP-16 12 LOEP-17 12 LOEP-18 13 L0EP-19 12 LOEP-20 12 LOEP-21 12 LOEP-22 12 LOEP-23 12 REVISION 13 - DECEMBER 1981 LOEP-1 4
.r-
MIDLAND 1&2-ER(OLS)
O Latest Sheet ID Rev LOEP-24 12 LOEP-25 12 LOEP-26 12 L0EP-27 12 LOEP-28 12 LOEP-29 12 LOEP-30 12 LOEP-31 12 1-1 12 1-il 12 1-iii 11 1.1-1 11 1.1-2 12 1.1-3 12 1.1-4 12 1.1-5 12 1.1-6 12 1.1-6a 12 1.1-6b 12 1.1-7 12 1.1-8 12 1.1-9 12 1.1-10 12 1.1-11 12 1.1-12 12 1.1-13 12 1.1-14 12 1.1-15 12 1.1-16 12 1.1-17 12 1.1-18 12 1.1-19 12 1.1-20 12 1.1-21 12 1.1-22 12 1.1-23 12 1.1-24 12 1.1-25 12 1.1-26 12 1.1-27 12 1.1-28 12 1.1-29 12 1.1-30 12 1.1-31 12 1.1-32 12 1.1-33 12 1.1-34 12 1.1-35 12 1.1-36 12 REVISION 12 - JUNE 1981 LOEP-2
=.
O t
o MIDLAND 1&2-ER(OLS) i
$~
Latest Sheet ID Rev 4-1 12 4-11 4
4.1-1 1
I 4.1-2 1
f 4.1-3 12 4.1-4 12 4.1R-1 12 4.2-1 12 4.2-2 12 4.2-3 12 1'
4.2-4 12 4.2-5 12 4.2-6 12 4.2-7 12 4.2-8 12 2
4.2-9 12 4.2-10 12 4.2-11 12
~
Tb1 4.2-1 11 Tb1 4.2-2 l
(1 of 3) 12 (2 of 3) 12 l
(3 of 3) 12 l
4,2R-1 1
i 4.2R-2 12 l
4.3-1 12 4.3-2 12 4.3-3 12 4.3-4 12 4.3-5 12 4.3-6 12 4.3R-1 12 3
4.4-1 0
I 4.4-2 1
Tb1 4.4-1 0
4.4R-1 0
4.5-1 0
i 4.5R-1 1
5-i 12 5-11 13 5-111 0
5-iv 10 5-v 4
5-vi 3
5.1-1 12 5.1-2 12 5.1-3 12 5.1-4 12 5.1-5 12 5.1-6 32 REVISION 13 - DECEMBER 1981 LOEP-15
.j MIDLAND 1&2-ER(OLS)
O Latest Sheet ID Rev 5.1-7 12 5.1-8 12 5.1-9 12 5.1-10 12 5.1-11 12 5.1-12 12 5.1-13 12 5.1-14 12 5.1-15 12 5.1-16 12 5.1-17 12 5.1-18 12 5.1-19 12 5.1-20 12 Tb1 5.1-1 3
Tb1 5.1-3 1
Fig 5.1-1 3
Fig 5.1-2 3
Fig 5.1-3 3
Fig 5.1-4 3
'ig 5.1-5 3
l'ig 5.1-6 0
5,1R-1 12 5.1 't - 2 12 5.1.1-3 12 App 5.1A NA App 5.1B 5.1B Title Pg 0
5.1B-1 0
5.1B-il 0
5.1B-lii 0
5.1B-1 1
5.1B-2 1
5.1B-3 1
5.1B-4 1
5.1B-5 0
5.1B-6 0
5.1B-7 0
5.1B-8 0
5.1B-9 0
Tb1 5.1B-1 0
Tb1 5.1B-2 0
Fig 5.1B-1 0
Fig 5.1B-2 0
Fig 5.1B-3 0
Fig 5.1B-4 0
NA = Not applicable. This appendix was not written by Consumers Power Company or its contractors.
REVTSION 12 - JUNE 1981 LOEP-16
MIDLAND 1&2-ER(OLS) t I!O Latest Sheet ID Rev j
[
Fig 5.1B-5 0
l 5.1BR-1 9
{
_ App 5.1C' NA 5.2-1 0
l 5.2-2 0
5.2-3 0
l 5.2-4 0
5.2-5 0
i.
5.2-6 0
5.2-7 0
5.2-8 0
5.2-9 0
3.2-10 0
5.2-11 0
4 t
5.2-12 0
5.2-13 0
l 5.2-14 0
l 5.2-15 0
l 5.2-16 0
l 5.2-17 0
l 5.2-16 0
l 5.2-19 0
l 5.2-20 0
5.2-21 10 l
5.2-22 10 5.2-23 10 5.2-24 10 5.2-25 10 5.2-26 10 5.2-27 7
5.2-28 0
5.2-29 0
1 5.2-30 0
j 5.2-31 1
5.2-32 1
4 5.2-33 0
5.2-34 1
5.2-35 7
5.2-36 7
Tb1 5.2-1 0
Tb1 5.2-2 0
Tb1 5.2-3 0
Tb1 5.2-4 0
Tb1 5.2-5 0
{
TL1 5.2-6 0
l' Tb1 5.2-7 0
Tb1 5.2-8 1
NA = Not applicable. This appendix was not written by Consumers Power Company or its contractors.
REVISION 12 - JUNE 1981 LOEP-17 r
s y
, - - - + - - -,
,-,.v-
,n r r,-
- +, -,,.,,
,.+,:.-..~...--,,n,-------
,,,_-,--v,
MIDLAND 1&2-ER(OLS)
Latest
_ Sheet ID Rev Tb1 5.2-9 0
Tb1 5.2-10 0
Tb1 5.2-11 0
Tb1 5.2-12 0
Tb1 5.2-13 10 Tb1 5.2-15 10 Tb1 5.2-16 10 Tb1 5.2-17 0
Tb1 5.2-18 0
Tb1 5.2-19 5
Tb1 5.2-2C 0
Tb1 5.2-21 0
Tb1 5.2-22 0
Tb1 5.2-23 5
Tb1 5.2-24 0
Tb1 5.2-25 5
Fig 5.2-1 0
Fig 5.2-2 0
Fig 5.2-3 0
Fig 5.2-4 0
Fig 5.2-5 0
Fig 5.2-6 0
Fig 5.2-7 0
Fig 5.2-8 0
Fig 5.2-9 0
Fig 5.2-10 0
Fig 5.2-11 0
Fig 5.2-12 0
5.2R-1 0
5.2R-2 9
5.2R-3 1
5.2R-4 1
5.3-1 8
5.3-2 3
Tb1 5.3-1 9
5.3R-1 0
5.4-1 1
5.5-1 0
5.5-2 0
5.5-3 13 5.5-4 13 5.5-5 13 5.5-6 13 5.5-7 13 5.5-8 13 5.5R-1 1
5.5R-2 1
5.5R-3 13 5.6-1 12 REVISION 13 - DECEMBER 1981 LOEP-18
6 OU CHAPTER 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page No r
4 5
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PLANT OPERATION.........
5.1-1 5.1 EFFECTS OF OPERATION OF HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM...
5.1-1 5.1.1 Effluent Limitations and Water Quality Standards.
5.1-1 5.1.1.1 State.............................................
5.1-1 5.1.1.2 Federa1...........................................
5.1-3 5.1.1.3 License Conditions 5.1-4 12 5.1.1.3.1 Chlorine.........................................
5.1-6 5.1.1.3.2 Phosphorus.......................................
5.1-7 5.1.2 Phys i ca l E f f e ct s.................................
5.1-8 3l 1
5.1.3 Biological Effects 5.1-10 5.1.3.1 Entrafnment Effects................................
5.1-11 5.1.3.2 Impingement Effects................................
5.1-12 i
/~N 5.1.3.3 Thermal Effects....................................
5.1-13 12 5.1.4 Effects of Heat Dissipation Facilities 5.1-15
)
3 5.1.4.1 Frequency o f Fog 0ccurrence........................
5.1-15 5.1.4.2 Icing Buildup From Pond Fog........................
5.1-18 i
5.1.4.3 Noise From Service Water Cooling Towers............
5.1-19 5.1.4.4 Effects on Ground Water............................
5.1-19 5.1R REFERENCES........................................
5.1R-1 Appendix 5.1A WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS 5.1B CALCULATION METHODS USED IN PREDICTING THERMAL PLUME CONFIGURATIONS 5.1C F00 AND PLUMES FROM POWER PLANT COOLING SYSTEMS IN THE TRI-CITIES - SAGINAW BAY AREA 5.2 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT FROM ROUTINE OPERATION........
5.2-1 5.2.1 Exposure Pathways..................................
5.2-1 5.2.1.1 Radiation Exposure to Biota Other Than Man........
5.2-1 5.2.1.1.1 Gaseous Effluents..................................
5.2-1 5.2.1.1.2 Liquid Effluents..................................
5.2-1 5.2.1.2 Radiation Exposure to Man..........................
5.2-2 5.2.1.2.1 Gaseous Effluents..................................
5.2-2 5.2.1.2.2 Liquid Effluents..................................
5.2-2 5.2.2 Radioactivity in Environment 5.2-2 5.2.2.0 Meteorological Models..................
5.2-2
~ J REVISION 12 - JUNE 1981 5-1
Section Title Page No 5.2.2.0.1 Short-Term (Accident) Dif fusion Estimates..........
5.2-3 5.2.2.0.2 Long-Term (Routine) Diffusion Estimates............
5.2-8 5.2.2.0.3 Deposition Rates..................................
5.2-19 5.2.2.1 Surface Water Models..............................
5.2-21 5.2.2.1.1 Modeling of Radionuclide Transport 5.2-21 5.2.2.1.2 Sediment Uptake Models 5.2-26 5.2.2.1.3 Water-Use Models 5.2-26 5.2.2.2 Groundwater Models................................
5.2-27 5.2.3 Dose Rate Estimates for Biota Other Than Han......
5.2-27 5.2.3.1 Fauna and F1 ora....................................
5.2-27 5.2.3.1.1 Aquatic Flora and Fauna............................
5.2-28 5.2.3.1.2 Terrestrial Fauna..................................
5.2-28 5.2.3.2 Calculation Models 5.2-30 5.2.4 Dose Rate Estimates for Man........................
5.2-30 5.2.4.1 Liquid Pathways....................................
5.2-30 5.2.4.2 Gaseous Pathways 5.2-31 5.2.4.3 Direct Radiation..................................
5.2-32 5.2.4.3.1 Direct Radiation From the Facility................
5.2-32 5.2.4.3.2 Direct Radiation From the Trausport of Radioactive Materials..........................................
5.2-32 5.2.4.4 Population Doses 5.2-33 5.2.4.4.1 Liquid Pathways....................................
5.2-33 5.2.4.4.2 Gaseous Pathways 5.2-35 5.2.5 Summa ry o f Annual Radiation Doses..................
5.2-36 5.2R REFERENCES........................................
5.2R-1 5.3 EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE DISCHARGES......
5.3-1 5.3R REFERENCES........................................
5.3R-1 5.4 EFFECTS OF SANITARY WASTE DISCHARGES..............
5.4-1 5.5 EFFECTS OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM................................
5.5-1 5.5.1 Environmental Effects of Electrical Fields 5.5-1 5.5.2 Right-of-Way Land Use..............................
5.5-1 5.5.3 Right-of-Way Maintenance..........................
5.5-2 13l 5.5.4 Potential Effect on Biota..........................
5.5-5 5.5R REFERENCES........................................
5.5R-1 5.6 OTRER EFFECTS......................................
5.6-1 5.6.1 Impact of Attracting Waterfowl to Cooling Pond....
5.6-1 5.5.2 Impact of Plant Operation on Biological System in Cooling Pond......................................
5.6-4 12 5.6.3 Impact of Non-Radioactive Solid Wastes Produced During Plant Operation............................
5.6-7 5.6.4 Noise..............................................
5.6-7 5.6R REFERENCES........................................
5.6R-1 O
REVISION 13 - DECEMBER 1981 5-11
. MIDLAND 1&2-ER(OLS)
(
l There are no plans for the use of pesticides other than herbicides to control growth of plant species that threaten the line. All pesticide application is performed only as directed by Federalf ) and State (5) laws. Herbicide applications are made by commercial applicators lit ansed by the State of Michigan. Only those herbicides approved by the Environmental Protection Agency for utility right-of-way application are used and they are applied with strict compliance to manufacturer's recommendations. Field operations are under the supervision of trained foresters certified by the State of Michigan to assure compliance with Consumers Power Company policy established in the Consumers Power Company Tree Clearing Specifications and Job Methods Manual (6)
Vegetation control along Consumers Power Company rights-of-way does not m
)
include chemical treatment of rhrubs and low growing species. Through selective spraying these species are normally left for the benefit of wildlife and the public.
I The planned uses of herbicides, including type, volumes, concentration and method of application are:
a.
Foliage Spray Tordon 101 and Carlon 4 I
l 13 A mixture of 2 quarts (1.891) of Tordon 101 and 1 quart (.951) of I
Garlon 4 per 99.25 gallons (3.76 hl) of water is applied to completely wet all leaf and stem surfaces to a point of runoff. Dense clumps of vegetation are thoroughly penetrated. The spray is applied at the rate (O
j of 200 to 300 gallons (7.58 to 11.36 hl) per forested acre (0.4 ha) at REVISION 13 - DECEMBER 1981 5.5-3 l
MIDLAND 1&2-ER(OLS) 2 a pressure which will not exceed 250 psi (17.3 kg/cm ).
Spraying is done with care to avoid drift to vegetation outside the treated area.
For use near water, Banvel 720 at a rate of 1 gallon (3.791) per 99 gallons (3.75 hl) of water may be substituted for the Tordon 101 and Garlon 4 mixture.
b.
Frill and Stump Spray Frill Overlapping frill cuts are made completely arourd the brush stems and 13 either Tordon 101R mixed 50-50 with water or Banvel 4WS mixed 25-75 with water is applied in the cuts with approximately 1 ml per cut. Tordon 101R cannot be applied on ditch banks.
Stumps Either Tordon 101R or Banvel 4WS mixed with water as above is sprayed on the cambium next to the bark. Tordon 101R cannot be used on ditch banks.
Through a carefully planned and adequately supervised herbicide program, including usage of improved herbicides, the development of desirable plant species is encouraged and wildlife habitat is improved. No effect on land resources or scenic values is expected.
The basic plan of the transmission right-of-way maintenance program is to restore lands to their former agricultural land-use activities, where 13 applicable, and schedule a vegetative control program within established safety criteria that has a minimum ecological and visual impact.
REVISION 13 - DECEMBER 1981 5.5-4
MIDLAND 1&2-ER(OLS) i f~V 5.5.4 Potential Effect on Biota The operation of the Midland Plant and transmission lines could have several impacts on wildlife of the area. The impact of the Plant site should be primarily a positive one - affording sanctuary to many species of wildlife.
The effect of the cooling pond on waterfowl, in particular, is discussed in Section 5.6.1.
Transmission lines could cause negligible, favorable or adverse impacts on wildlife of the area.
Impact in the northern portion of the transmission right-of-way is expected to be minimal, since the land is almost entirely devoted to agriculture. The most substantial impact of the line is expected in the southern portion of the right-of-way where natural (even if disturbed) communities still exist.
s 4
Plant transmission lines favor early vegetational successional stages which are beneficial to many species, particularly game species (
Animals such as eastern cot ontail, white-tailed deer, fox squirrel, woodchuck, badger, pheasant, woodcock, ruffed grouse, and quail utilize habitat associated with power line cuts. This habitat is also suitable for many types of small mammals which could, in turn, attract "important" species such as hawks (eg, kestrel, goshawk) owls, (eg, short-eared owl, great-horned owl, screech owl),
and red fox.
Those species of wildlife which require a mixture of open and wooded areas (eg, red fox, fox squirrel) could benefit from a power line crossing a wooded habitat. Some species may use the open areas associated with transmission rights-of-way on an occasional basis only. Geese, for example, have been observed feeding, walking, and flying beneath and near the l
13 wires during cpring and nonhunting periods in fall.
G(N I
REVISION 13 - DECEMBER 1981 5.5-5
l MIDLAND 1&2-ER(OLS)
The Plant and transmission lines may also adversely affect some species of wildlife. These wildlife species dependent on mature successional stages, such as gray squirrel i.td gray fox, would lose habitat. Some breeding habitat for hawks (eg, red-tail hawk, broadwing hawk) and owls (eg, great-horned owl, long-eared owl, saw-whet owl) could also be lost.
Bird collisions with Plant buildings, transmission lines, and towers are another possible negative impact. Several accounts of nocturnal migrant mortality at television towers, tall buildings, or monuments, and airport
~
ceilometers have been reported in the literature Ceilometer lights or the navigational lights on tall (generally 1000 feet (0.3 km)) television towers apparently attract the birds, which become confused and fly into the 4
ground, buildings, or, in particular, the guy wires of television towers.
Major kills (several thousand in one night) are generally asu ciated with peak periods of migration, where the birds began migrating, under favorable weather condit. ions with good tail winda, encountered a weather front with low, deep cloud cover, possibly fog or mist, and were forced to fly low.
Under normal weather conditions birds fly at much higher altitudes and probabilities of collisions with transmission facilities are slight.
Migrating birds follow approximately the same route each spring and fall. All of Michigan lies within the Mississippi Flyway which includes a broad north-south belt along the Mississippi River. Two major branches of this flyway are located on the western and eastern sides of the State, generally following the coastlines of Lakes Michigan, Erie and Huron. The Tittabawassee to Kenowa-Thetford 345 kV transmission line route lies near the eastern branch of this flyway and parallels it on the west.
Although some bird mortality during migration could be expected here, transmission lines and towers are not REVISION 13 - DECEMBER 1981 5.5-6
MIDLAND 1&2-ER(OLS) g)
(V strictly comparable to television towers or buildings. Transmission towers and lines are not as high as television towers, nor do they have the bright lights which appear to be closely associated with major mortalities.
One exception to this is when birds, particularly waterfowl, are making feeding and rest stops on lakes, swamps cr marshes. There are no large lakes along the Tittabawassee to Kenowa-Thetford transmission line route. At the southern end of the route in Saginaw County, the line will pass between two State game areas. The line will be about three miles (4.8 km) east of the Graciot-Saginaw State Game Area and about four miles (6.4 km) west of the a
4 Shiawassee State Game Area (see Figure 3.9-1).
Migratory or resident birds that use and inhabit these game areas would generally not be subject to collisions with the transmission towers or conductors, because three or four
(
miles (6 km) from either game area, most migratory birds are flying at higher f
1 altitudes. A small potential for collisions still exists, however, at river l
and creek crossings in the area near these refuges. Several rivers and creeks l
(Bad River, North Branch-Bad River, Little Potato Creek) are traversed by the transmission lines. Birds following these natural flight corridors at low altitudes may collide with the line.
There may also be a potential impact to waterfowl due to transmission line collisions at the Midland Plant. If the Plant cooling pond is utilized extensively by wat 'rfowl (refer to Section 5.6.1) then both the 138 kV start-up lines and both 345 kV bus tie lines from the Plant are potential hazards for waterfowl in flight. Preoperational monitoring studies (18,19) indicate that under preoperational conditions avian morbidity and mortality resulting 13 fs from strikes on Plant transmission lines are very low, despite substantial
)
\\'",/
cooling pond usage by water fowl, gulls and shorebirds. Morbidity and REVISION 13 - DECEMBER 1981 5.5-7 e
MIDLAND 1&2-ER(OLS) mortality may be affected by the reduction of visibility due to cooling pond 13 fog during operation. Future studies will determine whether or not this potential impact is significant.
Studies have shown that large birds (6-8 foot wingspan; 1.9-2.4 m) can be electrocuted if the birds make contact with any two conductors or one conductor and a ground wire when attempting to land or take off(16)
Because 4
all transmission lines associated with the Midland Plant have conductor spacings of at. least 16 feet (4.9 m) as shown in Figures 3.9-5 through 3.9-9, no adverse impacts of this nature are expected.
O O
REVISION 13 - DECEMBER 1981 5.5-8
' !p s,
-MIDLAND 1&2-ER(OLS)
) (~/
\\
\\-
- 16. M Nelson and P Nelson, " Eagle-Power Line Research," Power Lines and Birds s
of Prey, Northwest Electric Light and Power Association Energy and l
f Operation Conference, Yakima, WA, April 1974.
4 1
- 17. K L Carvell and P A Johnson, Environmental Effects of Right-of-Way
[
4 Management on Forested Ecosystems, Research Project 103-3, Report EA-491 i
(1978), Electric Power Research Institute.
- 18. H H Prince, P Rusz and R Rusz, Michigan State Un'iversity, Waterbird Use of the Midland Plant Cooling Pond and Dow Chemical Company's Tertiary l
Treatment Pond - Annual Report - 1979 (1980), Michigan State University.
13
- 19. H H Prince, P Rusz and R Rusz, Michigan State University, Waterbird Use of 4
the Midland Plant Cooling Pond and Dow Chemical Company's Tertiary Treatment Pond s-Annual Report - 198,0 (1981), Michigan State University.
i j
J i
4 REVISION 13 - DECEMBER 1981 5.5R-3
--,w.
,r.,
-s.
.r
-