ML20067E044
| ML20067E044 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1982 |
| From: | PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20067E040 | List: |
| References | |
| ENVR-821231, NUDOCS 8212210498 | |
| Download: ML20067E044 (23) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
() LIMERICK GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 &2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OPERATING LICENSE STAGE REVISION 8 PAGE CHANGES The attached pages, tables, and figures are considered part of a controlled copy of the Limerick Generating Station EROL. This material should be incorporated into the EROL by following the instructions below.
REMOVE INSERT VOLUME 1 Table 2.1-5 Table 2.1-5 Table 2.1-8 Table 2.1-8 Table 2.1-12 Table 2.1-12 VOLUME 2 Pages 3.6-5 & -6 Pages 3.6-5 & -6 VOLUME 3 Table 6.1-45 (pg 1)
O- Table 6.1-46 (pgs 2 & 5)
Table 6.1-45 (pg 1)
Table 6.1-46 (pgs 2 & 5)
- +++**************
- Remove from Volume 4 and insert in new volume 5: **
- Tab 200 thru page E470.14-1 **
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++***************
VOLUME 5 Summary Table of Contents (pgs i thru iv)
Page E290.15-1 Page E291.6-1 Page E291.6-1 & Figure E291.6-1 Page E291.9-1 Page E291.9-1 Page E310.12-1 Page E310.12-1 Page E451.6-1 Page E451.6-1 O
8212210498 821217 PDR ADOCK 05000352 C PDR
)
\
l C
Sector N
NNE NE ENE E
WNW NW NNW Total
~..
I 1
(
___u i
i LGS EROL TABLE 2.1-5 POPULATION CISTRIBUTION 0-10 MILES 2000 DISTANCE (MILES) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 10-Mile Total 61 740 540 681 999 8,905 11,926 141 263 335 460 194 3,988 5,381 27 95 285 411 397 3,810 -
5,025 32 91 353 470 230 2,350 3,526 23 144 406 606 480 15,327 16,986 73 167 426 371 419 18,357 19,813 0 533 1,501 5,647 1,578 4,077 13,336 18 490 2,110 5,748 2,384 40,319 51,069 5 621 388 107 536 6,434 8,091 0 732 461 500 355 3,219 5,267 88 296 259 447 423 5,078 6,591 67 326 753 632 1,509 1,782 5,069 65 79 1,590 1,593 2,534 >
406 6,267 10 108 4,630 15,745 4,726 11,757 36,976 24 477 3,415 8,677 2,033 1,116 15,742 11 762 1,255 1,233 920 7,035 11,216 645 5,924 18,707 43,328 19,717 133,960 222,281 l Rev. 8, 12/82 l
1
I i
P SECTOR 0-10 10-20 N 9,334 6,253 NNE 4,211 19,178 NE 3,933 21,396 ENE 2,759 38,121 E 13,294 52,056 ESE 15,505 131,917 SE 10,437 90,554 SSE 32,092 24,552 S 5,084 60,017 SSW 3,310 28,071 SW 4,142 4,060 WSW 3,185 7,472 W 4,690 3,644 WNW 26,001 123,107 NW 15,386 7,797 NNW 9,939 9.816 TOTAL 163,302 628,011
'i t
,i
j LGS EROL TABLE 2.1-8 OPULATION DISTRIBUTION 10-50 MILES (1970)
DISTANCE (MILES) 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-MILE _ TOTAL 40,245 42,944 27,908 126,684 188,605 170,433 35,189 417,616 14,868 22,233 38,547 100,977 38,625 17,188 28,712 125,405 94,689 164,754 338,592 663,385 724,262 610,275 73,658 1,555,617 1,255,972 566,597 103,147 2,026,707 250,377 25,563 21,282 353,866 29,018 332,241 18,248 444,608 23,849 36,668 45,361 137,259 l 34,181 9,976 14,319 66,678 19,717 62,299 126,433 219,106 15,006 41,717 70,654 135,711 71,310 18,760 26,015 265,193 16,911 14,553 61,969 116,616 l 14,500 5,792 34,883 74,930 2,832,135 2,141,993 1,064,917 6,830,358 l
1 I
t Rev. 8, 12/82 g
C I
Sector N
NNE NE ENE E
WNW NW NNW Total l
f l
i
'I i;
i i
LGS EROL TABLE 2.1-12 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION 10-50 MILES 2000 DISTANCE (MILES) 1 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-Mile Total 11,927 6,829 46,286 46,773 25,174 136,989 5,381 25,272 215,644 183,280 37,574 467,151 5,026 32,778 23,802 31,732 52,752 146,090 3,526 52,418 61,837 25,372 39,811 182,964 16,987 66,515 140,102 263,769 476,933 964,306 19,812 168,561 747,667 699,313 105,747 1,741,100 13,336 116,919 1,252,024 724,448 143,256 2,249,983 51,068 38,367 269,704 35,137 29,640 423,916 8,090 95,506 39,132 436,266 24,908 603,902 5,268 44,671 37,951 52,663 68,035 208,587 6,591 6,461 52,976 13,528 20,704 100,260 5,069 11,030 23,711 74,921 152,049 266,780 6,268 3,932 17,805 49,845 79,117 156,967 36,978 132,836 76,946 20,317 26,559 293,636 15,742 8,414 18,249 14,247 51,353 108,005 11,216 10,593 15,770 5,735 29,634 72,949 j 222,281 821,102 3,039,606 2,677,345 1,363,246 8,123,585 j Rev. 8, 12/82 i
LGS EROL that free available chlorine concentration does not exceed 0.5 mg/1. During and following chlorination, grab samples will be taken at the spray pond to monitor the chlorine concentration.
3.6.3 HOLDING POND EFFLUENT A 400,000 gallon concrete-lined holding pond receives all waste-water from the Limerick Generating Station except cooling tower overflow, spray pond overflow, radwaste, sewage, and storm drainage. Holding pond inflows include low volume waste from nonradioactive floor, equipment, and sampling drains, as well as powerblock subdrainage sump pump flows and auxiliary boiler blowdown. The total holding pond inflow is expected to average 70,000 gpd, of which approximately one-half is water treatment facility waste-water from the settling basins, and approximately one-half is from miscellaneous sources. The total maximum holding pond inflow is expected to be 300,000 gpd. Two parallel 750 gpm gravity differential oil separators, located immediately upstream of the holding pond, treat all flows entering the holding pond, except for the floor dainage from the holding pond treatment enclosures, which is routed directly to the holding pond.
3.6.3.1 Water Treatment Facility Wastewater from the
( Settlino Basins A major low volume waste source draining to the holding pond is the wastewater settling basin effluent. Raw water for the makeup water system is supplied by either the Schuylkill or the Perkiomen pumping stations. The makeup water treatment facility includes a clarification and filtration system, clarified water storage tank, ion exchange demineralization system, and demineralized water storage tank. The raw water treatment facility supplies lube water for the circulating water pump seal system, domestic water system, and demineralized water system.
Alum, polyelectrolyte, sodium hydroxide, and hypochlorite are added for clarification. Sulfuric acid and sodium hydroxide are used for regeneration of cation, anion, and mixed bed demineralizer units. Concentrated chemicals are pumped from storage tanks to system regenerant tanks, feed proportioned with dilution water, and passed through exhausted ion exchange resins.
The spent regenerant chemicals are collected in a chemical waste
- sump, and then transferred to waste neutralizing tanks. Combined waste solutions are neutralized (pH 6.0-9.0) in two 15,000-gallon outside neutralizing tanks prior to release to the water treatment facility normal waste sump. The sulfuric acid and sodium hydroxide usages are expected to average 200 pounds per day and 150 pounds per day, respectively, for the two units. The
- alum usage is expected to average 50 pounds per day for the two units. The polyelectrolyte usage is expected to average 3 pounds per day for the two units.
. 3.6-5 Rev. 8, 12/82
LGS EROL I
All wastewater and floor drainage from the makeup water treatment l facility is collected in a normal waste sump, and then j transferred by either one or two 400 gpm sump pumps to the wastewater settling basins at a daily average rate of 9000 gpd 1
from filter backwash, 7000 gpd from clarifier blowdown, 14,000 gpd from demineralizer regeneration, and 1000 gpd from floor, equipment, and sampling drains. Maximum wastewater flow from the water treatment facility is estimated to be 90,000 gpd.
The wastewater settling basins are arranged in parallel so that one can be cleaned while the other is still in operation. Each of the two parallel basins contains approximately 15,000 gallons, and is approximately 5 feet deep by 40 feet long by 10 feet wide, with an 8.7] foot long overflow weir. After leaving the waste-water settling basins, the chemical constituents of the waste-water from the water treatment facilities are primarily the same constituents withdrawn from the river, plus sodium sulfate that results from the neutralization reaction between sodium hydroxide and sulfuric acid. Suspended solids are reduced in the waste-water settling basin to approximately 30 mg/l in the effluent, although additional sedimentation is available at the holding pond. The dissolved solids concentration of the settling basin effluent is expected to average 1300 mg/1, resulting from demineralization of makeup water and neutralized sulfuric acid and caustic soda regenerant solutions. The wastewater settling basin effluent is routed through oil separators to the holding h pond.
3.6.3.2 Circulating Water Pump Structure Sump Pump Effluent Another low volume waste source draining to the holding pond is the circulating water pump structure sump pump effluent. The circulating water pump structure sumps collect circulating water pump floor drainage, chlorine feed facility drainage, acid feed facility drainage, and drainage from emergency and residual heat removal service water valve pits. The other floor, equipment, and sampling drainage that enters the sumps is expected to average 1000 gpd. From each of the two 450-gallon sumps in the circulating water pump structure, two 100 gpm sump pumps are l available to transfer the water to normal waste yard piping,
- which drains through oil separators to the holding pond. The average and maximum daily flows from the sump pumps in the circulating water pump structure are expected to be 1,000 gpd and 10,000 gpd, respectively.
3.6.3.3 Auxiliary Boiler Blowdown Three auxiliary boilers supply nonradioactive steam (45,000 pounds per hour maximum per boiler) for station heating with copper-tubed unit heaters during cold weather, and for various other services related to year-around station operation.
3.6-6
l PREOPERATIONAL R No fear Sample Type Sta 1982 Direct Radiation (partial) Air (Particulate & Iodine)
Surface Water Drinking Water
( Groundwater Sediment Fish Vegetation Milk Small Game 1983 Direct P.adiation (partial) Air (Particulate S Iodine)
\
l I
LGS EROL j I
TABLE 6.1-45 (Page 1 of 3)
OLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM '
) of Frequency of Liona Analysis Analysis k
g 8 Gamma Dose Monthly i
IF Radioiodine (I-131) -------
Gross Beta Weekly Gamma Isotopic Composite Monthly 5 Gamma Isotopic Monthly Tritium Composite Quarterly Gross Beta (soluble & insoluble) Monthly 5 Gamma Isotopic Monthly j Tritium Composite Quarterly Gross Beta (soluble & insoluble) Monthly j 2 Gamma Isotopic Semi-annually Tritium semi-annually 3 na==a Isotopic Semi-annually 3 Gamma Isotopic Semi-annually 1 Radioiodine Monthly when available 12 Radiciodine (I ',31) Quarterly Gamma Isotopic Quarterly 1 Gamma Isotopic Annually 8 Gamma Dose Monthly 17 Radiciodine (I-131) -------
Gross Beta Weekly I
Rev. 8, 12/82 a
LGS EROL O~ TABLE 6.1-46 (Page 2 of 7)
DISTANCE LOCATION DESCRIPTION CODE SECTOR (MILES)
TLD (outer rina)
Ringing Rock Substation 35F1 N 4.2 Laughing Waters GSC 2E1 NNE 5.1 Neiffer Rd. 4E1 NE 4.6 Pheasant Rd. Game Farm Site 7El ENE 4.2 Transmission Corrider, 10E1 E 3.9 Royersford Rd.
Trappe Substation 10F3 ESE 5.5 Vaughn Substation 13E1 SE 4.3 l
() Pikeland Substation 16F1 SSE 4.9 l
Snowden Substation 19D1 S 3.6 Sheeder Substation 20F1 SSW 5.2 Porters Mill Substation 24D1 SW 3.9 Transmission Corrider, 25D1 WSW 4.0 Hoffecker & Keim Sts.
Transmission Corrider, 28D2 W 3.8 W. Cedarville Rd.
Prince St. 29El WNW 4.9 Poplar Substation 31D2 NW 3.9 Yarnell Rd. 34E1 NNW 4.6 O
Rev. 8, 12/82
LGS EROL O TABLE 6.1-46 (Page 5 of 7)
DISTANCE LOCATION DESCRIPTION CODE SECTOR (MILES)
AIR PARTICULATE AND IODINE Sanatoga Substation ?"1 NNE 1.5 Pottstown Landing Field 6CI ENE 2.1 Reed Rd. 9C1 E 2.2 Keen Rd. 10S3 E 0.5 l LGS Information Center 11S1 ESE 0.5 King Rd. 13C1 SE 2.9 2301 Market St., Phila. 13H4 SE 28.8 Longview Rd., SE Sector 14S1 SE 0.6 O Site Boundary Spring City Substation 15D1 SE 3.2 Linfield Substation 17B1 S 1.6 Ellis Woods Rd. 20D1 SSW 3.1 Manor Substation 22G1' SW 17.6 Old Schuylkill Rd. 26B1 W 1.7 Yost Rd. 29B1 WNW 1.8 Lincoln Substation 31D1 NW 3.0 Met. Tower 1 34S2 NNW 0.6 Pleasantview Rd. 35B1 NNW 1.9 i
l !
l Rev. 8, 12/82 P
_r., _ _ , _ , _ _ . . _ _ . - - - _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ , - . . . _ . , . _ . . . _ , , . _ . , _ _ . , _ . _ _ . , , , _ _ , _ _ , , _ _ , _ , - . _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ , . -
LGS EROL o
SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS IV)
Section Title Volume 1 PURPOSE OF LIMERICK GENERATING STATION AND ASSOCIATED TRANSMISSION.............................I 1.1 System Demand and Reliability..................I 1.2 Another Objective..............................I 1.3 Consequences of Delay..........................I 1.1A Conservation of Energy Programs................I 1.1B Energy Forecasting Methodology.................I 1.1C Annual Peak Demand Forecasting Method..........I 2 THE SITE AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERFACES...............I 2.1 Geography and Demography.......................I 2.2 Ecology........................................I 1
2.3 Meteorology....................................I1 7-s 2.4 Hydrology......................................II 2.4A Appendix 2.4A - DRBC Approval..................II 2.5 Geology........................................II 2.6 Regional Historic, Archaeological, and Natural Features...............................II 2.7 Noise..........................................II 3 THE STATION 3.1 External Appearance............................II 3.2 Reactor and Steam-Electric System..............II 3.3 Station Water Use..............................II 3.4 Heat Dissipation System........................II 3.5 Radwaste Systems and Source Term...............II 3.6 Chemical and Biocide Wastes....................II T
3.7 Sanitary and Other Waste Systems...............II i
LGS EROL
() Section 3.8 Title Volume Reporting of Radioactive Material Movement.....II 3.9 Transmission Facilities........................II 4 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF SITE PREPARATION, STATION CONSTRUCTION, AND TRANSMISSION FACILITY CONSTRUCTION........................................I1I 4.1 Site Preparation and. Station Construction......III 4.2 Transmission Facilities Construction...........III 4.3 Resources Committed During Construction........III 4.4 Radioactivity..................................I11 4.5 Construction Impact Control Programs...........III 5 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF STATION OPERATION..........III 5.1 Effects of Operation on Heat Dissipation System.........................................III 5.2 Radiological Impact from Routine Operation.....III 5.2A Radiological Dose Model - Liquid Effluent......III 5.2B Radiological Dose Model - Gaseous Effluent.....III 5.2C 50-Mile Population and Contiguous Population Dose Model.....................................III 5.3 Effects of Chemical and Biocide Discharges.....III l
5.4 Effects of Sanitary Waste Discharges...........III 5.5 Effects of Operation and Maintenance of the Transmission Systems...........................III 5.6 Other Effects..................................III 5.7 Resources Committed............................III 5.8 Decommissioning and Dismantling................III 5.9 The Uranium Cycle..............................III O
11 1
LGS EROL
() Section Title Volume 6 EFFLUENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND MONITORING PROGRAMS.................................III I 6.1 Applicant's Preoperational Environmental Programs.......................................III 6.2 Applicant's Proposed Operational Monitoring Program........................................III 6.3 Related Environmental Measurement and Monitoring Programs............................III 6.4 Preoperational Environmental Radiological Monitoring Data................................III 7 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS..................IV 7.1 Station Accidents Involving Radioactivity......IV l 7.2 Transportation Accidents Involving l Radioactivity..................................IV 7.3 Other Accidents................................IV 8 ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS OF STATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION..........................IV 8.1 Benefits.......................................IV 8.2 Costs..........................................IV 9 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES AND SITES................IV 10 STATION DESIGN ALTERNATIVES.........................IV 10.1 Alternative Circulating Systems................IV 10.2 Alternative Intake Systems.....................IV 10.3 Alternative Discharge Systems..................IV 10.4 Alternative Chemical Waste Systems.............IV 10.5 Alternative Biocide Treatment Systems..........IV 10.6 Alternative Liquid Radwaste Systems............IV 10.7 Alternative Liquid Radwaste Systems............IV 10.8 Alternative Gaseous Radwaste Systems...........IV REV. 1, 9/81
l LGS EROL Section Title Volume 10.9 Alternative Transmission Facilities............IV 11
SUMMARY
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS.......................IV 11.1 Benefits.......................................IV 1.1.2 Costs Incurred.................................IV 11.3 Conclusions....................................IV 12 ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS AND CONSULTATIONS...........IV 13 REFERENCES..........................................IV
.A ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS..............IV i
i 1
O iv
LGS EROL OUESTION E290.15 Provide a discussion on the potential environmental effects and/or hazards (excluding shocks) to biological systems from low-level electromagnetic fields generated from the transmission lines.
RESPONSE
No accepted evidence of harmful biological effects from electric or magnetic fields due to electric transmission lines has been demonstrated.
This includes over 1000 research projects as well as more than 50 years of experience with the operation of these lines.
I
.O l
l O
E290.15-1 Rev. 8, 12/82
1 o
LGS EROL QUESTION E291.6 (Sec(ion 3.4I2) -
- i.
, e
-s A statement in Section 3.4.2 mentions use of a cooling tower bypass line for thefeirculating wacer. Indicate whether the cooling towers are expected to be operated all year round.
Describe those conditions and their expected frequency and duration under which the towers would be bypassed.
,i,
, r .
RESPONSE ,
The cooling towers are expected to operate on a year-round basis.
The only time the bypass would be used would be during,a winter startup after an extended shutdown, when the ambient air temperature and the basin water temperature meet the conditions shown in Figure E291.6-1. When the basin water temperaturer reaches the limit speci.fied in Figure E291.6-1, bypass operation would cease and normal' tower coeration would resume. This type of' operation is expected to occur less than 3 times a year for'a period of approximately 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> each time. , .
+
+
v c
l l
l
( ,
E291.6-1 Rev. 8, 12/82 l
I O
40 I . .
/ \
N \ /N ! COOLING iE N/ N/\/ 'N/ 'N/ 'N \. I?oE"u s; '
/\ /x/x/x/x x .N'
="""
O a N [ BYPASSING \/ h- REQUIRED /
/.
\/
- /\/'N /\/'N/N/LN./ 'N / N\ '
I I I O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 COOLING TOWER BASIN WATER TEMP. 0F LIMERICK GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 ENVIRONMENT? ( REPORT WINTER BYPASS CURVE FIGURE E291.61 R EV. 8,12/82 J
l LGS EROL N/ QUESTION E291.9 (Section 3.6.2)
Indicate what limitations, including monitoring, that are to be placed on discharges from the spray pond blowdown during and following chlorination to control algae.
RESPONSE
Section 3.6.2 has been changed to indicate that monitoring of chlorine concentrations is performed during and following chlorination by taking grab samples at the spray pond. If the free available chlorine concentration of the samples should exceed 0.5 mg/1, blowdown discharge will be curtailed by stopping the makeup to the spray pond until the chlorine concentration is no longer excessive.
O O <
E291.9-1 Rev. 8, 12/82
)
LGS EROL QUESTION E310.12 (Section 2.1.2.1)
Techniques used for estimating population within 10 miles of the station are described in Section 2.1.2.1 of the EROL. Meter counts form the basis of the estimates with factors of persons per residence used to determine total population. "A factor of 3.58 persons per residential meter in Philadelphia Electric Company territory, and a factor of 2.85 persons per residential ,
meter for the Metropolitan Edison Company territory were used..."
How were these factors obtained and why do you feel that a difference of 0.73 persons per meter exists within 10 miles of the site given electric company territory?
RESPONSE
The factor of persons per residential meter for use in Philadelphia Electric Company territory was obtained by taking the number of residential meters in the Philadelphia Electric i service area Schuylkill Division, which includes the Limerick I vicinity, and dividing that total into the population figures for the townships and boroughs served by the Schuylkill Division. A factor of 3.58 persons per residential meter was obtained based O on data from a 1976 meter count and the 1970 census. This information was recently updated using data from a 1980 meter count and the 1980 census and a factor of 2.38 was obtained for the same area. Similarly, Metropolitan Edison calculated the factor of 2.85 persons per residential meter using 1970 census information and 2.70 persons per residential meter using 1980 census information for the townships and boroughs served by the Metropolitan Edison Central Division, which encompasses Berks County.
O E310.12-1 Rev. 8, 12/82
- __ - _ _ _ _ _-__ a
l l
LGS EROL A
U OUESTION E451.6 (Section 2.3) .
Section 2.3.1 of the ER provides a description of air quality in the vicinity of the site. Describe station sources of criteria air pollutants as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency, including estimated emissions, and compare these emissions to the DeMinimus criteria established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). If station emissions are above the DeMinimus levels,* provide a quantitative assessment of the impact of station emissions on local air quality using current EPA guidelines on atmospheric dispersion modeling.
RESPONSE
The only source of criteria pollutants at Limerick are produced from the operation of the auxiliary boilers. There is a total of three boilers, any two of which may be used depending on the operating status of the power plant.
There are three identichl boilers in use at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS). Because the operation of these boilers is Cf similiar to the planned operation of the Limerick boilers, the fuel consumption of the PBAPS boilers was used to produce the emission estimates. The following estimates are based on the last four years (1978-1981) average use of No. 2 fuel oil at PBAPS of 1.3 x 10* gal /yr with a sulfur limit of 0.3% by weight.
POLLUTANT DEMINIMUS ESTIMATED EMISSION (tons / year) (tons / year)
SO, 40 28.2 NOx 40 14.3 Particulate 25 1.3 Ozone 40 0 Lead 0.6 0 CC 100 3.3 The estimated emission levels are below the DeMinimus levels; therefore, no quantitative assessment of the impact of these emissions is necessary.
I O
E451.6-1 Rev. 8, 12/82
O Environmental Report Operating License Stage O
Limerick Generating Station Units 1 Et 2 '
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY O vol. 5 muni uu