ML20079N160
| ML20079N160 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 07/06/1990 |
| From: | NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-1437 AR, S, WM, NUDOCS 9111110094 | |
| Download: ML20079N160 (16) | |
Text
)
9 UTILITY i&c Q e cs kokTC-UN-r 511E lJi A e_ All e f4
(+1 blu e s b ( O n 5 EHCLOSURES b n h aMc-e 50 ti ree s
( -
s e
d g
i 1
O m
9111110094 900706 PDF NUREO 1437 C PDR
m 6F AQUATIC RESOURCE QUESTIONS
~l 1.
Post-licensing. modifications and/or changes in operations of intake:and/or discharge systems may have altered the effects of the power plant on aquatic resources, or may have been made specifically to mitigate impacts that were not anticipated in the
- design of the plant.
Describe any such modifications and/or operational changes to the condenser cooling water intake and
-discharge systems.since the issuance of'the Operating License.
^ No post-licensing modifications and/cr operational changes to 1
l the condenser cooling vater intake and discharge systems have been made since the is.suance of the operating License.
f 2.
Summarise and: describe (or provide documentation of) any-known impacts on aquatic resources (e.g.,
fick kills, violations of
- discharge _ permit conditions) 'or Nat'.c na,
Pollutant. Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)' enforcement: cetions-that have= occurred since the 11ssuance< of' the operating License.
Now have~these been-resolved or changed over time?
. (The response to this question should indicated-whether impacts art ongoing or were the result of start-up problems that-were subsequently resolved.)
No unusual fish kills ' due to station : operation or startup.
have ' been-documented according to data from - 1973 to the present.
Fish impingement rates were -normal and were cons:tstent with Lake Ontario fish abundance levels.
No SPDE3 (NPDES) enforcement actions have occurred-- since
' issuance of the Operating License.
- During the early 1980's (1981, 1982, anci 1983) there-were numerous violations of the SPDES Permit' relative to sewage' treatment plant offluents.. Fecal Caliform, total suspended.
solids, and residual chlorine limits were exceeded due to an increasing number of personnel on site placing more demand on
'te treatment system than it was designed for. Additionally,
. nreased regulatory requirements vere placed on the effluent scream that vere ; outside - the scope of the r. viginal: design.
Subsequently, a new sewage treatment: plant-was designed and'-
I constructed = following approval by the-New _ York State _
-~ Department of Envir a.: 'nta? Conservation..
The nov sewage-treatment ~ pletnt beca:
operational in December 1984,-~and the
' number = of discharge perm '. '.. violations relative to this effluent; decreased to only a.fev occurrences from-1984: to present.
L I
?
l a--
a.=
4
-k l
3.:
changes to-the. NPDES permit during operation of the plant could "l
' indicate whether water quality parameters were determined to have no-significant impacts (and-were dropped fros' monitoring requirements)- or were subsequently: raised as a water quality issue.--
Provide '
brief summary of changes (and when they a
occurred) to'the NPDES permit for the plant since issuance of the operating License..
l PERMIT CHANGES 1976 Addad storm drain suspended solids to be measured as 1bs/ day (loading) in addition to the current daily maximum measured us ag/1.
This parameter (1bs/ day loading) was later dropped from the monitoring requirements.
1981 NYS Department of Environmental Conservation expanded monitoring to" include plant vaste streams (fil t.
- backvash, process water) for solids, pH, nnd oil and y:: ease.
The parameters BOD, pH, settleable solids, suspended solids, and residual chlorine were added to the sewage treatment outfall requirements.
1983 Cyanide--was-added. to the monitoring requirements for condenser cooling water and waste water as a result of Priority Pollutant : sampling.
The presence - of cyanids in these vaste streams was likely a laboratory analysis er. ur as it was not det.ucted during 2 years of sampling and analysis.
This parameter was subsequently dropped from the monitoring requirsments.
1987 Priority Pollutant sampling has indicated that-some metals and^ phenolics were present:in'some vasteband cooling water effluents.
These parameters
-vill have monitoring
. requirements in our future SPDES Permit.
4.
'An examination ' of trends in 'the effeats on aquatic resources monitoring can indicate whether impacts have increasede decreased, or rkmained telatively stable during operation.
Describe and
'summarise-(or provide documentation of).results of monitoring.of water. quality and aquatic biota (e.g., related to NPDES permits, Environmental. Technical Specifications, site-specific-monitoring required by. federal or state agencies).. What trends are' apparent-Jovsr time?.
A.
^ Nonitoring of Aquatic Biota
- Aquatic resource monitoring at NNP Onit 1 has been conducted sitnce.1972.
Monitoring of aquatic ^ blota has ' included plankton, benthic, entrainment (abundance 'and survival)~ and
- impingement ~ studies.
Plankton - and benthic studies were short-term studies to determine primary productivity, abundance, and seasonal variations for phytoplankton, u
4 periphyton, micro-and macrozooplankton in the lake populations for comparison with data evaluated for the NMP-1 vicinity.
Trends were not an objectiva of the short-term monitoring programs.
Entrainment abundance of ichthyoplankton suggested thtt the vicinity of Nine Mile Point is not a major spawning area for Lake Ontario fish populations.
Impingement has been monitored since 1972.
Trends over time for impingscent reflect changes in species composition and population E ze through natural biological factors and environmental influences (i.e. water temperature
- currents, meteoralogy).
Result.s of entrainment and impingement monitoring are detailed in the answer to question S.
B.
Water C..'ality Monitoring in
- 1983, the responsibility for non-radiological water quality limitations was transferred from the NRC to the New York State Department of Environnontal Conservation and consequently these limitations became more strict.
Most significantly, the limitations on the discharge of total suspended solids resulted in much higher quality offluent resulting in less environmental impact from both a non-radialogical and radialogical point oi viow.
5.
su===rize types and numbers (or provide documentation) of organisms entrained and impinged by the condenser cooling ' rater system since issuance of the operating License.
Describe any seasonal patterns associated with entrainment and impingement.
How has entrainment and impingement changed over time.
Impingad fish and invertebrate samples have been collected at NMP Unit 1 since 1973.
Species composition has ranged from 24 to 49 species per year and has changed little over the durat: ion of the monitoring program.
Aleuite and rainbow smelt are the most dominant species collected. Other specias which are common in the impingement include:
spottall
- shiner, sculpins,
- darters, troutperch, and threeppine sticklebacks.
Generally, the peak of impingament abundance occurs in the 3pring (April, May, June) coinciding with the movement or fish to the shallow inshore areas to spawn.
This seasonal movement is primarily determined by water temperature.
Impingement decreases in the summer (July and August) as the adult tish finish spawning and move offshore.
Impingement abundances then increase in the fall (September, October) as the young-of-the-year fish attain a size susceptible to impingement.
Short-term increases in abundance occur in association with specific meteorological conditions.
Historically at Nine Mile Point Unit la strong winds from the west or northwect with a combined increase in wave action i
l l
9 have resulted in increased impingement.
Young-of-the-year fish appear to be particularly susceptibio and abundance peaks at NMP Unit 1 in fall and winter are of ten the result of meteorological influences.
Over the long term, impingement at NMP Unit 1 has baan relatively stable, reflecting the influence of natural biological factors such as population size (natural mortality / spawning success),
an) migrstion patterns in conjunction with external factors such as water temperatures, currents, and localized meteerological conditions on the local fish community.
Currently, a downward trend in the number of alewife impinged per year may be a reflection of a reduction in the lake population of alevite as a result of a continued salnonid stocking program in Lake Ontaric.
No long-term trends toward reductior.s in the fish populations due to ispingement havs boon apparent.
6.
Aquatic habitat enhancement or restoration efforts (e.g.,
anadromous fish runs) during operation may hau enhanced the biological consunitics in the vicinity of the plant.
Alternatively, degradation of habitat or water quality may have resulted in loss of biological resourcers near the site-Describe any changes to aquatic habitats (both enhancement and degradation) in the vicinity of the power plant since the issuance of the operating License including those that may have resulted in different plant impacts than those initially predicted.
No aquatic habitat enhancement or restoration etforts have bsen undertaken in the vicinicy of the Nine Mile Poinc Units 1&2.
There has been no apparent degradation of habitat or water quality in the vicinity of the site resniting ir a loss of biological resources since issuance of the operating License.
7.
Plant operations may have had positiva, negative, or no impact on tha use of aquat',o resources by others.
Harvest by commercial or recreaH onal fishermen may be constrained by plant operation.
AltascM.ively commercial harverting may be relatively large coati M with losses caused by the plant.
Describe (or provide documac. cation for) other nearby uses of waters affected by cooling water systems (e.g.,
- swimming, boating, annual harvest by commercial and recreational fisheries) and how these impacts havn changed since issuance of the Operating License.
No commercial harvesting of fish takes place in the vicinity of NMP Units 1 & 2.
The area is used to a sDall degree by pleasure - recreational boaters.
However, in 1968, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) l l
embarked on an intensive stocking prograta to restore trout and salmon to Laka Ontario and to develop a sport fishery.
This program has lead to a nationally recognized sport fishery and is a major contributor to the economy of Oswego County.
Sport fishing and boat traffic (particularly in spring and fall) in the vicinity of NMP Unit 1 has increased dramatically.
Fishing directly in and adjacent to the warm water of the discharge when the plant is operating is a well-known success among the fisherman.
To a lesser extent the bass and perch sport fishery is also active and the same area is fished during their open saason.
a.
Describe other sources of impacts on aquatic resources (e.g.,
industrial discharges, other power plants, agrienitural runoff) that could contribute to cumulative impacts.
What are the relative contributions by percent of these sources, including the contributions due to the power plant, to overall water quality degradation and losses of aquatic biota?
Lake Ontario is the receiving body for water from the Great Lakes bcsin.
The Niagara, Genessue, Oswego, Salmon, and Black Rivers, as well as other creeks and streams, are also tributaries for Lake Ontario in the vicinity of the site. As such, it receives treated and untreated sewage, industrial discharges, agricultural runoff, and heated effluents.
In Oswego
- County, the r<horeline area is comprised of residential, light industry (Alcan, Hammermill Paper, and utilities - both nuclear and fossil fuel), and agricultural in the form of small independent dairy farms, orchards or muck farms.
The city of Oswego is an international shipping port of entry and the canal system supports recreationn\\ as well as commercial shipping traffic all of which discharge bilge water into-ths lake.
Prior to the Clean Water Act of 1974 indiscriminate discharge in industrial by-products resulted in the presence of persistent toxic chemicals such as PCB's, dioxin, mirex, mercury, and DDT in t.he wa t.er, sediments, and biota of Lake Ontario.
In the immediate l
vicinity of RMP Uni'; 1 there is an additional thermal discharge from the New York Power Authority's J.
A.
l Fitzpat. rick Nuclear Power Plant, and to a smaller-degree, from the discharge at NMP Unit 2 (due to the cooling tower).
I. comparison with the other contributors' cumulative impacts to Lake Ontario's waters, NMP Unit 1 is a very small percentage of potential impact on aquatic resources of Lake Ontario.
o Provide a copy of your Section 316(a) and (b) Demonstration Report 9.
required by che Clean Water Act.
What section 316 (at and (r' determinations have been made by the regulatory authorities?
In New 1ork
- State, the Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) is responsible for administoring Section 316(a) and 316(b) of the Clean Water Act as well as the State Pollutant Discharge Eliminaticn Sytrtem (SPDES) program.
A 316(a) Demonstration for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 1 was prepared by NMPC in 1976.
The NYSDEC has approved NNPC's request pursuant to Section 316(a) for alternative effluent limitations for Unit 1.
Tha thermal effluent limitations contained in the current SPDES permit reficct this approval.
Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (i. e.
intake considerations) has been addressed by the conduct of annual biological monitoring studio at the site dating back to 1973.
The current SPDES permit 1 ~ Unit i requires annual fish impingement monitoring with collections on 78 days per year. The DEC has contingently approved NMPC's consideration of intake impacts submitted pursuant to Section 316 (b) pending completion of the current monitoring program and demonstration of impacts similar to previous studies.
With respect to Unit 2, 316(a) and (b) demonstrations have not been necessary since a cooling tower and fish return system representing Best Available Technology have been installed.
TC:jg (QUES-ANS.TC),
1
[
t UTILITY b.) 1
- AAA, b\\0ht.LLO_(
NXA
&Lp NLaA__@'dL
- f. TIE 7 t
SITE ENCLOSURES
[Lut.notrc. 40 @pth4tdd n
E i
-JUl-6-90 RI 13:52
.NMPC-St1. LOBBY 2ND FLOOR.
FAX NO. 3:54532836
- P.03 h
y -:
A'PfActeMNT A 1
HASTE MANAGEMENT OUESTIONS A.
_ Spent Fuel Questions l.
Which at the following current techniques for at-reactor storag are you using end how?
A.
Re-racking c,f spent fue).
Yes (mainly used)
B.
Control rod repositioning.
Yee(Possibly)
C.
Above grcund dry storage N/A D.
Longer fuel burnup.
Yes(possibly)
E.
Other (pleaso identify)
N/A 2.
Do you plan on continuing the use of these current techniques for at-reactor storage of spent fuel during the remaining t'..'s of your operating license or do you expect to change or nodify
-them in some way?
'A.
Plan addititaal_re-racking B.
Plan on adding above ground dry storage 3.
Which of the following techniques for,2t-reactor.atorage do you anticipata using until off-af to spent fuel storage becomes available and how?
A.
Re-racking of spent fuel.
Yes B.
Control rod repositioning.
Yos(rossibly)
'O.
Above ground dry storage.
Yes(ponsibly)
D.
Longsr fuel burnup Yes(Possibly)
E.
Other (please identify).
Unknown 4.
Will the techniques described above be adequate for continued -
at-reactor storage of opent fuel for the operating lif etino of the plant, ir.cluding a 20-year period of license renewal, or are you developing other plans?
Yes. Also considering developing other plans 5.
Do you anticipato the nond to acquire additic_nal land for the storage of spent-fuel for the operating lifetime of the plant, including a 20-year period of license renewal? If so,how much land?
When would this enquisition occur?
Where? (if answer ic "yes", 3-4-sentences)
No.
JUL-6-90 FRI 13:53 NMPC-SM LOBBY 2ND FLOOR F6X No. 31545328:8 P.04
,Q h
h ATEAc m NT _A 2
NASTE_MANAGI2fENT. QUESTIONSt(Cont'd) 6.
Do you anticipato any AMitional construction activity on
- site, or inmediately ad,1acent to the power plant sito, associated with the continued at-reactor storago of spent fuel for the operating lifetino of the plant, including a 20 year period of licenso renewali (yes/no)
Yes.
7 If you answered yes to quoDtion 6,
briefly describo this construction activity (e.g., expansion of fuel storage pool, building above ground dry storago facilities)
Planning to instn21 a compleco independent spent fuel storage facility.
B.
Low-level radioactivo vaste management questions:
1.
Under the current schomo for LLEW disposal (i.e. LLRW Policy Amendments Act of 1985 and regional compacts) is there currently or will sufficient capacity for wastos generated during the license renewal period be available to your plant (s)?
If so, what is the basis for this conclusion?
At Nino Hile Point Unit # 1 there is sufficient storage capacity for LLRW for an excess of fivo years at the current s.tation LLRW generation rate.
Unitt 1 has a Radwaste Solidification and Storage Building (RSSB) designed for this purpose.
2.
If for any reason your plant (s) is/are denied access to a licensed disposal site for>a short period of time, what plans do you have for continued LLRW disposal?
If denied access to a licensed disposal site Ninn Mile Point Uniti 1 will utilize the storage capacity of the RSSB until a solution to the problem for denial has been worked out.
3.
In a couple of pages, please describe the specific nothods of LLRW nanagement currently utilized by your plant.
What percentage of your current LLRW (by volume) is managed by:
JUL-6 90 FR! 13:53 NMPC-SM LOBBY 2ND FLOOR FAX NO. 3154532836 P,05 1
.y y
ATIACHMENT A 3
WASTE ___MMAGEMENT QUEST 1QNat(Cont'd) 5 A.
hasto compaction?
30% onsite compaction B.
Waste segregation (through special controls or segregation at radiation check point)?
10%
C.
Decontamination of wastes?
20% done off-site D.
Sorting of waste prior to shipment?
10%
E.
Other(please identify)
Super compaction of 304 in (A) done off-site At the present time these are the waste straalts that are processed at Nine Mile Point Unit #1; dry active waste (CAW), filter media (powdex Rosins), bead resins and evaporator bottoms.
Radioactive materials collected from wasta receptacles throughout Nine Mile Point Unit il e.re packaged in strong tight containers and transported to recycling processor for sorting and decontamination. The materials that are
-segregated out as waste (DAW) are then compacted and s
packaged for disposal.
Other sources of DAW at the plant are noncompactables which are packaged and transported to a disposal site.
The DAW comprises anout 79% of the total waste generated at Nine Mile Point Unit #1.
The filter nedia and evaporator bottom wastes generated at Nine Mile Foint Unit #1 are. processed via cenent solidification on site and transported for disposal.
The bead resin-waste generated at the plant is processad via dowatering its high -integrity containers and transported for disposal.
4.
In a couple of pages, please describe the pnticipated plans got LLRW management to be utilized by your plant (s) during the remainder of the operating license and through the-license renewal term.
What percentage of your Anticinated waste (by volume) will be nanaged by:
Due to the uncertainty of the future of LLRW disposal no changes in the present methodology are anticipated.
-A.
Waste conpaction?
10% on-site
. aste segregation (through special controls or B.-
Wsegrogation at radiation check points)? 10% on-site C.
Decontamination of wastes?
10% off-site D.
Sortine of waste prior to shipment?
10% on-site E.
Other(please identify)
Incineration at SEG - 50%
w
.-r--n-,e y
JUL-6-90 FP.1 13:54 NMPC-bH LOBBY 2ND FLOOP, FAX NO, 3154532836 P.06 5
ATIAcnMENT A 4
ESTILEM AGEMENT_QUEaTIONS1( cont ' d )
5.
Do you anticipato the nood to acquiro additiongLland for the storagu of LLRW for the oporating lifetine of the plant, including a 20-year period of licence renewal? If so, how much lant' When would this acquisition occure?
Where? (if answer is "yes", 3-4 contencos)
At this time there is no anticipation for the need to acquire edditional land for tho storago of LLRW gonoroted at Nino Hilo Point Unit 6.
To provide information on the timing of futuro low-level waste streann,1f you answered you to quontion #5 over what periods of tin.e are thoco activitton contemplated?
Not applicable. See reponso to Q.5. above.
7.
Do you anticipato any additional construction activity, on site, or imnediately edjacent to the plant site, associated with temporary LLRW storage for the operatinq lifetian of the plant, including a 20 year period of licenso renewal? (yon /no)
No additional ocnotruction activity conociated with temporary LLRW storage in anticipated at Nine Milo Point Unit #1.
H.
If you answered yes to question #7, briefly describe this construction activity (e.g.
storage areas for steam generator componente or other me.terials exposed to reactor environnont).
See reponao to Q.7. above.
11 To provide information on future low-leve' wanto streams which may effect workforce levels, exposure, and wasto compact plar,ning, do you anticipato any majer plant modifications or refurbishment that are likely to ganarate unusual volumes of low-levol radioactive wasto prior to, or during, the relicensing period for the plant?
Tf oo, pleace describe those activities.
- Also, what typou of modifications do you anticipate to be necconary to achieve licenso senewal oporation through a 20-yoar license renewal tern?
At this tine Radwsste management la not aware or any major modifications for refurbishment that are anticipated at Nine Mile Point Unit #1 I
L______--__________________________________
JUL-6-90 FR1 13:55 NMPC-SM LOBBY 2ND FLOOR FAX NO. 3154532836 P.07 A1 TAC 10ENT_._A S
c.
Mixed low-16 vel radioactive wasto questions:
1.
If your plant generatos mixed LLRW, how is it currently being stored and what plans do you have for managing this wasto during the licenso renoval period?
L 9
h L.._.......
l JUL-6-90 FR1 13:55 NMPC-Sti LOBBY 2ND FLOOR FAX h0, 3154532836 P.08 l
4 1
ATTACIDENT D SQCIQZQQNOMic Ot1RSTIONS r
1.
To understand t.he importance of the plant and the degree of its socioeconomic impacts on the local region, estinate the average nunber of permanent workers on-sito for the most recent year for which data,are available.
For both units 1750 Niagara Mohawk Employoos 750 Contractors Total 2 2500 permanent Workers on-trite 2.
To understand the inportance tf the plant to the local region, and how that has changed over time,ostimate the average number of psraanent workers on site, in five year increments starting with the issuance of the plant's Operating license.
If possible, provide this information for each unit at a plant
. site.
Number of workers on sito include both unitst YEAR NUMBER OF WOR 1mRS 1969 to 1974 later 1975 276 1976 380 1977 2,509 197D 842 1979 1,017 1980 1,43'.
1981 2,659 1982 2,072 1983 2,130 1981 2,177 1985 1,752 1986 3,882 1987 3,318 1988 3,722 1989 3,622 o
k
JUL-6-90 FR1 13:56 NNPC-SM LOBBY 2ND FLOOR FAX N0, 315453J836 P.09 4
ATTACID03rr n 2
QQCI.OliCONOKIC. QUESTIONS 3.
To understand the potential impact of continued oporation for an additional 20 years beyond the original if. censing term, please provide for the fo13owing three casos:
A) a typical planned outsgest D) an ISI outage; cad d) the. largest single outage (in terms of the number of workers involved) that hac occurred to date an catinate of additional workers involved (for the entire outage and for each principal task), length of outaga, months and year in which work occurred, and cost.
Also,catimate occupacional doses received by permanent and temporary workers during each principal task.
Deta12 response will be provided at later date.
PLANT. HIE'ICRICY, TMPORMATIQN Plant licensod 8-22-69 First ruoling 8-23-69 (otarted) 9-4-69 (completed)
Initial criticality 9-3-69 commercial Operation 12-14-69 (partial)
Cormaercial Operation 1-1870 (Full)
Annual Overhaul &
St
~~h Rating 4-3-71 to 5-20-71 Rep ag Leaking Tuol 9-18-71 to 10-26-71 Annuh overhaul, Pois.m C..rtain Removal, Raffueling
. 4-1-72 to 6-15-72 Refueling Outage 4-14-73 to 6-17-73 Refuelir.g Outage "J-30-74 to 7-2-74 Refueling Outage 9-13-75 to 12-5-75 Refueling Outage 3-5-77 to 7-8-77 Refueling Outage 3-2-79 to 6-22-79 Refuelign Outage 3-6-81 to 7-7-81 Recircu1Ation Outage 3-19-82 to 6-4-03 Refueling Outage 3-17-84 to 6-2.*.-84 Refuelign Outago 3-0-86 to 6-20-06 Major Outage 1988 to present
iJUl-6-90 FR1 13:56 NtiPC-StiLOBBY2NDFLOORl FAX NO 3154532836 P.10 i
ATIACfD(ENT _B 3
SOC 10BCONCEIC DUESTIONS 4.
To understand the plant's fiscal importance to specific jurisdictions, for 1980, 1985, and the latest year for which data are available,ggtimate the entire plant's taxable assessed value and the amount of taxes paid to the state and to each local taxing jurisdiction.
MIME 7ULE.PQ1MT mrIT 1; 1980 11A1 County Assessed value:
$19,000,000
$24,832,123
. Taxes Paid :
$ 1,939,710
$ 2,712,661 School Assessed value:
$19,000,000
$29,670,000
. Taxes Paid :
- 2,128,190
$ 1,390.599 XIRE MILE POINT IINIT 21 1980 19A5 county Assessed value:
$11,330,835 957,007,840 Taxes Paid t
$ 1,156,763
-$.,624,10G School Assessed value:
$21,062,000
$254,325,000 Taxas Paid i $ 2,359,155
$ 14,242,200 ie l'
l-L l
t-
.,.m.,.--