ML20080F194

Suppl 3 to Environ Rept - OL Stage

ML20080F194
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	09/30/1983
From:	NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML18038A599	List: ML20080F194
References
ENVR-830930, NUDOCS 8309190217
Download: ML20080F194 (57)

Text

- . . - . - - . _ _ _ . - .

O i l

)

ENVIRO STIL7 8 OIRATING LICENSE STAGE NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION - UNIT 2 g

m c7 em ---

u "' /

snnnninunununuiinnur""a pr,- /

"  % w

}j Ggi g e d e q 3'W f *%%g

?5 K

~\~VNDa@ ARA

~

X V M@XAWE SUPPLEMENT 3 \d N 'N d O

ih'*AhlwW@

0 4O PDR

NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 2 NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION O

O FSAR AMENDMENT /ER-OLS SUPPLEMENT RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGMENT l

Name of set holder- Set No.

I acknowledge receipt of:

Amendment 4 Supplement 3 My copy has been updated, and superseded pages have been removed and destroyed.

Set Reassignment and/or Set Holder Change of Address (if necessary)

Please reassign this manual to, and/or change my address as

.follows:

O Please sign, date, and return to:

A. L. Monahan Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation 3 Executive Campus P.O. Box 5200 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Signature Date

%d I

Nino Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS SUPPLEMENT 3

('))

't INSERTION INSTRUCTIONS The following instructions are for the insertion of Supplement 3 into the Unit 2 ER-OLS. Remove pages, tables, and/or figures listed in the REMOVE column and replace them with the pages, tables, and/or figures listed in the INSERT column. Dashes (---) in either column indicate no action required.

Vertical bars have been placed in the margins of inserted pages and tables to indicate revision locations.

Eh

\j (N Supplement 3 1 September 1983

. '\ )

_ . . _ _ _ _ . . . _ . - _ _ - . . ._ . _ . . _ _ - . - _ _ _ _ . . . . - . . ~ _ _ - . _ _ - . -

+

i Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS Volume 1 i l ..

Remove Insert l I

1.2-1/1.2-2 1.2-1/1.2-2

Table 1.2-1 (1 of'2) Table 1.2-1 (1 of 2) l 1 Appendix 1A (title page) Appendix 1A (title page)

! 1A-1/1A-2 through. 1A-1/1A-2 through i 1A-18 1A-17/-

1 2.'3-9/2.3-10 2.3-9/2.3-10 l 2.3-23/2.3-24 2.3-23/2.3-24 2.3-25/2.3-26 2.3-25/2.3-26 Table 2.3-7 (1 and 2 of 2) Table 2.3-7 (1 and 2 of 2)

Table 2.3-9 (1 and 2 of 2) Table 2.3-9 (1 and 2 of 2) p -

Table 2.3-10 Table 2.3-10 Table 2.3-16 Figure 2.3-15 i

i s

t t i

r-t <

i.;  :

t l

l i

I L

I Supplement 3 2 September 1983 O

D E,.',-,-, ....,wm,,,.---c,..,m_..-,. ..-,,rm.-,...--,#,wr.-..-ev ,. - - . - -r---,-..- -

--r e e -- n -

Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS

- Volume 2 Remove Insert 2.10-5/2.10-6, 2.10-5/2.30-6 2.10-7/- ---

3.1-1/3.1-2 3.1-1/3.1-2 3.1-2/3.1-3 3.1-3/-

Figure 3.1-9 Figure 3.1-9 3.3-1/3.3-2 3.3-1/3.3-2 3.3-3/3.3-4 3.3-3/3.3-4 Figure 3.4-1 Figure 3.4-1 3.6-3/3.6-4 3.6-3/3.6-4 3.6-5/3.6-6 3.6-5/3.6-6 5.2-3/5.2-4 5.2-3/5.2-4 Figure 5.3-6 Figure 5.3-6 Figure 5.3-7 Figure 5.3-7 Figure 5.3-8 Figure 5.3-8 O

Supplement 3 3 September 1983

Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS Volume 3 Remove I nse r_t Table 6.8-1 (2 of 5) Table 6.8-1 (2 of 5)

Table 6.8-2 (2 of 2) Table 6.8-2 (2 of 2) 7A.6-3/7A.6-4 7A.6-3/7A.6-4 O

u ement 3 4 Septeder 1983

l Nina Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS l

ER-OLS Questions and Responses Volume Remove Insert Q&R E240.5-1 Q&R E240.5-1 Q&R E291.1-1 Q&R E291.1-1 Q&R E291.9-1 Q&R E291.9-1 Q&R E291.13-1 Q&R E291.13-1 Q&R E291.14-1 Q&R E291.14-1 Q&R E320.1-1 Q&R E320.1-1 Q&R E320.2-1 Q&R E320.2-1 Q&R E451.1-1 Q&R E451.1-1 O

Supplement 3 5 September 1983 7-kv/

Nina Milo Point Unit 2 ER-OLS 1.2 STATUS OF REVIEWS AND APPROVALS V

Licenses, permits, .and other approvals required for the operation and maintenance of Unit 2 are listed in Table 1.2-1, which also identifies:

1. Activity / plant component for which approval was required.

2. Name of agency responsible for issuing approval.

3. Date that the approval was requested.

4. Status of each approval.

The status of approvals that entailed major environmental review (except for the NRC licenses) is discussed in the following paragraphs.

National / State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES /SPDES) Permits Section 402 of the federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments (1972) established a permit program to regulate the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters.

Accordingly, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

(-w) is authorized to issue permits and establish effluent limitations, monitoring, reporting, and other requirements consistent with national water quality goals. Section 402 also provides that states may administer their own permit programs upon approval by the EPA.

On October 14, 1975, the EPA issued a combined NPDES permit for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation's (NMPC) Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; whereby, specific ef-fluent limitations, monitoring and reporting requirements, and compliance schedules for various waste streams at Unit 1 and at Unit 2 when it becomes operational are set forth.

In 1978, the New York State Department of Environmental Con-servation (NYSDEC) was given the authority and respon-sibility for administering the Section 402 permit program.

On June 6, 1983, NYSDEC issued a combined SPDES permit (Appendix 1A) for Units 1 and 2. The SPDES permit sets l8 l

forth specific effluent limitations, monitoring and reporting requirements, and compliance schedules for various nonradiological waste streams at Unit 1 and at Unit.2 when it becomes operational. Sections 3.3, 3.4, and 3.6 describe the various wastewater discharges that are regulated by the Unit 2 SPDES permit. The

(

V}

Supplement 3 1.2-1 September 1983

Nina Milo Point Unit 2 ER-OLS anticipated impact of these discharges on water quality and aquatic ecology is discussed in Sections 5.2.2, 5.3.2, and 5.5.

Water Quality Certification Section 401 of the federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments (1972) requires applicants for a federal license to construct or operate facilities that may result in a dis-charge into navigable waters to obtain a certification from the state that the discharge will comply with applicable water quality standards. NMPC applied to NYSDEC and received on February 23, 1977, a water quality certification for Unit 2 (Appendix 1B).

This certification identifies the water quality standards that must be met at the facility and establishes requirements for monitoring, assessing, and reporting com-pliance with these standards. Sections 3.6, 5.3, and 5.5 address Unit 2 compliance with water quality standards.

Transmission Line Certification In the state of New York, before constructing a major trans-mission facility, an applicant must obtain a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need from the New York State Public Service Commission, in accordance with Article VII of the New York State Public Service Law.

During Article VII proceedings, a detailed examination of the proposed facility design, construction, cost, need, and environmental impact is undertaken. Alternative routes, lines, facility designs, and construction procedures are evaluated. The environmental impact assessment must con-sider such factors as topography, soils, hydrology, natural constraints, biota, land use, cultural resources, and visual impact. Before reaching a decision on a transmission line proposal, the Public Service Commission conducts a hearing to obtain input from all concerned parties.

On March 15, 1978, NMPC submitted an Article VII application to the Public Service Commission for a proposed double-circuit, 765-kV line extending from Unit 2 to a new sub-station (East Volney Substation), to be located adjacent to NMPC's existing 345-kV Volney Substation (18 Public hearings on the proposed line were held between November 1978 and January 1979. However, NMPC subsequently reevaluated the need for a 765-kV line linking Unit 2 and the proposed 765-kV East Volney Substation. In 1981, NMPC revised its transmission line proposal to consist of a 345-kV line extending from Unit 2 to a new substation 1.2-2

( O f) .

U U V-1 Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS TABLE 1.2-1 PERMITS AND APPROVALS Authorized Activity / Application Agency Type of App rova l Plant Component Date Status 3

i Nuclea r Regulatory Special nuc lea r Storage or neutron 7/6/81 Granted 4/19/82

, Commission ma te ria l license detectors

- Special nuclea r Fuel receipts 3/1/85 Approva l anticipated material license by 7/1/85 By-product materia l Radiation monitors / 1/1/84 Approva l anticipated license ca libration sources by 6/1/84 Reactor operating fuel loading 1/31/83 App rova l anticipated license by 1/1/86 i l Fede ra l Aviation Navigational i nte r- Cooling tower 4/25/77 Granted 8/8/77 i

Admin i st ra t ion rerence approval Extended 5/29/79 and 10/8/80 Navigational i nte r-rerence approva l Stack 6/6/83 Cranted 8/17/83 l3 American Society of Owner certificate Nuclear power plant 4/17/76 Granted 8/23/76 Mechanical Engineers of. authorization components Extended 7/5/79 and 8/23/82 3 New York State Depa rtment Emission source Operation or cooling 1/1/84 Apprcva l anticipated i of Envi ror.menta l envi ronmenta l ra t ing tower by 8/1/84

, Conse rva tion i

Section 401 water Discha rge of wastewater 2/24/76 Granted 2/23/77 quality certification effluents SPDES permit Discha rge or wastewater 9/28/79 Granted 6/6/83 l3 j effluents i New York State Public Certificate of Transmission line 3/15/78 Granted 8/12/83 3 1 Service Commission environmental Amended compa t i b i l i ty and application

public need filed 4/82 i

i

Supplement 3 1 of 2 September 1983 l

1 4

k

}

j l

9 APPENDIX 1A SPDES PERMIT NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION l'

l 9

4 Copics:

• R7 - K. De1Prete Fccility ID N3. 3 NY- non 101M

. B. Garvey -

. R. Baker Effective Dare (EDP)  : M y 1, 1983 i R. Spear Oswego County H1th. Dept. Expiration Date (EzDP)  : M y 1, 1988

. Niagara Mohawk - Lycoming DRA - R7 Mr. Geisendorfer, Rm. 308. BWFD NEk' YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION STATE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (SPDES)

DISCHARGE PERMIT Special Conditions (Part I).

This SPDES permit is issued in compliance with Title 8 of Article 17 of the Environmental Conservation Iav of New York State and in compliance with the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. 51251t e_t. see.) (hereinafter referred to as

'"the Act").

Permittee Name: Niagara It) hawk Power Corp. Attn: Mr. J. M.1bennias, Env. Affairs Director Permittee Street: 300 Erie Boulevaxd West Permittee City: Syracuse State: N.Y. Zip Code: 13202 is authorized to discharge from the facility described below:

Facility Name: Nine Mile Pt. Nuclear Generating Station Units il and 2

! Facility Location (C,T,V): gu g} County: q Facility Mailing Address (Street): Lake Ibad Facility Mailing Address (City): Iyecadng (Tl State: N.Y. Zip Code: 13093 into receiving waters known as:

Lake Ontario cla n A W m1 l in accordance with the effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and other conditions l set forth in this permit.

This permit and the authorization ,to discharge shall expire on midnight of.the expiration date shown above and the permittee shall not discharge after the f expiration date unless this per=it has been renewed, or extended pursuant to law. To be authorized to discharge beyond the expiration date, the permittee shall apply for permit' renewal as prescribed by Sections 17-0803 and 17-0804 of the Environmental Conservation Law and Parrs 621, 752, and 755 of the Departments' rules and regulations.

By Authority of Alternaite Pemit Administrator Designated P.epresentative of Com.issioner of the Department of Environmental Conserva on O &+6 Date MfCf. Signature A

91-20-M6/S0)P ir.1 Supplement 3 1A-1 September 1983

Pcrt I Pag 2 2 of 17 Facility ID No.: NY 000 1015 ETTLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS During the period beginning July 1, 1983 cnd lasting until July 1, 1988 tha discharges from the permitted facility shall be lit:ited n.d =itored by the p:rtittee as specified below:

Nonitoring Regnts.

Outfall 11xnber & Discharge Ibnitations Measurement Satple Effluent Paraheter Daily Avg. Daily ~ Max. Units Frequency Type 010 Condenser Cooling Water Unit il Flow

• Continuous  ?*1mlated Discharge 'nsperature 115 CP Continuous Metered Intake - Discharge Temperature Difference 8 35 CF Continuous Metered Net Rate of addition of heat a 1,11 9 10 kcal/hr. Hourly 61011ated Cyanide d 0.1 ng/l it>nthly 12.-hr. Caposi 011 Unit il Wastewater Flow

• Batch. &lcilated Batch Mfnre Mnr4mrge Oil and Grease 15 ng/l

• Grab Suspended Solids 30 Sa ng/l " "

pH E.0 - 9.0 (Rangele SU "- "

Cyanide d 0.4 ng/l " "

020 Storm Drainage (No Monitoring Required) Unit il 021 Filter Backwash.& Makeup Denineralizer Water 9mly Flow

• Batch Oil & Grease almlatti 15 ng/l Batch each Grab Suspended Solids 30 50 mg/l "

discharge "

pH 6.Q e 9.0 (Rangel SU " "

022 Security Building Air Conditioning b Oil ard Grease 15 mg/l Bimonthly Grab Suspendcd Solids 3Q SQ ng/l " "

pH 6.0 - 9.0 (Fangel SU " "

O Supplement 3 1A-2 September 1983 91-20-2(5/60)Pg. 4

F rt I F g2 3 ef 17 Facility ID No.: NY 000 1015 m .

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (O)

During the period beginning with initiation of preoperational testing (Unit #2) and lasting until EDP + 5 Years the discharges from the permitted facility shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:

Monitoring Recats.

Outfall Number & Discharpe Limitations Measurement Sample Effluent Parameter Daily Avs. Daily Max. Units Frequency Type 001-006 Storm Drainage (No Monitoring Required) 007 Floor and Equipment Drains 15 mg/l 2/ Month Grab Oil and Grease " "

Suspended Solids 30 50 mg/l "

pH 6.0 - 9.0 (Range) SU 008 Screen Well Fish Diversion System (No Monitoring Required) 040 Cooling Tower Blowdown (Unit #2)c Continuous Recorder Flow * " "

Discharge Temperature 110(43.3) 'F('C) 30(16.7 Intake - Discharge Temperature Difference 0.12x10g kcal/hr. Daily Calculated Net Addition of Heat Recorder

/O Total Residual Chlorine 0.2 0.5 mg/l Continuous 6.0 - 9.0 (Range) Grab h .

pH SU 2/ Week 041 Unit #2 Wastewster (Including Demineralizer Regeneration Wastes, Filte'r Backwash, Floor Drains, & Treated Radioactive Wastes".)

Batch Calculated Flow * "

011 and Grease 15 mg/l Grab (once before discharge)

Suspended Solids 30 50 mg/l "

pH 6.0 - 9.0 (Range) SU

_ FOOTNOTES

• Monitoring Requirement Only "The intake temperature shall be considered that temperature existing after intake water tempering.

These limits and monitoring requirements shall not apply if this wastewater is discharged upstream of the sewage treatment facility.

There shall be no discharge of heat from the main condensers except heat may be discharged in blowdown from recirculated cooling water systems provided the temperatuce at which the

(~N blowdown is discharged does not exceed at any time the lowest temperature of tecirculated cooling water prior to the addition of the makeup water.

(v)

Monitoring and limits may be deleted following DEC evaluation of monitcring data.

91-20-2(5/80)Pg. 4 PH range of 4.0 - 9.0 is allowable for wastewater having a conductivity of less than 10 mho/cn

Part I Paga 4 cf 17 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS Facility I.D. No. NY 000 1015 During the period beginning EDP and lasting until EDP + 5 Years discharges from the permitted facility shall be limited and monitored by the permittee cs specified below:

2 Outfc11 Number Effluent Limitations (Maximum Limits except where otherwise indicated) 030 (X) Flow 30 ds:/ arithmetic mean 65.000 ( )MGD (X)GFD (X) BOD 5 30 day ar m ae M e mean A W 1 and Ibs/ day (1)

( ) BOD $ 7 day arithmetic mean ag/l and lbs/ day (X) BOD 5 Daily 45 mg/l and Ibs/ day

( ) UCD (2) Daily ag/l and 30 day arithmetic mean T ag/l and lbs/ day (1)

Ibs/ day (X) Suspended Solids

( ) Suspended Solids 7 day arithmetic mean ag/l and lbs/ day (X) Suspended Solids Daily O ag/l and lbs/ day

',X) Effluent disinfection required (X) all year

( ) Seasonal from to Fecal Coliform 30 day geometric mean shall not exceed 200/100 al Fecal Coliform 7 day geometric mean shall not exceed 400/100 ml Fecal Coliform 6 hour6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> geometric mean shall not exceed 800/100 ml (3)

Fecal Coliform No individual sample may exceed 2400/100 r1 (3)

The chlorine residual in the final discharge chall not exceed ns ag/1.

( ) Total Coliform Daily /100 al

( ) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Daily /mg/l as N

( ) Ammonia Daily /mg/l as NH

( ) Dissolved Oxygen Fi n4 == greater than ag/l (X) pH Range 6.0 to 9.0 t

(X) Settleable Solids Daily 0.1 m1/1

( ) Phosphorus Daily ag/l as P

( ) Total Nitrogen Daily -

ag/l as N

. () Sample Location Monitoring Reauirer.ents I Parameter Precuency Sample Type Influent Effluent l (X) Total Flow, MGD 2/ Month Grab l (X) BOD g , ag/l " "

(X) Suspended Solids, ag/l (X) Fecal Coliform, No./100 al "

( ) Total Coliform, No./100 al _

( ) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, ag/l as N

( ) Ammonia, ag/l as l ( ) Dissolved Oxygen,

! (X) pH 2/ Month Grab (X) Settleable Solids, al/l "

(X) Residual Chlorine, ag/l v

( ) Phosphorus, % as P

( ) Temperature, C

( ) Total Nitrogen, ag/l as N

( ) Visual Observation l ()  % of influent values.

l (1)and effluent values shall not exceed (2)UOD (Ultimate Oxygen Demand) shall be computed and reported as follows:

UOD = 1t x BOD 5 + 4i x TEN (Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen).

(3) applicable only in the Interstate Sanitation District.

(4) sample contact chamber effluent and final effluent if limits are specified for both.

D2 (208) Supplement 3 1A-4 September 1983

! l l

F rt I l Fage5 of 17

Facility ID No.: NY 0001015 Definition of Daily Averste and Daily Maximum The daily average discharge is the total discharge by weight er in other appropriate units as specified herein, during a calendar month divided by the ember of days in the month that the production or commercial facility was operating. Whers less than daily sampling is required by this permit, the daily average discharge shall be Jetermined by the samation of all the measured daily discharges in appropriate units as specified berein divided by the number of days during the calendar month when the measurements l were mada.

The' daily maximum discharge means the total discharge by weight or in other appropriate units as specified herein, during any calendar day.

Monitorina Imestions Permittee shall take samples and measurements to meet the monitoring requirements at the location (s) indicated below

(Show locations of outfalls with sketch or flow diagram as appropriate).

I i

SECURITY BULDING l I

[_ WIT # 1 E AIRCONDITIONING MSTEMTER WIT # 2 FLOOR &

O FD . '%pITARY PLANT MSTE TREA l EQUIP. tMSTE- l MTER ,

DRAINS TREADENT l M l WASTER I -

WI UNIT-n 30 N x.:

l g l UE SCREENWELL.

l \

l 4 INTAKE - WIT-1 j INTANE - 1 WIT-2 e m mrque l STMTioM i

Supplement 3 1A-5 September 1983 6 )

Part I o 6'of 17 Prg#ity Fac ID No. NY 000 1015 m

A ,

os

. cn (w l _-

, ~ ..

l Ny' '

l' ,..,s*

c

, s '"y eu.t .

q~h q b ,, k.. .x .^*'~~A~*"

f g.d. # E '

o o

I 4mi k e~ ~ - , r.,_y 9 '.g;jj  :' s-g g ,q,*s {3 g,

• i; :n / n . m

.i .... s 'if?',. -i / - I

\W /-

it;, <>ilm /

~~

j;,:!,l'. Mitti, ,./ +

• • ;&sjs g f ,>

l1 -t es .:

. *t fio 't

. 'E :i 11 -/V*'

!fe t' I p n tu- 3 L

!! /./ .fi.s/. g -

l'Ii A 8 t** 1 m.

ri g/g #

Y{ * ~~~. /g!l 4 '(> y9&

. .: ,p--%m: . :-gy/ .

• C, ,, :~u-c Y-h..,h.Cb_ i). <

---a..,,

%m.;u'.,"-D .

g .

3

s.  ;  ; - ~ s,W., ~.

,' , q,,

..~ -

. :le: - te- 020 I

il a 'g l

.\

s i g, .

. i, i--A

i. ,16 y

,,,gf, l,i 1. !  !  ;

+ h ".'_. ki

.18 A.. . ,fh*  ; .

- ., 1 . -+ c.-. io, J) -

n....i

s. .

t \ t-

\ . -

,e m

=T. g . . V..J . r i = ,: .< #..

> . - - lh - -

W@"%r.M; h .. -

3 e iy ,'

.. s. .

l ,,

..f+i. - -

t > h, y

,o I p.. i * , , _O s ,,-

i.,p ,

.t- >- -

~

,.u .%s . , d., 8

=; -- g -em .g.p.= .

m. x. -

i~ -.-

} ., ,

g .

i

~

ww p

• w-v[

j i s: ': . .

_y:-hi I:t

'c

%n. ' * ';

2 oio ucu i

,3 - .p g: .l d!; .

' i g !, .

'r ii rl ,yf '

i dl si

~

p:. 3(; .' ,.

• l*t e g

__ 3 .; v . ..

U s ---

-2, +;t-

~

r ~C= n -

9- '

. ~~_-

l t,;;u... s , s. . - .

.sI 1

. <'A t .

., \1

- . '. .,' i e -

m*

m W1, m'

. /i b\.

. a<r y g... .

m,,i ,.:

l r- . .

c.

! g ). '

\

Nrh")

(

.N sy (Et '

jfi i: h.t m

.. y l x  : n c.o ,

i r-  ! *t i  !! I ci

'" **'*c J I k[j l l h! e413 $

L  ! e Tu y i n it 3

!M.=llj;i1 ' '

't. f. [g[il $

m j i i

Sc !. 1 t t *.

, - - - - - ,,+-,------a,w-- - , - - - - - - - - + . ~

1 I

~

- Part I Page 7of 17 Facility ID No. NY 000 1015 O

ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS:

I. The following requirements are applicable' to Units il and #2.

1. There shall be no discharge of PCB's from this facility.

'2. In regard to general conditions 11.5, items #3 and #4 shall be reported semi-annually to NYSDEC offices in Cortland and Albany.

3. There shall be no discharge of boiler chemical cleaning compounds, metal cleaning wastewater, or boiler; blowdown fmn this farility.

4. Radioactivity

a. n ex ee Picocuries per liter in GrossBeta-Shalho the absence of Sr and alpha emitters.

b. Radium 226 - Shall not exceed 3 picocuries per liter.

c. Strontium 90 - Shall not exceed 10 picocuries per liter.

5. The permittee shall submit on a trimesterly basis a report to the Department's offices in Cortland and Albany by the 28th of the month following the end of the period. Submission of reports for Unit #2 shall commence with the initiation of reactor low power testing.

a. Daily minimum, average, and maximum station electrical output shall be determined and logged.

b. Daily minimum, average, and maximum water use shall be directly or indirectly measured or calculated and logged.

c. Daily minimum, average, and maximum intake and discharge temperatures shall be logged.

d. Measurements in a, b, and c shall be taken on an hourly basis.

6. The location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures, in connection with point source thermal discharges, shall reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact.

7. -All thermal discharges to the waters of the state shall assure the protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on the body of water.

O Supplement 3 1A-7 September 1983

Port I Pcg3 8 of 17 Facility ID No. NY 000 1015

• O

8. Niagara Mohawk shall notify the Department within one week from the time of submission to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of any requested changes to the Environmental Technical Specifications requirements which could in any way affect the requirements of this permit.

9. Niagara Mohawk shall also submit concurrently to the Department any water-related report on the environment it submits to any federal, state, or local agency.

10. Niagara Mohawk shall provide access to the Nine Mile Point Site at any time to representatives of the Department subject to site security regulations to assess the environmental impact of the operation of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Facility and to review any sampling program, methodology, and the gathering and reporting of any data.

11. No biocides, slimicides, or corrosion control chemicals are authorized for use, except for those listed by parameter in the permit. Prior Department approval is required for any additional use of these chemicals as well as for the use of any new water treatment chemicals.

II. The following requirements are applicable to Unit #1.

1. By August 1, 1983, the permittee shall submit final plans, signed and sealed by an engineer licensed to practice in New York State, describing the addition of storage capacity for discharges 011 and 021. Construction to be initiated by October 1, 1983.

2. The Department has approved the applicant's request pursuant to Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) for alternative effluent limitations at this facility. The thermal effluent limitations on page 2 of this permit reflect this approval.

3. The water temperature at the surface of Lake Ontario shall not be raised more than three Fahrenheit degrees over the temperature that existed before the addition of heat of artificial origin except in a mixing zone consisting of an area of 425 acres from the point of discharge, this temperature may be exceeded.

4. The Department has contingently approved the applicant's consideration of intake impacts submitted pursuant to Section 316(b) of the CWA.

Completion of the biological monitoring program described in Additional Requirement Section IV and demonstration of impacts similar to previous studies is required to obtain final approval of the 316(b) request.

O Supplement 3 1A-8 September 1983

Part I Page 9 of 17 Facility ID No. NY 000 1015 O

III. The following requirements are applicable to Unit #2.

1. By initiation of reactor lower power testing, the company shall file for approval with the Department at its offices in Albany and Syracuse an updated report on all Unit #2 water treatment, corrosion inhibitor, anti-fouling, slimicide, biocide, and boiler cleaning chemicals or compounds. Such report shall identify each product by chemical formula and/or composition, annual consumption, frequency of use, maximum use per incident, effluent concentration, bioassay and toxicity limits, and procedures for use. Approval shall only be granted for those circumstances and uses which do not contravene New York State Water Quality Standards. No substitutions will be allowed without prior approval.

Wastewaters containing chemicals and oil shall be collected and treated prior to dilution with non-contact cooling water in facilities which shall be approved by the Department.

2. No discharge from this facility shall cause violation of the New York State Department of Health regulations contained in 10 NYCRR Part 170 at the source of intake of any water supply used for drinking, culinary or food processing purposes.

O 3. Pursuant to Part 704 Criteria Governing Thermal Discharges, Section 704.3-Mixing Zone criteria, upon the presentation cf a final design for~the discharge, the Department shall specify, as appropriate, i definable numcrical limits for the mixing zone, including linear distances from the point of discharge, surface area involvement, and volume of receiving water entrained in the thermal plume.

4. Not less than 180 days prior to the initiation of discharge from the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Generating Station Unit #2, Niagara Mohawk shall submit for approval to the Department of Environmental Conservation a plan of study for:

Verification of the extent of the thermal plume in the receiving waters by conducting thermal surveys in alternate months except for December through March during the first two years of operation.

5. - Existing biological studies in Lake Ontario as required by regulatory agencies shall continue. Such study programs shall be adjusted as required by regulatory agencies to assess the operating impact of Unit #2. Requirements to submit reports, frequency of submission, and content shall be established at the time of approval of the study programs.

O Supplement 3 1A-9 September 1983

f Pcg3 10 of 17 I Fccility ID N3. NY 000 1015 Not less than 180 days prior to the initiation of discharges from O

6.

the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Generating Station Unit $2, Niagara Mohawk shall submit to the NYSDEC office in Albany three copies of the following plans and specifications. Plans shall be stamped by an engineer. licensed in New York State,

a. Plans of proposed structures, including intake structure, diffuser, tunnel cross section, cooling tower, screenwell building, and equipment (including pumps).

b. Plans of all on-site treatment facilities including oil / water separators.

c. Piping and/or flow diagrams for all facility waste streams, including any piping to or from Nine Mile Point Unit il and contaminated plant and site drainage.

d. Flow diagram of circulating cooling water system from the intake to the diffuser.

IV. Biological Monitoring and Related Matters - Unit il A. Previous Biological Monitoring Data - EDP + 3 Months, the permittee h shall file with the Chief, Bureau of Environmental Protection in Albany; Fishery Section head in Cape Vincents and with the Regional Supervisor of Fish and Wildlife in Syracuse a report containing and/or identifying all previous reports regarding this facility which contain biological data relating to the ecological effects of plant operation from March 31, 1975 to the present. Previously submitted reports need not be duplicated, but title, date, and data location must be completely identified. A copy of all unsubmittes reports and data shall be sent to the above offices by EDP + 3 Months.

Data to be reported should include, but is not necessarily limited to cooling water flows, dates, times, available operating and meteorological conditions, and species, numbers and other available biological information.

B. Impingement Monitoring - The permittee shall conduct a program to determine the numbers and total weights by species of fish impinged on all intake traveling screens.

1. Collections shall be made seventy-eight (78) days each year, provided that the circulating water pumps are in operation.

When collection days coincide with shut down of the main circulating water pumps, collections need not be taken.

Collections shall be obtained at the following intensity on days randomly selected within each month. Should the randomly selected dates result in a period in excess of 10 h days during any month in which sampling does not occur, Supplement 3 1A-10 September 1983

Part I Page 11 of 17 Facility ID No. NY 000 1015 O

additional sampling is required.so that periods in excess of 10 days without a sample do not accur.

Month Number of Sample Days January 4 February 4 March 4 April 16 May 20 June 4 July 4 August 6 September 4 October 4 November 4 December 4

2. Collections shall be conducted for a minimum period of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. The beginning of the 24-hour period shall be selected and held constant by the permittee for all collections. A collection period shall be no longer O than 26 hours3.009259e-4 days <br />0.00722 hours <br />4.298942e-5 weeks <br />9.893e-6 months <br />. Impingement collection shall be calculated and reported on a 24-hour basis.

3. Travelling screens shall be washed until they are clean prior to the start of the 24-hour collection period.

4. Individual length (cm) and weight (g) measurements shall be made on white perch, smallmouth bass, yellow perch, alewife, rainbow smelt, and each species of salmonid in order to characterize the size distribution for each 24-hour collection. No less than 25 organisms of each species shall be measured unless fewer than 25 individuals occur in the collection.

If more than 25 individuals of a single species are collected, except for smallmouth bass, yellow perch and each species of salmonid which are to be processed separately, a represent-ative subsample of 25 fish shall be removed and lengths and weights recorded for the subsample. In the event of high impingement numbers, an estimate of the numbers and total weights by species fish shall be calculated as follows:

Estimated No. of Fish = (Volume of Total Sample) X (No. of Fish in Subsample)

Volume of Subsample

() The total sample volume shall be determined by repeatedly filling a volumetrically graduated'20-gallon plastic container and then recording and summing the values. The total volume is then thoroughly mixed by hand or with a shovel and spread Supplement 3 1A-11 September 1983

Part I Pcgs 12 of 17 Facility ID No. NY 000 1015 O

out evenly over a flat surface. An aliquot of the total sample is randomly selected and this sample portion is removed from the flat surface and measured in the graduated container to determine its approximate volume. The total number of fish in the subsample is then determined.

In the event of extremely large impingement loads, the permittee may request regional staff to make adjustments to or suspend the above subsampling procedures.

5. Electrical output and operation of the condenser cooling water system including intake and discharge temperature and total flow shall be recorded on a daily basis and tabulated as required in the following section on' reporting.

6. By EDP + 3 Months, the perr.ittee shall file for approval at the office in Section IV.A. above, a plan which will determine the collection efficiency of the following impinged organisms: white perch, smallmouth bass, yellow perch, alewife, and rainbow smelt. Prior collection efficiency data specific to this plant may be substituted for the above plan provided that it is submitted by EDP +

3 Months, to the NYSDEC and apprLved by the NYSDEC.

C. Reporting

1. All data required by Section IV or incorporated by reference in Section IV shall be included in an annual biological monitoring report.

2. The annual report shall be submitted by six months from the

?ast month of data collection.

3. The following shall be included in the annual report in addition to (1) above:

a. Monthly and annual totals of impingement by species and grand total over all species. The calculations to be done are as follows:

e Monthly "mean" is equal to the total number of fish impinged by species on the campling days in the month divided by the total number of sampling days.

e Annual "mean" is equal to the total number of fish impinged by species on the sampling days in the year divided by the total number of sampling days.

Supplement 3 1A-12 September 1983 l

Part I 17

. Paga 13 of Facilit'f ID No. NY 000 1015 O

Similar calculations shall be made for grand total over species. The total number of fish and sampling days shall be clearly indicated in any table report-ing the " totals".

b. An estimate of the collection efficiencies to be determined pursuant to Section IV.B.6. above. If sufficient time is not available to include these estimates in the first annual report, the permittee may, upon written request and substantiation and with NYSDEC approval, extend this reporting requirement into an annual report other than the initial.

c. Estimates shall be developed of the average monthly impingement rate based o'n the number of sampling days and total volume of water pumped during these days, and also of the total monthly impingement based on the average monthly rate and the volume of water pumped during the month, for each species impinged.

4. All measurements shall use the metric system, e.g., flows should be in cubic meters /sec. (m3/s).

() 5. Copies of all reports regarding water and biological parameters related to intake and discharge considerations, whether generated for this permit or ctherwise, shall be sent to the offices in Section IV.A. above.

6. Report (s) submitted in fulfillment of permit conditions shall clearly identify on the title page the permit number and the.

specific section(s) by character and number that the report (s) fulfill. Each section of the text of such report (s) shall.

identify the section(s) of the permit that it fulfills.

7. NYSDEC. reserves the right to have more frequent submittal of the data required to be reported, provided that the permittee is given at least one (1) month prior notice of such more frequent reporting requirements.

8. The measures the permittee instituted, if any, in the report-ing year to accomplish minimization of facility impacts on aquatic biota shall be sent to the offices in Section IV.A. above.

9. The formats for reporting the following data are included in Appendix A. Data sheets and formats for reporting the following data:

a. Flow

b. Temperature O c.

d.

Circulator operation Electrical output are available fran the office of Dwirornental Protection.

Supplement 3 1A-13 September 1983

Pnrt I Page 14 of 17 Facility ID No. NY 000 1015 O

D. Biological specimens may be required to be submitted to the NYSDEC upon request.

E. The facility shall be operated in such a manner as to minimize facility impacts on aquatic biota.

F. As a reeult of the NYSDEC's review of the biological monitoring program, the permittee may be required to implement appropriate methods and procedures to reduce to the fullest extent possible the effects of facility operation on aquatic organisms.

O O

supplement 3 ^

ngo ld c2 u

- Facility ID No.: NY 0001015 8'CEEDULE OF COMPLIANCE FOR EFTLITFFT LIMITATIONS (a) Permittee shall achieve compliance with h effluent limitations O specified in this permit for the permitted discharge (s) in accordance with the following schedule Action Outfall Code . Numberfel Comeliance Action Due Date 02 011 & 021 ' Approvable Final Plans-Waste Storage Tanks 8/1/83 (Additional Requirement # 11.1.)

04 011 & 021 Comencement of Construction 10/1/83 (Additional Requirement f!I.1) 01 All Chemical Use Report-Unit $ Initiation of (Additional Requirement iTII.1) reactor low poter testing.

44 040 Plan of Study-Thermal Plume Verification 180 days prior (Additional Requirement flII.4). to initiation of discharge.

02 040 Final Plans-Circulating Cooling 180 days prior to Water & Waste Treatment initiation of (Additional Requirement #I11.6) discharge.

39 NA Compliation of Reports containing EDP + 3 Months O Biological Data (Additional Requirement #IV.1.a) 44 NA Plan of Study-Collection Efficiency EDP + 3 Months (Additional Requirement #IV.6)

(b) h permittee shall submit to the Department of Environmental Conservation the required document (s) where a specific action is required in (a) above to be taken by a certain date, and a written notice of compliance or noncompliance with each of the above schedule dates, postmarked no later than 14 days following each elapsed date. Each notice of noncomp1f ance shall include the following information:

1. A short description of the noncomplianos;

2. A description of any actions taken or proposed by the permittee to comply with the elapsed schedule requirement without further delay; 3 A description of any factors which tend to explain or mitigate h noncompliance; and

4. An estimate of th. date permittee vill comply with the elapsed O schedule requirement and an assessment of the probability that permittee vill meet the next scheduled requirement on time.

91-18-1 (9/78)

, Supplement 3 1A-15 September 1983

. Pcrt I

, Pego16 of 17

' MONITORING, RECORDING AND REPORTING Facility ID No.: NY 000 1015 c) The permittee shall also refer to the General Conditions (Part II) of this permit fcr cdditional information concerning monitoring and reporting requirements and conditions.

b) The monitoring information required by this permit shall be summarized and reported by submitting a completed and signed Discharge Monitoring Report form once every months to the Department of Environmental Conservation and other appropriate regulatory agencies ce tha offices specified below. The first report will be due no later than Thereaf ter, reports shall be submitted no later than the 28th of the following month (s):

Water Division New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road - Albany, New York 12233 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Regional Engineer 7481 Henry Clay Blvd.

Liverpool, New York 13088 Oswego County Dept. of Health.

70 Bunner Street Oswego, New York 13126

@ (Applicabic only if checked):

l Dr. Richard Bakar, Chief - Permits Administration Branch j Planning & Managemant Division i

USEPA Region II 26 Pederal Plaza New York, New York 10278 I c) If so directed by this permit or by previous request, Monthly Wastewater Treatment l P1:nt Operator's Reports shall be submitted to the DEC Regional Office and county health dep:rt:nent or county environmental control agency specified above.

d) Monitoring must be conducted according to test procedures approved under 40 CFR Part 136, unless other test proceduras have been specified in this permit.

o) If the pemittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by the p;rmit, using test procedures approved under 40 CFR 136 or as specified in the permit, tha rcsults of this nonitoring shall be included in t,he calculation and reporting of the datn submitted in the Discharge Monitoring Reports.

f) Calculations for all limitations which require averaging yf measurements shall utilize an arithnetic nean unless otherwise specified in the permit.

g) Unless otherwise specified, all information submitted on the Discharge Monitoring

. Term chall be based upon messurements and sampling carried out during the most recently ccuplated reporting period.

h) Blank Discharge Monitoring Report Forms are available at the abwe addresses.

91-20-2 (8/81) Page 2 Supplement 3 1A-16 September 1983

Fcrt I F:ga 17 Ef 17 Facility ID No.: NY 0001015 SCHEDtU.E OF COMPLIANCE FOR EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS O- (Continued)

c) The pe mittee shall submit copies of the written notice of compli'nce a or noncompliance required herein to the following offices

Chief, Compliance Section New York State Department of Enviroceental Conserration 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233 Regional Engineer #7 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 7481 Henry Clay Boulevard Liverpool, NY 13088 Oswego County Dept. of Health 70 Bunner Street Oswego, New York 13126 USEPA Region II Planning and Managenent-Division O 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 The permittee shall submit copies of any engineering reports, plans of study, final plans, as-built plans, infiltration-inflow studies, etc. required herein to the 'New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Regional Offic'e specified above unless otherwise specified in this permit or in writing by the Department or its designated field office.

91-18-2 (9g6)

O -

Supplement 3 1A-17 September 1983

Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-0LS

[\/ ) The Ontario Ministry of the Environment permits a total of approximately 24,200 cu m/ day (6.4 mgd) to be withdrawn from Lake Ontario for irrigation (Table 2.3-6).

2.3.2.2 Groundwater Since general groundwater gradient in the site vicinity is toward the lake, no groundwater supplies are expected to be affected by station effluents. All onsite wells are owned by Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC) and are no longer in use. No offsite effects are expected from station dewatering. Groundwater is further discussed in FSAR Section 2.4.13.

2.3.2.3 Lake Ontario Fisheries 2.3.2.3.1 Commercial Fish Harvest United States commercial fish harvests for the years 1976 through 1980 are listed-by species in Table 2.3-7. Commer-cial fish harvest data for Canadian statistical districts located partially or entirely within an 80-km radius- of 8 Unit 2 are listed by weight in Table 2.3-10. Figure 2.3-15 shows Canadian statistical district boundaries. Canadian commercial fisheries are predominantly located along the

/~') eastern third of the northern Lake Ontario shoreline. Most 5

%_f of the U.S. commercial fish harvest is caught in the Eastern Basin of Lake Ontario, with more than half the catch coming from the Chaumont Bay region. Major U.S. ports of landing l3 are Chaumont and Oswego.

2.3.2.3.2 Sport Fish Catches Sport fish catches on Lake Ontario in U.S. waters are given in Table 2.3-8 by major species . groups. Within Canadian waters of Lake Ontario, approximately 6,330,000 fish were caught by anglers in 1980. Approximately 80 percent of these fish were kept and 56 percent were eaten. Table 2.3-9

. presents data regarding fish caught, kept, and eaten by an-glers in the Canadian waters of Lake Ontario between Salmon Point and Kingston, an area which roughly corresponds to the Canadian waters within the 80-km (50-mi) radius. Data on total fish caught in Canadian waters of Lake Ontario are provided in Table 2.3-10'*si, 2.3.2.4 Recreation Recreational use of Lake Ontario includes boating, swimming, and fishing. Recreational opportunities in the site vicinity are discussed in Section 2.5.2.

Supplement 3 2.3-9 September 1983 (v)-

Nina Milo Pcint Unit 2 ER-OLS 2.3.2.5 Navigation Oswego Harbor serves as both the easternmost port on Lake Ontario and a terminus of the New York State barge canal system. Tonnage handled by the New York State Barge Canal is provided in Table 2.3-11. The location of Unit 2 on the south shore of Lake Ontario is well outside any normal ship traffic lanes.

2.3.3 Water Quality 2.3.3.1 Introduction Lake Ontario is the only makeup water source and receiving water body for Unit 2. All other surface water and ground-water in the site vicinity are upgradient from the station and are not affected by station operation. Water quality analysis is thus limited to Lake Ontario in this report.

2.3.3.2 Historical Review of Water Quality Data for the Site and Vicinity Comprehensive water quality studies have been conducted by state, federal, and international agencies mostly after 1960. In addition, several investor-owned utilities have studied water quality near their existing or planned 2 l facilities'.

The International Joint Commission (IJC) reported lakewide water chemistry data collected during 1965 by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA). The IJC report also included data from other investigations, in-cluding the 1966-1967 studies conducted by the Canadian 2l Department of National Health and Welfare (CDNHW)(**,588 Allen summarized the chemical characteristics of Lake On-tario prior to 1972 and included historical trends from the 2

late 1800s'51) .

l The EPA summarized data from water quality surveys in their STORET system'525 Data from 1965 to 1976 for eastern Lake Ontario were accessed. STORET system data included results from studies by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), the EPA (Rochester Field Office), the Canadian Center for Inland Waters (CCIW), and the International Field Year for the Great Lakes (IFYGL). A survey of Mexico Bay, located approximately 5.6 km (3.5 mi) east of the Nine Mile Point study area, was conducted by the FWPCA-Rochester Of-2 l fice in 1965(**).

Supplement 2 2.3-10 June 1983

Nina Milo Point Unit 2 ER-OLS

(')

(_,/

35. Personal communication between R. Walvoord, Williamson Water District, Williamson, NY, and C. S. Ellis, Stone &

Webster Engineering Corporation, Boston, MA, August 11, 1981.

36. Personal communication between D. White, Sodus Village, NY, and C. S. Ellis, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Boston, MA, August 11, 1981.

37. Personal communication between B. DeVinney, Wolcott Village, NY, and C. S. Ellis, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Boston, MA, August 12, 1981.

38. Personal communication between Mr. Wilkinson, City of Oswego Water Supply, Oswego, NY, and C. S. Ellis, Stone

& Webster Engineering Corporation, -Boston, MA, August 11, 1981.

39. Personal communication between D. Rengert, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Oswego, NY, and C.S. Ellis, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Boston, MA, June 2, 1982.

40. Personal communication between V. Constance, Cape Vincent Village, NY, and C. S. Ellis, Stone & Webster

-~ . Engineering Corporation, Boston, MA, August 10, 1981.

41. Personal communication between R. Duford, Chaumont Village, NY, and C. S. Ellis, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Boston, MA, August 10, 1981.

42. Personal communication between B. Goodrich, Sackets Harbor Village, NY, and C. S. El]is, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Boston, MA, August 11, 1981.

43. Personal communication between W. Huff, Sodus Point Village, NY, and C. S. Ellis, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Boston, MA, August 11, 1981.

44. National Marine Fisheries Service. Fishery Statistics of the United States 1976. U.S. Department of Contmerce.

Washington, DC, October 1980.

45. National Marine Fisheries Service. General Canvass Catch by Year, State, and Species 1977-1980. U.S.

Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.

("^g Supplement 3 2.3-23 September 1983 V

Nina Milo Point Unit 2 ER-OLS

46. Letter from Nilam Bedi, Economist, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources to Carolyn Ellis, Stone & Webster 8

Engineering Corporation concerning Lake Ontario Commercial Fish Harvest by Statistical District for January to December 1976 through 1981, March 25, 1983.

47. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Background Information: Napanee District Land Use Strategy.

Napanee, Ontario, 1980.

48. Government of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, Economic Policy Branch. Data from 1980 Survey of Sportfishing -

Ontario. October 14, 1981.

49. New York State Electric and Gas Corporation. New Haven Nuclear Station, ER-CPS. Docket No. STN 50-596 and STN 50-597, March 1979.

50. International Lake Erie Water Pollution Board and International Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River Water Pollution Board. Report to the International Joint Commission on the Pollution of Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the International Section of the St. Lhwrence River, Vol. 3, 1969, p 329. [ cited in Reference 49] .

51. Allen, E. R. Lake Ontario Atlas: Chemistry. New York State Sea Grant Institute, State University of New York, Albany, NY, 1977, p 101. [ cited in Reference 49]

52. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, STORET. Data Summary for Eastern Lake Ontario. EPA Office of Water and Hazardous Materials Monitoring and Data Support Division, Washington, DC, 1978. [ cited in Reference 49]

53. Rochester Gas and Electric Company. Sterling Site Project, Environmental Report, Vol. V, Section 80.2, Rochester, NY, 1973. [ cited in Reference 49] t I

54. Texas Instruments, Inc. 1979 Nine Mile Point Aquatic Ecology Studies. Prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Dallas, TX, 1980.

55. Texas Instruments, Inc. 1980 Nine Mile Point Aquatic Ecology Studies. Prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Dallas, TX, 1981.

56. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

Conservation Law Title 6, Part 702.1, Class A - Special Waters, Standards.

Supplement 3 2.3-24 September 1983

Nina Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS

' (}

(_,

57. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

for Water, 1976, p 501.

Quality Criteria

58. A.P.M.A., A.W.W.A., and W.P.C.F. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 14th Edition, American Public Health Association, Washington, DC, 1975, p 1193.

59. Casey, D. J.; Fisher, W.; and Kleveno, C. O. Lake Ontario Environmental Summary 1965. EPA, Region II, Rochester Field Office, Rochester, NY, 1973.

60. Great Lakes Water Quality Board. 1981 Report on Great

-Lakes Water Quality, Appendix, Great Lakes Surveillance, Report to the IJC, November 1981.

61. Beeton, A. M. Indices of Great Lakes Eutrophication.

Great Lakes Research Publication No. 15, Great Lakes Research Division, University of Michigan, 1966, p 1-8.

62. Sweeney, R. A. Proceedings of the Conference on Changes in the Chemistry of Lakes Erie and Ontario. Bulletin of Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences, Vol. 25, No. 2, 1971. [ cited in Reference 49]

s 63. McKee, J. E. and Wolf, H. W. Water Quality Criteria, 4

Second Edition, California State Water Recources Control J Board, Publication No. 3-A, 1971, p 548. [ cited in Reference 49]

64. Pasansky, D.F. Winter Circulation in Lake Ontario.

In: Proceedings of the 14th Conference of Great Lakes Research, International Association of Great Lakes Research, Windsor, Ontario, 1971, p 593-606. [ cited in Reference 49]

65. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Aquatic Environment; Microbial Transformations and Water Management Implications. Symposium sponsored by EPA Office of Water Programs Operation, EPA 430/6-73-008, 1972, p 244. [ cited in Reference 49]

66. Wetzel, F.. G. Limnology. W. B. Saunders Co.,

Philadelphia, PA, 1975, p 743.

67. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations, 40CFR141, 1975.

, Supplement 3 2.3-25 September 1983 C

Nins Milo Point Unit 2 ER-OLS

68. Geldrich, E. E. Fecal Coliform and Fecal Streptococcus Density Relationships in Waste Discharge and Receiving '

Waters. CRC Critical Review of Environmental Control, October 1976. [ cited in Reference 49]

69. Personal communication between J. Simplaar, Mexico, NY, and C. S. Ellis, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Boston, MA, June 10, 1981.

70. Personal communication between L. Hurlbutt, Mexico, NY, and C. S. Ellis, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Boston, MA, June 9, 1981.

71. Personal communication between D. Ouellette, Sterling, NY, and C. S. Ellis, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Boston, MA, June 15, 1981. .

72. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Fisheries. 1976-1977 New York Angler Survey Final Report. Raybrook, NY, May 1981.

73. Oswego County Planning Board. Oswego County Data, 1977.

O Supplement 3 2.3-26 September 1983 O

Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS

(}

\_/

TABLE 2.3-7 TOTAL COMMERCIAL FISH BY SPECIES IN KILOGRAMS (AND POUNDS) HARVESTED FROM LAKE ONTARIO (U.S. WATERS) 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 Species U.S.'1' U.S.<2> U.S.can U.S.(28 U.S.<2 Bowfin 136 Bullhead & 9,707 21,455 17,237 12,292 15,332 Catfish (21,404) (47,308) (38,008) (27,104) (33,807)

Carp 2,268 862 363 454 (5,001) (1,901) (800) (1,001)

Common Eel 16,103 19,142 18,144 29,847 (35,507) (42,208) (40,008) (65,813)

Crappie 1,406 1,179 544 590 726 (3,100) (2,600) (1,200) (1,301) (1,601)

Freshwater 136 136 227 3

Drum (300) (300) (501)

Q l ,j Rock 3,266 5,489 4,672 1,633 2,676 s

Bass (7,202) (12,103) (10,302) (3,601) (5,901)

Smelt 5,579 5,988 20,185 4,717 (12,302) (13,204) (44,508) (10,401)

Suckers 1,860 1,043 1,905 590 227 (4,101) (2,300) (4,201) (1,301) (501)

Sunfishes 3,084 4,128 2,812 2,313 (6,800) (9,102) (6,200) (5,100)

Walleye 136 318 1,905 91 272 (300) (701) (4,201) (201) (600)

White Bass 91 91 45 45 (201) (201) (99) (99)

White 20,503 31,026 9,888 7,439 16,602 Perch (45,209) (68,412) (21,803) (16,403) (36,607)

(}

' a' Supplement 3 1 oi 2 September 1963

Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS

() 1976 TABLE 2.3-7 (Cont) 1977 1978 1979 1980 Species U.S.(18 U.S.ca U.S.can U.S.ta U.S.(28 Yellow 23,814 22,181 6,260 10,161 6,487 3 Perch (52,510) (48,909) (13,803) (22,405) (14,304)

Others Total 87,953 93,760 84,913 58,287 72,895 (193,935) (206,741) (187,233) (128,523) (160,733)

O SOURCES: (1' Reference 44 (28 Reference 45 Supplement 3 2 of 2 September 1983

Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS

,G V TABLE 2.3-9 ESTIMATED FISH HARVEST BY ANGLERS IN CANADIAN WATERS OF LAKE ONTARIO BETWEEN SALMON POINT AND KINGSTON, ONTARIO, IN 1980 Number and Weight of Fish

• Caught Kept Eaten Species Number kg Number kg Number kg Bass 25,300 22,952 19,754 17,921 7,626 6,918 (General) (25.3) (49.9) (19.7)

Bass 13,784 12,505 12,173 11,043 9,432 8,557 (Largemouth) (20.6) (27.5) (23.0)

Bass 15,713 4,101 - - - -

(Rock) (9.4)

Bass 24,730 22,435 20,830 18,897 20,830 18,897 (Smallmouth) (28.5) (37.0) (39.5) 3 Bullhead 15,891 5,406 15,891 5,406 15,891 5,406 (17.8) (54.9) (54.9)

Lake 23,116 41,942 - - - -

Whitefish. (72.5)

Muskellunge 2,210 20,049 - - - -

(Maskimonge) (79.2)

Northern Pike 23,676 42,958 12,225 22,181 10,761 19,525 (22.7) (23.7) (22.6) .

Perch 76,154 17,272 43,262 9.812 39,794 9,025 (22.3) (21.4) (21.0)

Pickerel 27,313 61,946 15,787 35,805 14,444 32,759 (18.9) (13.9) (13.0)

Sunfish 4,043 458 - - - -

(4.8)

( ) Supplement 3 1 of 2 September 1983

Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS

() TABLE 2.3-9 (Cont)

Number and Weight of Fish

• Caught Kept Eaten Species Number kg Number kg Number kg Trout 5,779 18,349 1,444 4,585 1,444 4,585 3 (General) (55.7) (54.4) (54.4)

Salmon 242 2,195 242 2,195 - -

(Chinook) (1.0) (2.3)

All Species 257,951 272,568 141,608 127,845 120,222 105,672 l

O G

• Numbers in parentheses indicate percentage of all Lake Ontario species (Table 2.3-10) in each category which were caught in lake region between Salmon Point and Kingston. Dashes indicate data not available.

SOURCE: Reference 48 Supplement 3 2 of 2 September 1983

f \

d~ \j \

Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS-TABLE 2.3-10 ESTIMATED TOTAL FISH HARVEST BY ANGLERS IN CANADIAN WATERS OF LAKE ONTARIO IN 1980 Number and Weicht of Fish j Species Cauaht Kept Esten 1 Number jLq Number IqL Numbe; kg

. Ba ss ( Gene ra l ) 99,779 90,520 39,570 35,898 38,360 34,800 Ba ss ( La rgemouth) 66,867 60,662 44,527 40,395 41,018 37,212 Bass (Rock) 166,216 43,382 63,182 16,491 63,182 16,491 Bass (Sma llmouth) 86,703 78,657 56,245 51,025 52,786 47,887 Bass (Striped) - - - - -

Bass (White) 17,572 7,971 6,514 2,955 6,514 2,955 Black Eel 1,741 592 288 98 288 98 Bullhead 89,043 30,292 28,897 9,831 28,897 9,831 Carp 38,497 261,934 2,984 20,303 2,742 18,657 Catfish 40,422 128,348 2,945 9,351 2,945 9,351 Channel Catfish 1,258 856 - - - -

Chub 2,906 165 1,211 69 1,211 69 Lake Whitefish 31,883 57,849 726 1,317 726 1,317 Muskellunge 2,788 .25,293 578 5,244 578 5,244 Suckers 15,741 28,560 726 1,317 726 1,317' 3

Northern Pike 104,475 189,559 51,607 93,636 47,513 86,208 Pan Fish 6,053 1,030 6,053 1,030 6,053 1,030 i Pe rch 341,387 77,427 201,590 45,721 189,404 42,957 P i c ke re l 144,903_ 328,640 113,166 256,660 111,004 251,757 Sunrish 84,?36 9.552 31,871 3,614 31,871 3,614 Shad 4,8S3 3,874 - - - -

Sheepshead 17,9s2 8,152 1,061 481 - - l 140,791 l Smelt 4,694,032 234,702 4,218,685 210,934 2,815,819 l l C ra pp les 264 120- 264. 120 264 120 l l T rou t ( Gene ra l ) 10,379 32,955 2,655 8,430 2,655 8,430 l l

Trout (Brook) 1,351 369 1,351 369 1,351 369 T rout (Brown) 10,116 32,120 6,483 20,585 4,545 14,431 T rou t ( La ke ) 13,042 29,579 5,786 13,123 5,302 12,025-T rout ( Ra inbow) 32,229 102,334 21,970 69,759 16,643 52,845' Trout (Splake) 242 766 242 768 242 768 Sa lmon (Genera l ) 24,758 112,302 21,367 96,921 18,703 84,837 Salmon (Chinook) 22,467 203,821 10,222 92,734 6,108 55,412 Salmon (Coho) 121,365 550,512 81,610 370,183 57,213 259,518 Multi Species 34,291 NA* 6,372 NA* 6,372 NA*

All Species 6,329,821 2,732,897 5,030,748 1,479,362 3,561,035 1,200,341 SOURCE: Reference 48

• Not applicable - species and weight are not known.

Supplement 3 1 or 1 September 1983

=

Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS TABLE 2.3-16 COMMERCIAL LAKE ONTARIO FISH HARVEST IN CANADIAN DISTRICTS 3, 4, 5,'AND 6 1976 - 1981 Total Landings (ko)

Soecies 1976 1977. 1978 1979 1980- 1981 Bowrin 770 1,952. 4,655 984 54 27 Bullhead 134,061- 153,344 154,198 144,741 152,129- . 127,171 Ca rp 192,247 99,841 3,880 3,791 - 69,136 Catrish 363 3,203 1,688 117 10,817 13,955 Crapp ie

• 2,773 5,922 6,081 7,656 12,101 Eel 144,591 173,882 '221,964 211,041 156,560 99,347 Freshwater Drum 1,340 2,200 92 23 -

373-Lake Herring 6,975 5,318 5.515 13,494 -5,311 2,412 Lake Trout 1,074 35 35 - -

45 Lake Whiterfsh .1,637 4,285 2,120 1,268 4,133 769 Northern Pike 9,856 6,815 11,623 18,890 19,827 16,200 Pacific Salmon - - - - - -

i Rock Bass 35,750* 26,357 16,491 10,264 5,940 8,602 Shad -

680 1,315 - -

282 3 Smelt 27,009 20,871 27,126 24,942 22,169 24,955 Stu rgeon 250 1,953 353 12 369 300 Sunrish 81,263 67,177 60,373 62,024 62,864 52,728 Sucker 4,058- 5,144 4,255 7,606 4.913 4,516 White Bass 1,285 3,022 2,500 1,331 3,290 1,933 Whi te Perch 330,579 192,791 227,432 46.520 55,336 44,257 Ye l low Pe rch 259,673 260,517 319,345 297,754 266,439 553,078 Ye l l ow Pic ke re l 607 1,502 7,347 23,917 57,383 1,432 Total 1,233,388 1,033,662 1,078,229 874,805 835,190 1,033,619 l

SOURCE: 46 l

1. Combined total - rock bass and crapples. l 1

Supplement 3 1 of 1 September 1983 l l

l 1

\ ()

V(h (V U

\+

o L AKE ST FRANC /S

+, Ch~

CCRNWALL

- 4 y

g gd C \ e

\h o\

s s\t

'b\% Wf + +  ;:

%% a\ z \

KINGSTON j g g'V

/<$* LEGEND

1. q

$\3 6\A 4 4 ---- U.S./CAN ADIAN BOUNDARY

\* w g\$ --- C AN ADIAN STATISTICAL

$a\ \ oCHAUMONT

%\n \ @ /* DISTRICT BOUNDARY P o PRIN \ 9

\ DORT HOPE

1. 4 OF L'AKE ONTARIO 6 m\ plNT,/ THE S AINT LAWRENCE TORONTO \ g RIVER (C AN ADA )

g g \ @ 9 1

\ (L A KE ' --- ONTA RIO- * ,_

cp J 50 Mi

'f. SITE g

4 \

o ROCHESTE i NEW YORK l

l o 25 50 FIGURE 2.3-15 I I I SC ALE-MILES COMMERCI AL FISHING ARE AS -

L AKE ONTARIO l O s0 100 t i i U N IT ED STATES C. C AN A D A SC ALE-KILO M ETERS NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION SOURCE; Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,1983 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT-OLS SUPPLEMENT 3 SEPTEMBER 1983

'Nins Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS A comparison of the I g and.L e levels with the L,, level O- canbeusedtodetermine$helevelofactivityateachsite. i The statistical hourly noise data obtained at Site 1, located in a relatively quiet area (the Ontario Bible- Con-ference Camp), show very little additional noise impact above the measured ambient (L,e) noise levels. The same is true at Site 3, between 1800 and 0700 hr. However, the in-crease in the Leq and Lt . lev'els obtained during the other times of the day correspond with the increased levels of ac-tivity expected during the daylight hours. Sites 3 and 4 show~ a. much larger impact in the measured ambient (Li e) noise levels. However, this impact is primarily due to the effect of relatively light traffic which tends to be the ,

dominant manmade noise source in the Nine Mile Point area.

2.10.3 Federal and State Standards There are currently no environmental noise regulations ap-plicable to the operation of nuclear generating facilities.

However, community noise guidelines have been established by such agencies as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

The Joint Working Paper for the Preparation of Environmen-tal Reports for Generating Facilities in New York State (1',

prepared .by the NRC and the-New York State Public Service O Commission,. does not specify allowable noise levels, but references the EPA's document on noise levels (28 emission and HUD's Circular 1390.2<an, which has since been super- l 3 seded by 24CFR, Part 51, Subpart B. These documents provide l suggested levels that should be used as a guideline for license review and' environmental impact assessment. The HUD l 3 acceptability criteria were established as a departmental l guideline- for review of publicly. funded housing projects to ensure that the acoustical environment of the proposed site is adequately addressed. This guideline recommends an Ldn 3 level that does not exceed 65 dBA.

In its .1974 publication of the Levels Document <2) , the EPA identifies an-Ldn of 55 dBA as " adequate to protect the public against hearing loss, activity interference, and an-noyance outdoors in residential areas, farms and other out-door areas where people spend widely varying amounts of time and other places in which quiet is a basis for use." The l 8 Lan (day / night) level is the A-weighted energy average l sound level with a 10 dBA correction added to the nighttime levels. A 55-dBA Ldn level is equivalent to a constant 3

24-hr sound level'of 49 dBA.

Supplement 3 2.10-5 September 1983

l Nina Milo Point Unit 2 ER-OLS 2.10.4 References

1. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and New York State Public Service Commission. Joint Working Paper for the Preparation of Environmental Reporte for Generating Facilities in New York State, August 1977.

2. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Information on Levels of En-vironmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, 550/9-74-004, Washington, DC, March 1974.

3. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Noise Abatement and Control: Departmental Policy, Implemen-tation Responsibilities, and Standards, Department Cir-cular 1390.2, Washington, DC, September 1971.

4. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 24, Housing and Urban 3 De.yelopment (HUD), Part 51, Subpart B, Noise Abatement and Control, August 1979.

O Supplement 3 2.10-6 September 1983 0

Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS (O/ CHAPTER 3 PLANT DESCRIPTION 3.1 EXTERNAL APPEARANCE AND PLANT LAYOUT 3.1.1 Description of the Project Unit 2 is located between Nine Mile Point Unit 1 (Unit 1) and the James A. FitzPatrick (JAF) plant. The major station structures of Unit 2 are connected to the Unit 1 station structures by a passageway. Unit 2 follows the basic visual character of Unit 1 through the use of compatible color treatment and similar materials, including concrete and metal siding.

The reactor building, natural-draft cooling tower, and main stack dominate the skyline. The reactor building has a drum-like cap sheathed in fluted metal siding that contrasts with the lower concrete portion. The exposed surface of the lower portion of the reactor building, the cooling tower, and the stack are cast-in-place concrete that is untextured and natural in color. Tanks and open metal frame structures, such as transmission towers and switchyards, are

( }

protected with corrosion-resistant coatings.

v Permanent station roads and parking areas are asphalt paved.

An existing railroad line extends to the Unit 2 reactor building and turbine building (Figure 3.1-1) to provide rail freight access.

The site is landscaped to blend with the surrounding natural topography, consistent with security requirements. Land previously cleared and excavated during construction of ad-jacent power stations has been utilized during construction of Unit 2 for temporary office facilities, laydown area, switchyard and parking areas, thus minimizing the additional excavation around the station structures. At the conclusion of construction activities, the majority of this area, rn-l cept for some office facilities and portions of parking areas, will be graded and seeded to promote the return of vegetative cover. To control erosion in areas not planted with trees or shrubs, ground cover of either lawn or crushed stone is provided.

The Energy Information Center, located in the northwest por-tion of the site, is a contemporary stone and glass ranch-style structure used for public education and is a tourist attraction. Here, a three-part show is offered on x

(m ) 3.1-1 i

Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS nuclear electric power, the growth of energy in upstate New York, the story of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC) and the Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY),

and the operation of Unit 1. This show includes a working scale model of the plant and a nuclear fission display.

There are also energy exhibits, nature trails, and picnic areas on the bluffs overlooking Lake Ontario.

Figure 3.1-1 presents the station layout, including major structures, buildings, and important roads. The baseline site topography, including baseline and proposed contours and landscaping around the structures, is shown on Figure 3.1-2. Figure 3.1-3 shows the location and elevation of release points for gaseous wastes. Figures 3.1-4 through 3.1-7 present ground-level photographs of the site from different locations. Figure 3.1-8 shows an architectural rendering of the plant.

3.1.2 Ground-Level Photographs of Site To assess visual impact, visually sensitive and intensive land uses (e.g., residential concentrations, major transpor-tation routes, state and local historic sites, and re-creational attractions) within 10 km (6.2 mi) of Unit 2 were identified. Properties listed in the National Register of Historic Unit 2 site.

Places were identified within 16 km (10 mi) of the Visually sensitive locations were visited in late October, when foliage density was lower than at other times of the year. Sites surveyed for potential visual im-pact are identified and described in Table 3.1-1 and shown on Figure 3.1-9.

Surveys began with reconnaissance of all viewing locations.

Photographs were taken in the direction of Unit 2 at locations from which distant views were possible. Where plant structures would be clearly visible within 10 km (6.2 mi), plant perspectives, based on distance and direc-tion from photograph locations, were provided by computer and superimposed on the phot; graphs. These visual perspec-tives are presented on Figurea 3.1-4 through 3.1-7.

As discussed in Section 2.2.1, Unit 2 is located in a region of predominantly rural residential, agricultural, and forest land uses. The por.ential for visual impact of the plant is minimized by the remotenesc of the site. Vegetation and topography screen or block views of the plant at most visually sensitive areas. In addition, since the industrial character of the area has already been established by Unit 1 and the JAF plant, the change in visual quality associated with Unit 2 is marginal. Unit 2 will not significantly im-3.1-2

Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS p

-() pact the overall visual-quality of the area. The view of the cooling tower will be the only noticeable change.

The cooling tower is 165 m (541 ft) above ground-level and is visi!>1e at some locations, as shown for selected locations on Figures 3.1-4 through 3.1-7. Depending on meteorological conditions, the natural-draft cooling tower will emit evaporative plumes that may be visible from locations within the 16-km (10-mi) area. Expected visible plume occurrences are described in Section 5.3.3.1, and predicted frequency of plume occurrences are shown in FSAR 1 Figures 2.3-1 through 2.3-25. The anticipated plumes for 5-percent, 1-percent, and 0.1-percent occurrences at selected locations are shown on Figures 3.1-4 through 3.1-7, and an analysis of their visual impacts is presented in Section 5.8.1.1. The plume occurrence denotes the maximum extent of plume that is visible for a certain percent of time, as shown on the figures.

Starting in April and continuing through September, when recreational activities on the lake and along the shoreline are frequent, the cooling tower will be visible from the shoreside by fishermen, recreational users, and others at facilities such as the Ontario Bible Conference Association

_ Camp (a lakefront facility bordering the site on the west).

\ s' Cooling tower plumes are not expected to have a significant visual impact. Most visually sensitive sites, listed in Table 3.1-1, are located in vegetated or developed areas, specifically within the city of Oswego. Therefore, distant views that might include the plume are not possible from these sites. However, at locations along the shoreline at

elevated grades, such as Fort Ontario (Figure 3.1-5), plumes -l 2 may be visible.

The visual impact of Unit 2 is minimal due to the limited number of locations from which the plant is visible, the lack of visibility from many visually sensitive or intensive land use areas, and the small portion of plant structures that can be seen above the surrounding vegetation.

3.1.3 Architectural Rendering of the Plant Figure 3.1-8 chows an architectural rendering of the Unit 2 facility, including all major station features and land-scaping whether actually completed or planned.

Supplement 1 3.1-3 May 1983 a

___________m___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _

9 e es 8

DOCUMENT

- ~

~'

. PAGE~ .

PULLED

~

'ANO~ ( .

M-,

NO. OF PAGES REASON O PAGE tu.EGIB2 CF D MARD COW FdD A1. PDR owrR _

J J_

D BETTER COW REQUESTED ON _

hPAGE100 LARGE10 FEM.

g w o COW ,uo n con h.

OMER _

N ~

FEMED ON APER 10RE CARD NO b

_ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ .__--no.-. --

Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS 3.3 PLANT WATER USE

[V) 3.3.1 Water Consumption and Use During normal operation, an average of 3,380 1/s (53,600 gpm) of lake water is withdrawn from Lake Ontario and utilized mostly as cooling water. Figure 3.3-1

, schematically illustrates the water flow and use at Unit 2.

I As illustrated, the water from Lake Ontario enters the system via the screenwell and is circulated throughout the system ny the service water pumps. Table 3.3-1 lists the calculated cooling water flows and associated temperatures for Unit 2 'over a 12-month period. Data presen,ted in Table 3.3-1 represent the maximum, minimum, and average flows . expected. The total flow is significantly reduced during a shutdown condition. The following discussion describes the pattern of flow for normal operation.

Upon entering the screenwell, 940 1/s (14,925 gpm) of flow are directed to the fish diversion system, which discharges to . Lake Ontario. The remaining 2,440 1/s (38,675 gpm) of flow passes through the screenwell to the service water system.

The main flow path from the service water system is to the Q

(_,/

circulating water system and the service water bypass.

Approximately 1,580 1/s (25,000 gpm) are utilized as makeup to the circulating water system, and an average of 860 1/s (13,675 gpm) are returned to the lake. Of the 1,580 1/s (25,000 gpm) entering the circulating water system, an average of 625 1/s (9,920 gpm) is lost by evaporation and drift from the cooling tower. The remaining outflow from the circulating water system is 955 1/s (15,080 gpm), which returns to the lake via the discharge tunnel.

Minimal flow is anticipated for the makeup demineralizer, chemical waste treatment, reactor building usage, turbine building usage, and radwaste system. Initially, these systems woul.d require filling (approximately 3.4x108 1

[900,000 gal]) at a rate of 13 1/s (200 gpm). These systems are shown on Figure 3.3-1 as the dashed-block section, because these systems require minimal flow (closed circuit area). Minimal losses are anticipated and only makeup water is required.

Table 3.3-2 lists the estintated water use outflows for the various systems, which vary depending on the mode or condition of the system. Therefore, the various flows for minimum, maximum, and refueling conditions are tabulated.

3.3-1

[~'>i

\_-

l Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS As indicated, the discharge rate under a maximum condition is low, once the system is online.

Flows for various water uses are listed in Table 3.3-2.

During normal plant operation, the reactor building systems utilize a minimum of 0 to 1.3 1/o (20 gpm) and a maximum of 57 1/s (910 gpm) for the durations noted. Collectively, the turbine building users and the radwaste building users consume a minimum of 0 to 27 1/s (425 gpm) and 0 to 2.8 1/s (45 gpm), respectively, under normal plant operation.

The water treatment system is designed for a maximum flow of 16 1/s (250 gpm), of which 3 1/s (40 gpm) are used as seal water for the circulating water pumps. The remaining 13 1/s (210 gpm) are for makeup water system use, as needed.

The Oswego City Water Supply is the water source for the sanitary system. Other uses of the Oswego City Water Supply are as shown on Figure 3.3-1.

In summary, the station water use is extremely small. The Unit 2 withdrawal rate is approximately 0.03 percent of the average flow through Lake Ontario, as discussed in Section 5.2.1.

3.3.2 Water Treatment 3.3.2.1 Circulating Water System Sulfuric acid and sodium hypochlorite are added to the circulating water system to maintain scale-free and clean heat exchange surfaces. Descriptions of both the sulfuric acid and sodium hypochlorite subsystems follow. A schematic flow diagram of sulfuric acid and hypochlorite addition systems is shown on Figure 3.3-2. Neither pretreatment of the makeup water nor treatment of the cooling tower blowdown is necessary.

Sulfuric Acid Addition Calcium carbonate scaling in piping, in the tower, and in the condenser is controlled by converting calcium carbonate, a natural constituent of the lake water, to calcium sulfate via sulfuric acid addition. Sulfuric acid is added to reduce, but not completely remove, the alkalinity of the circalating water, thereby controlling calcium carbonate scaling by shifting the carbonate / bicarbonate equilibrium.

When Unit 2 is operating at full load, dilution water for 8 the acid feed system is taken from the discharge side of the Supplement 3 3.3-2 September 1983

W

, <# # o

• '[9(

/

gy/4:@3, IMAGE-.,<,,

EVALUATION

((//

,4;,.

+ .

1.0 'd E Un S T Has I.I fj ES E

I.25 1.4 1.6 4 150mm >

6" >

1. 4$7

% ,F ,

A

/#>A'44%

% o 7/ .

<+<w<>

\

+p p o

\g %$>#" M/ IMAGE EVALUATION ((gf 5 4 i

% gf// v $k// TEST TARGET (MT-3) .

// ,%p </s[4'4,//

f 4 y,, .

%% s,%

+&+,

l.0 'g an m 5

• EE ii  !'E u

23e 1.25 1.4 1.6 150mm #

6" #

%% /

b ?t}.v(Of,++/h OkV>,yf'

+2) 50' $N

/j/

k+ %# // IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3)

(( / [k9

//g 1.0 FlM EMl[ I!In ii i= Illa l.8 I.25 1.4 1.6 l

4 150mm >

4 6" >

nh*%

• g >/f

/$g h, //

t,j<y[4 ,

~ . - .- . - -. -- . - _ _ - -

T Nina Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS condenser at two points. Approximately 0.06 1/s (1 gpm) of 93 percent sulfuric acid is-added to the circulating water s j system at .the discharge side of each condenser. Acid-addition is continuous and manually controlled.

. The' sulfuric acid storage tanks are installed in an acid-resistant building and have inherent design features that contain any spillage due to rupture or leakage of a tank.

Sodium Hypochlorite Addition Biofouling in the circulating water system is controlled by using sodium hypochlorite, which acts essentially the same as chlorine, but is safer to handle. Sodium hypochlorite reduces reproduction of algae, fungi, and' bacteria. The condenser and cooling tower will be treated daily with sodium hypochlorite within the limits prescribed by the

^

EPA (18 These limits are 2 hr/ day of chemical treatment, not to exceed a total residual chlorine level- of 0.2 mg/l (average) and 0.5 mg/l (maximum) in accordance with SPDES permit requirements.

Sodium hypochlorite is produced onsite by the reaction of

- salt and water in an; electrolytic cell. The equipment has the capacity- to generate sodium hypochlorite at a maximum T

rate of 907 kg (2,000 lb) of chlorine equivalent per day.

- The _hypochlorite . produced is stored in a hypochlorite storage tank from which it is fed into the circulating water system- as needed. Similar to the acid storage tanks, the 4 hypochlorite storage tank is also designed .to contain any l spillage. Sodium hypochlorite solution is injected into the j circulating water system directly ahead of the condenser.

j The amount of hypochlorite added depends on the chlorine demand of the circulating water as well as the frequency and i duration of chlorination. The rate of chlorine addition is controlled automatically by a continuous chlorine analyzer,

-located immediately downstream:of the condenser, to ensure that the concentration of free available chlorine is below 0.5 mg/l at the outlet of the condenser, in conformance with EPA standards. Automatic feedback control is performed by the free ch1crine analyzer. The circulating water system is expected to be chlorinated once a day for a- 30-min period.

Based on the preceding chlorination characteristics and the EPA Residual Modelca) , calculations indicate that both free available and total residual chlorine concentrations comply with applicable federal effluent regulations specified in 40CFR423(2) .

Supplement 3 3.3-3 September 1983 a i 1

-- e~- w w.- c---.= , _ ~ < , ..-rc ,-%,+ w- , -.we...- .----%...y .-.------,..,-m.,--,--cwmi--,,-.r,,,,7%yn%.--,-%,w,,,,,c,,-e.w%-w,-.-,,y,y-

Nina Milo Point Unit 2 ER-OLS 3.3.2.2 Makeup Water Treatment System l

The makeup water treatment system is designed to remove dissolved and suspended solids from raw lake water to  ;

produce high-quality filtered demineralized water. l Demineralized water is necessary for use during plant operation as makeup or washdown by various systems in the turbine, reactor, and radwaste buildings. The makeup water system is composed of:

1. Pretreatment process -

an anthracite and an activated carbon filter.

2. Demineralizer process - degasifer, weak and strong cation, weak and strong anion, and mixed-bed ion exchange units.

The demineralized water product is pumped to the makeup water system and distributed as required or stored for subsequent use.

The expected makeup water system product water quality is as listed in Table 3.3-3.

Essentially, all dissolved constituents present in water are removed by the cation and anion demineralizers. The mixed-bed demineralizers serve as. a polishing unit to remcve trace quantities of dissolved solids that may pass through the cation or anion demineralizers.

The cation-anion and mixed-bed demineralizers require periodic regeneration using sulfuric acid and sodium hydroxide to restore resins to the hydrogen and hydroxyl form. During normal operation, it is expected that the i

makeup deminera'.izer system will require regeneration l approximately twice a month. During startup, the demineralizers may be regenerated as frequently as once a day to provide sufficient demineralized water to the steam generator. The approximate quantities of chemicals expected to be used per regeneration are as follows:

1. Sulfuric acid (489 kg [1,079 lb] as 93% H 2SO4).

2. Sodium hydroxide (267 kg [589 lb] as 50% NaOH).

3.3.2.3 Condensate Demineralizer System The condensate demineralizer system demineralizes and polishes water from the condensate system. The expected condensate demineralizer system product water quality is as listed in Table 3.3-4.

3.3-4 O

O O s O

1 13 000 GPM f v &PoA ATeo*e

,, ,n CeaC.u.t wA, A..flNG. ,,v., _

W l ] m

,@ { 1P CONDENSER 1 P 4

to 21 J L <4) coounc i

l M towra eneA J (( m l r g

("

g=sion P,

l f2> J L 3i p.

,- - J( .

&g

, r +'"

_m i g<l'"mtr; l r ,, u.. . . s, A stowoowe rtow .

Cou rnot i i 1 1 1 ,c ,,,3 g

2>

• • • • J L m D-+ C ("

. . ,, .P a ., c.

, r l

l pzi ._J L m BtowCOwN

, r <,,

i v

j i fi I ,,

i S , ,

ro senviCs wars a l

t aoiscuencri s ys t r u }

j enow se n..Cs wartasysreu 1 NOf t At t flow Raf f s ARE APPRomiM AT E CONsf ANT 75 000 GPM

... . .,~c ou . ..ovioi o nua,eso minre n wwenimrams waren TruPtnArunt FIGURE 3.4-1

is ne ton is r l CIRCULATING WATER SYSTEM j (1) TO HYPOCHLORITE SYSTEM (2) FROM HYPOCHLORITE SYSTEM j (3) TO ACIO FEED SYSTEM M@RA WMM POMR QRPORATON (4) FROM ACID FEED SYSTEM

NINE MILE POINT-UNIT 2 l ENVIRONMENTAL REP' ORT-OLS SUPPLEMENT 3 SEPTEMBER 1983

Nino Milo Point Unit 2 ER-OLS

['] as follows: for the January-March period, 1.48; April-June,

(_' 1.76; July-September, 1.85; and October-December, 1.60.

3.6.1.1.5 Operating Cycles for Each Waste Treatment System or Discharge The cooling tower blowdown represents a continuous and relatively constant flow wasto stream during normal Unit 2 operation. The average blowdown rate is 950 1/s (15,068 gpm); the minimum blowdown rate, which dictates the maximum chemical concentrations, is 706 1/s (11,188 gpm).

Sodium hypochlorite addition is not constant and depends on the chlorine demand of the circulating water. In addition, the duration and frequency of sodium hypochlorite addition are altered to ensure compliance with SPDES permit requirements of 0.2 mg/l (average) and 0.5 mg/l (maximum) 3 total residual chlorine for no longer than 2 hr/ day.

SJ.ifuric acid additions to the circulating water system are likewise controlled by demand, in this case, alkalinity.

Quantities are not likely to fluctuate to any great degree, due to the rather narrow range of alkalinity values reported for Lake Ontario's Nine Mile Point region (Section 2.3.3).

Makeup demineralization wastewaters are generated fy approximately once per month. During startup, the large

('"' ) additional demand of high-quality water necessitates regeneration once a day. The quantities of sodium hydroxide and sulfuric acid per regeneration are listed in Section 3.3.2.

3.6.1.2 Discharges to Land: Characteristics and Quantities of Sludges and Proposed Methods of Ultimate Disposal Sludge and sediment accumulated in the cooling tower basin are projected to be removed at 5-yr intervals. These materials consist of solids including chemicals and biocides, concentrated through the evaporative cooling process and collected in the cooling tower basin. The 5-yr estimated volume is 1,668 cu m (58,900 cu ft). The sludge will be chemically analyzed, removed, and disposed of offsite in a New York State-licensed disposal facility suitable for wastes of this nature. With the exception of the sanitary waste sludge and miscellaneous solid waste, there are no other planned discharges to land.

Supplement 3 3.6-3 September 1983 p

\vl

Nina Milo Point Unit 2 ER-OLS 3.6.1.3 Discharges to Air The natural-draft cooling tower requires 19 to 38 million 1/s (40 to 80 million cfm) of ambient air to dissipate the waste heat from the main condenser in the circulating water system. The airflow rate is dependent on ambient at-mospheric conditions and therefore varies throughout the year, reaching a maximum in the winter. The effluents are commonly described as cooling tower drift and visible plumes.

3.6.1.3.1 Cooling Tower Drift As the circulating water flows through the fill section of a cooling tower, the action of the falling water over the splash bars creates small water droplets, some of which are entrained in the air flowing through the tower. The size distribution of these droplets is given in Section 5.3.3.1.1.2. Most droplets are between 10 and 600 microns. Those droplets which leave the tower in the exit airflow are referred to as drift. The drift rate for natural-draft cooling towers varies with the exit airflow.

Based on manufacturers' standard designs for natural-draft 1l cooli.ig towers, a maximum drift rate of 0.005 percent of the circulating water flow is assumed. This results in a maximum drift emission rate of about 0.76 1/s (12 gpm).

3.6.1.3.2 Evaporation Ambient air induced through a cooling tower becomes heated and moisture-laden as a result of the evaporative cooling process, and a visible plume is formed when the air is dis-charged from the tower. The frequency of occurrence and ex-tent of the visible plume depend upon meteorological con-ditions existing at the time and upon the design and phys-ical parameters of the cooling tower. A detailed evaluation of visible plume occurrences is presented in Section 5.3.3.1.1.1.

For a given ambient wet-bulb temperature, an increase in relative humidity of ambient air results in a decrease in total moisture removed by cooling tower exit air and a de-crease in the evaporative cooling. Conversely, a decrease in ambient relative humidity results in an increase in cooling tower exit air moisture content and an increase in the evaporative cooling. At the design wet-bulb temperature of 23 C (74 F) and a relative humidity of 50 percent, the increase in moisture content of air in the tower is 0.018 kg (0.039 lb) of water per 0.454 kg (1 lb) of dry air. With ambient relative humidities of 25 and 100 percent, the Supplement 1 3.6-4 May 1983

Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS increases in moisture content are 0.024 and 0.012 kg (0.053

-(N- /) and 0.026 lb) of water per O.454 kg (1 lb) of dry air, respectively. The effects of these additional amounts of moisture added to the atmosphere on ground-level ambient relative humidity are discussed in Section 5.3.3.1.1.5.

3.6.2 Sanitary Waste Treatment The normal sanitary waste flow from Unit 2, based on a nor-mal operating force of 300 people and an estimated 124 1/ day / person (33 gpd/ person), is

~

37,472 1/ day (9,900 gpd). The maximum flow, based on an estimated maintenance ,

outage work force of 1,500 people, is 187,358 1/ day (49,500 9pd). ,

4 Sanitary wastes from Unit 2 will be treated along with sanitary wastes generated at Unit 1. The combined sanitary waste flows will be treated and monitored to comply with the following State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit effluent limitations:

Parameter Limits Settleab'le solids 0.1 mg/l maximum daily

~

Total suspended solids 25 mg/l average daily (1)

L(( )j 45 mg/l maximum daily (2) 5-day biochemical 25 mg/l average daily (1) oxygen demand (BODS) 45 mg/l maximum daily (2)

Chlorine residual 0.5 ppm maximum-daily pH 6.0-9.0 Fecal coliforms 200 MPN/100 ml day geomet-ric mean 400 MPN/100 ml day geomet-ric mean Sanitary waste sludge will be disposed of by a contractor in accordance with NYCRR,' Title 6, Chapter 360.

(1) Daily average calculated by dividing monthly discharge by number of days in month, s (2) Daily maximum is maximum discharged in one day.

Supplement 3 3.6-5 September 1983

^

A 9

, -- - - , - - . . . - n= ,. - . . , , - , - . ,

,------w,,-,n

- , , , - . ~ . --, ,

Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS 3.6.3 Other Wastes 3.6.3.1 Descriptions of Miscellaneous Wastes Waste streams discussed in this section include filter backwash, storm water, roof drains, nonradioactive plant drains, treated radioactive wastewater, transfer pit drain, and cooling tower sludge. Filter backwash consists of resuspended filtered lake water solids. The quality and quantity of storm water and roof drains are essentially that of incident precipitation. The nonradioactive plant drains consist of administration building, service building, and water treatment and demineralizer building floor drains.

(Turbine and reactor building drains go to the radwaste treatment system.) Treated radioactive wastewater is composed of drains and reject waters treated for removal of radioactive substances (Section 3.5). The floor drain for the diesel generator building and the transfer pit drain have the potential for centamination with oil. Cooling tower sludge consists of suspended sclids retained in the cooling basin.

3.6.3.2 Estimates of Waste Quantities to be Disposed and Their Pollutant Concentration at Points of Release The filter backwash generates 0.032 cu m/sec (50 gpm) of wastewater for a 15-min petiod once every 3 week"s. The suspended solids concentration will vary as a function of the quantity of suspended matter in the lake water filtered '

to supply the makeup water system.

The quantities of storm water and roof drainage vary and are directly dependent upon the storm event that generates them.

The design flow is based on a maximum daily (24-hr) rainfall of 12.7 cm (5 in), with a return frequency of 100 yr.

Nonradioactive floor drains are discharged to the storm drain system at variable flow rates, dependent upon maintenance and cleaning schedules for the facility. The combined nonradioactive floor drains, storm water, and transfer pit and roo.' drains are estimated to generate a flow not greater than 14,000 cu m/ day (3.7 mgd). Treated radioactive wastewaters are quantified in Section 3.5. The volume of cooling tower sludge generated in 5 yr is estimated to be approximately 1,668 cu m (58,900 cu ft).

The cooling tower sludge removal frequency from the cooling tower basin is anticipated to be once every 5 yr.

3.6-6

i Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS

() . fraction of the station water use. Table 3.3-1 details the evaporative losses associated with plant cooling water use

.(a maximum of' 0.871 cu m/sec [13,800 gpm], a minimum of

..O.246 cu'm/sec-[3,900 gpm]) and lists service water and fish diversion system maximum, average, and minimum monthly flow rates.

Lake Ontario water is used for drinking water supply, indus-trial water supply, agricultural water supply, commercial fishing, sportfishing, swimming, boating, and commercial

shipping, as discussed in Section 2.3.2. Unit 2 operation will not~ impact the availability of drinking, agricultural, and industrial water supplies, considering the low rate- of

, ' consumption of Lake Ontario water (Section 5.2.1).

No impact on swimming, recreational boating, or commercial shipping will occur as a result of Unit 2 operation. The facility intake structures, located approximately 290 and 320 m (950 and 1,050 ft) offshore and approximately 167 and s 137 m (550 and 450 ft) closer to shore than the discharge structure, are well removed from any swimming recreational use (Section 2.5.2). The intake-structures (located at a

. lesser depth than the discharge structure) are submerged 3.05'm (10 ft) below the mean low surface water elevation.

Station operation.will not change surface water elevations,

~ and no significant alterati<an of circulation patterns is ex-s_/) ected (Section 5.2.1); thus' recreational boating will not

- be affected by station operation. Commercial shipping ves-sels pass-no closer than 11.3 km (7 mi) from the intake and

, discharge structures and will- not be affected by station operation (Section 2.3.2).

Commercial and sportfishing water uses will be minimally af-fected by hydrologic alterations resulting from Unit 2 operation, with impacts' restricted to the dilution zone of l the thermal plume and localized regions of the intake Standing stocks of commercially and rec-structures.

i reationally important species will be subject to insig-l nificant alterations,' as discussed in detail in Sections 5.3.1-and 5.3.2.

Groundwater Groundwater is used for public and private water supplies by several communities in Oswego County (Section 2.3.2). No other groundwater use has been identified. Unit 2 operation will not affect this water use. No station effluents will

! be discharged to groundwater. An ongoing groundwater dewatering program for the reactor containment foundation will produce a minor cone of depression (Section 5.2.1).

\2 Supplement'3 5.2-3 September 1983

Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS Since all groundwater use occurs upgradient of the site and groundwater discharge onsite is toward the lake, no present or anticipated groundwater uses will be affected by station operation.

5.2.2.2 Analysis of Water Quality Changes and Potential Impacts to Water Use Lake Ontario water uses that are susceptible to impacts resulting from station operation, due to changes in water quality, include swimming, drinking, agricultural and indus-trial water consumption, commercial fishing, and sportfishing. As discussed in Sections 5.3 and 5.5, thermal and chemical releases from Unit 2 become significantly diluted within a defined region, well before the point of withdrawal or use for drinking water, agricultural or indus-trial water supplies, or swimming.

Effluent chemical constituents from Unit 2 are largely natural lake constituents concentrated in the circulating water system by a maximum factor of 2.33 and an average fac-tor of 1.67 (Section 3.6.1). Table 3.6-1 lists the concen-trations of important water quality parameters at the edge of the dilution zone of the thermal plume and the average concentration in Nine Mile Point regional waters. There is a minor increase of these concentrations at the edge of the dilution zone as a result of station operation. Extensive additional dilution prior to withdrawal or in situ use will-result in a negligible impact of plant operation on swimming, drinking, agricultural, and industrial water uses.

Aquatic biota will be subject to impacts of heat, induced flow patterns, and elevated concentrations of water quality constituents in the dilution zone (Sections 5.3.2 and 5.5).

However, as discussed in Section 5.3.2, the dilution zone is an extremely small volume fraction of the receiving water body, and wastes discharged to this volume will not produce a significant impact on the average standing stock of com-mercially and recreationally important fish species.

Consequently, there will be no significant impacts to com-mercial or recreational fishing.

5.2.2.3 Mitigating Measures Impacts te Lake Ontario water use resulting from the operation of the facility are minimal. Impacts to aquatic biota are mitigated by the fish diversion system (Section 5.3.1). Further mitigation of the minor impacts associated with the water use of Unit 2 is, therefore, unwarranted.

5.2-4

O O O i

12 W WATER LEVEL (ELEVATION 74.1m) i /

/

/

- /

59 -

/

U i

/

G s'/

6 -

/

p

, o / -

/ #

i l

E 2! / 3 .?. / -

~

3 - #

~

5.0

• F 2.0

• F

~

- 110.0

• F I I I I I "

- 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (m) f PARAMETERS

NOZZLE DIAMETER

0.5m (1.5ft) DISCHARGE FLOW: 1.81m 3/s (28,752 gpm) i NOZZLE ANGLE: 5*up DISCH ARGE AT: 9.8'C (17.64 *F)

NUMBER OF NOZZLES: 2 DISCHARGE VELOCITY: 5.51m/s (18.1 fps) FIGURE 5.3-6 PREDICTED TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION-

VERTICAL SECTION ALONG CENTERLINE

) ANNUAL AVERAGE CONDITION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT-UNIT 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT-OLS SUPPLEMENT 3 SEPTEMBER 1983

l i

l i

12 4 WATER LEVEL (ELEVATION 74.1m) ,

• I I

i I 2.0

• F '

l j

! E 9 -

/

q l 0 /j j 2 / <

4 6 - = p,/ -

{

a

$ p#-

- w 3.0

• F 2.0* F

/

3 -

1. s' 5.0

• F j ,

2.5'F /

/

f i

1. s' . J r* * / /

/

~ '110.0

• F _- 8.0'F 4.0

• F j p#

l o I i i i l I L -d I j 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 HORIZONTAL DIST ANCE (m) i 1

{ PARAMETERS I NOZZLE DIAMETER: 0.5.- 1.5ft) DISCHARGE FLOW: 1.64m 3/s (25,984 gpm) l NOZZLE ANGLE: 5'up DISCHARGE AT: 14.4'C (25.83*F) i NUMBER OF NOZZLES DISCHARGE VELOCITY: 4.99m/s (16.38 fps) FIGURE 5.3-7 l

i PREDICTED TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION-

! VERTICAL SECTION ALONG CENTERLINE SUMMER WORST CONDITION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT-UNIT 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT-OLS SUPPLEMENT 3 SEPTEMBER 1983

1 O O: 4 O

l l

l 12 --V WATER LEVEL (ELEVATION 74.1m) ,

\ 2.0

• F

)

k9 -

! 6 / /

i

= /

W. f

/ s

/

6 -

/

f i > /p/ .5' F J/'

1 3 -

1. p# .M 0*F ~

2.0

• F 0*F

}D ,/

0 b ~ ' - I I I I U I O 3 6 9 12 15 18 21- 24 27 30 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (m)

]

i i

t PARAMETERS l NOZZLE DIAMETER: 0.5m (1.5ft) DISCHARGE FLOW: 1.45m 3/s (23,055 gpm)

! NOZZLE ANGLE: 5*up DISCH ARGE AT: 15.5*C (27.99*F)

NUMBER OF NOZZLES: 2 DISCHARGE VELOCITY: 4.42m/s (14.5 fps) FIGURE 5.3-8 PREDICTED TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION-VERTICAL SECTION ALONG CENTERLINE WINTER WORST CONDITION 1

l NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT-UNIT 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT-OLS SUPPLEMENT 3 SEPTEMBER 1983

p t C 3

p) s w

, Nine Mile Point Unit'2 ER-OLS .

TABLE 6.8-1 (Cont) i Section i Re fe rence Description Freauency Lncation Method 6.4.1 Relative humidity Continuous 9 m (30 ft), 61 m (200 ft) Xeritron humidi r.y sensors.

(Cont) 1974-1978 Dew point Continuous 8 m (25 ft) EC&G 220 dew poisit sensor, since 1978 l Precipitation Continuous Nea r base of tower Weathermeasure PS11E rain gauge.

j since 1974 Ba rometric pressure Continucus Nea r base of tower Climatronics sensor.

4 since 1974 6.5.1 Te rrest ria l Ecology August and 1.6 km (1 mi) Li terature survey, aeria l g 3 September 1979 radius of Unit 2 photography, onsite field study l 6.5.2 Aquatic Ecology 6.5.2.1 Preoperational Mon i to ri ng 6.5.2.1.2.1 Phytoplankton Lake studies Bimonthly or NMPE, NMPP, NMPW, FITZ Whole water samples; i monthly depending at 3,6,12, and 18-rs Pa l me r-Ma loney ce l l 1

upon yea r and (10,20,40, and 60-ft) 1973-1974 and 1977-1978 season depth contours Utermohl 1975-1976 1973 through 1978 Ch lo rophyl l 1973-1978

, C-14 1974-1978

En t ra i nment Bimonthly or- Unit 1 intake and Whole water, 1974, 1976;

! monthly depending d i scha rge 1973-1975 Ch l o rophyl l , 1973-1974,

' upon year and JAF intake and dis- 1976-1979; Productivity, season cha rge 1976-1979 1973-1979 1973-1974, 1976-1979

. 6.5.2.1.2.3 Mi c rozoop l ankton i Lake studies Bimonthly or NMPE, NMPP, NMPW, FITZ 76-um mesh vertical monthly depending at 3,6,12, and 18-m tows 1973-1974 upon yea r and (10,20,40, and 60-ft) Cla rke-Bumpus obl ique l season depth contours tow 1975-1976, 1973-1978 Wisconsin net oblique i 1977-1978; Sedgewick-

! Rafter counting cell 1973-1978.

1 1

4 Supplement 3 2 of 5 September 1983 i

3 4

Nine Mile <roint Unit 2 ER-OLS TABLE 6.8-2 (Cont)

Section Re fe rence Dnscription Freauency -Location Method 6.4.2 Barometric pressure Continuous Ground level Teledyne Geotech (Cont) 40.61 Barometric Pressure Processor BP-100 Aneroid Pressure Sensor 6.5.1 Vegetative stress First two years 1.6-km (1 mi) Ae ria l i nf ra red -

study or project opera- radius.of Unit 2 pho tog ra phy 3 tion 6.5.2 Aquatic ecology As required by As requi red by As requi red by SPDES permit SPDES permit SPDES permit 6.6.2.2 chemical As required by As requi red by - As requi red by SPDES permit SPDES permit SPDES permit KEY: SPDES = State pollutant discharge eliminat.%n sdtem.

Supplement 3 2 of 2 September 1983

Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS The final results of the CRAC2 consequence model are

['s-'i displayed as a set of complementary cumulative distribution functions (CCDFo). A CCDF is defined as the probability that the consequences will exceed a given magnitude. CRAC2 determines the final .CCDFs by accounting for all con-sequences produced for each trial and the associated probability of occurrence. A trial is defined as one com-bination of accident release parameters, weather conditions, and downwind population. The curves produced from the C".AC2 CCDF output may be then used to evaluate the health and . economic risks to the public from a large scale core melt accident in a given region surrounding the plant.

Figure 7A.6.1 provides an overall view of the site region.

Figure 7A.6-2 shows a schematic of the CRAC2 consequence model.

Table 7A.6-2 provides identification of the sources for the l3 input parameters to CRAC2 for Unit 2.

Tables 7A.6-3 through 7A.6-7 provide the CRAC2 input for Unit 2 for the isotopes, release parameters, evacuation, population, and meteorological data requirements, respectively.

7A.6.2 Discussion of Health and Economic Impacts r\ ^

( )- The results Figures 7A.6-3 through 7A.6-8.

of CRAC2 computations are presented in CCDFs representing acute fatalities, acute injuries, latent fatalities, latent thyroid cancers, total whole-body man-Rem, and property damage, within 80 km (50 mi) of Unit 2 are provided.

Table 7A.6-8 shows the sensitivity of early effects (acute fatalities and injuries), late effects (latent fatalities and thyroid cancers), and economic effects (property damage) to various parameters.

Acute fatalities are dominated by the high probability of Release Category 2 (Section 7A.5). Release Category 1, al-though possessing rather rapid timing and a large quantity of released activity is not as consequential a release as Category 2. Release Category 3 has a relatively high probability but a lower amount of released activity.

Category 4 is characterized by releases through the SGTS, therefore the activity released is much lower. Category 4 does not contribute to acute fatality consequences.

Acute injuries are dominated by Categories 2 and 3 due to their relatively high probability of occurrence and higher release fractions. The lower activity magnitude of Release Category 3 is not quite as important for injuries as it is

_ for fatalities because of the lower dose thresholds for

\_- Supplement 3 7A.6-3 September 1983 l

l 1

i

Ninn Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS injuries. Release Category 4 makes a small but essentially negligible contribution to acute injuries. The Oswego County, New York Radiological Emergency Response Plan (RERP) outlines six evacuation scenarios covering the various combinations of season and time of day. No one evacuation model dominated early effects. The difference in early effect consequences among the 6 models differed by no more than 10 percent.

Latent fatalities and thyroid cancers result from lower doses than those that produce acute fatalities. These are 2

integral effects over large areas and long time periods, and are extrapolated from the radiogenic cancer effects observed following exposure to higher doses such as the Japanese atomic bomb survivors. Because of the affinity of the human thyroid for halogens such as iodine, thyroid cancer is most sensitive to the amount of iodine released. According to the Committee of the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR)(8) solid tumors may take as long as 30 yr to develop, whereas leukemia can occur within 5 yr. Release Categories 2 and 3 with their higher probabilities of occurrence, dominate the latent fatality CCDFs. Release Category 2, with its higher iodine release, dominates the thyroid cancer CCDFs. The thyroid cancer results include both malignant and benign radiogenic tumors.

Economic impact is assessed in terms of the cost to all affected property and includes both evacuation and 2

relocation costs. As with latent effects, property damage CCDFs are dominated by Release Categories 2 and 3.

Figure 7A.6-7 provides the CCDFs for total cost with and without decontamination. When decontaminatior procedures are carried out, this adds cost; however, the decontamination restores property to economic use, and the 2 interdiction costs are reduced. Although decontamination is expensive, it is a one-time cost, whereas interdiction of property, particularly farm property, has a long-term effect and hence creates greater economic loss and hardship. This is reflected in the CCDFs in Figure 7A.6-7. The probability of a given dollar loss is greater when decontamination is not performed. This reflects the higher (long-term) interdiction costs.

The demography and annual wind rose frequencies for the Unit 2 site are such that approximately 55 percent of the time the wind blows out over Lake Ontario including sectors containing both land and lake. Only 9 percent of the total 80-km (50-mi) regional population resides in sectors which border Lake Ontario, and one-half of these people live Supplement 2 7A.6-4 June 1983

Nina Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS

'h 1

[d QUESTION E240.5 (5.6)

Descriptions of floodplains, as required by Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, have not been provided.

The definition used in the Executive Order is:

Floodplain: The lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters including floodprone areas of offshore islands, including minimum that area subject to a one percent or greater changes of flooding in any given year, a) Provide descriptions of the floodplain adjoining Lake Ontario adjacent to the site and plant facilities. On a suitable scale map (s) provide delineations of those areas that will be flooded during the one percent (100 year) flood both before and after plant construction.

b) Provide details of the methods used to determine the floodplain in response to a) above. ' Include your assumptions of and basis for the pertinent parameters used in the computation of the water elevations. If studies approved by the Federal Insurance Adn:inistration (FIA) are available for the site and other affected areas, the details of the analysis used in the reports

,\~# need not be supplied. You can, instead, provide the reports from which you obtained the floodplain information.

c) Identify, locate on a map and describe all plant

structures 'and topographic alterations in the floodplains. Indicate the start and completion dates of l all such items.

RESPONSE

The response can be found in revised ER-OLS Section 2.3.1.1.7. Six copies of FIA report, " Flood Insurance Study for Scriba, New York," have been provided under separate correspondence to the NRC on August 25, 1983. s j , Supplement 3 Q&R E240.5-1 September 1983 i

(%

l

Nino Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS

, QUESTION E291.1 (2.3.2.3) a) Provide annual commercial fishery harvest estimates for the years 1976 through 1980 for that portion of Lake Ontario within the 80-km radius.

b) Provide estimates' of the sport fish harvest by weight and species, similar to the estimates of number of fish presented in Tables 2.3-8, -9, -10. Also provide estimated sport fish harvest by weight for that portion j gof Lake Ontario within the 80 km radius.

-RESPONSE a) - Commercial fishery harvest estimates are not available for only that portion of Lake Ontario within an 80-km radius of Unit 2. No further breakdown of data is available for U.S. waters; however, the U.S. figures in Table 2.3-7 are considered a reasonable estimate of the 80-km radius harvest since most of the U.S. commercial fish harvest is caught in the eastern basin of Lake Ontario (more than half of the catch comes from Chaumont Bay). Major ports of landing are Chaumont and Oswego, 3

both of which are within the 80-km region. While data specific only to the 80 km region is not available for 3rg Canadian waters, catch estimates provided in the ER-OLS ,

, ( ) for an area approximately 80-km have been revised to include only statistical districts (of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River) 3, 4, 5, and 6. Each of these districts- is partially within the 80-km region.

Commercial fish harvest in kilograms for these combined districts from 1976 through 1981 is listed in Table 2.3-16.

b). Sport fish harvest estimates are not available for areas smaller than those already provided in the ER-OLS; however, Tables 2.3-9 and 2.3-10 have been revised to include estimates of catch weight in kilograms (weight 4

was estimated using average weight per species). No estimates of catch w- tht can be calculated for New York Anglers' harvest si. .c e fish catch numbers are not indicated for each species. The variation in weight of i species included' in each catch group is too broad to

, estimate average weight.

1 i

- Supplement 3 Q&R E291.1-1 September 1983 i.

Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS QUESTION E291.9 (5.3)

Provide the ' status of the application for an SPDES permit for operation of Unit 2.

RESPONSE

't The final SPDES permit for Units 1 and 2 was issued by 8

NYSDEC on June 6, 1983. A copy of the permit is provided in

!- revised Appendix 1A.

u 1

1 2

i i

4 i

i j

l 1

i 1

i

.I l Supplement 3 Q&R E291.9-1 September 1983 i

f i

i i

- --_-... . _ _ . .._..-- _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . - _ _ _ - ~ - _ . _ . . . _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _

Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS

()

s_-

QUESTION E291.13 (6.5.2.2)

Provide the details of the proposed plan of study of 316(a) and (b) monitoring under the SPDES permit.

RESPONSE

In accordance with the provisions of the combined SPDES permit for Units 1 and 2 (see Revised Appendix 1A), NMPC is required to submit a plan of study for verification of the extent of the Unit 2 thermal plume in Lake Ontario to the NYSDEC 180 days prior to the initiation of discharge.

The SPDES permit also . requires that existing biological 3 studies in Lake Ontario required by regulatory agencies continue and that such study programs be adjusted as required by regulatory agencies to assess the operating impact of Unit 2. The scope of any adjustments to the biological studies will be negotiated between NMPC and the NYSDEC prior to operation.

l l

4 g Suppleinent 3 Q&R E291.13-1 September 1983

(

i.

i

) Nine Mile-Point Unit 2 ER-OLS l

QUESTION E291.14 (1.2) 4 Provide the estimated schedule for finalizing the SPDES; l include the hearing schedule.

2

RESPONSE

The final SPDES permit was issued on June 6, 1983 (see 3 i revised Appendix 1A).

i i

4 O

i t

4 b

September 1983  !

Supplement 3 Q&R E291.14-1 L.._ _ 2 .._ . . _ _ _ . _ , _ . . _ . . _ . , _ _ . . , _ _ . _ _ _ _ , _ ,

Nina Milo Point Unit 2 ER-OLS QUESTION E320.1 (l

\s Provide the following:

A production cost analysis which shows the difference'in system production costs associated with the availability vs.

unavailability of the proposed nuclear addition. Note, the resulting cost differential should be limited solely to the variable or incremental costs associated with generating electricity from the proposed nuclear addition and the sources of replacement energy. If, in your analysis, other factors influence the cost differential, explain in detail.

a. The analysis should provide results on an annual basis covering the period from initial operation of the first unit through five full years of operation of the last unit. ,

b. Where more than one utility shares ownership in the proposed nuclear addition or where the propcsed facility is centrally dispatched as part of an interconnected pool, the results of the analysis may be aggregated for all participating systems.

c. The analysis should assume electrical energy requirements grow at' (1) the system's latest 7-~g official forecasted growth rate, and (2) zero

( ) growth from the latest actual annual energy requirement.

d. All underlying assumptions should be explicitly identified and explained.

e. For each year (and for each growth rate scenario) the following results should be clearly stated:

(1) system production costs with the proposed l nuclear addition available as scheduled; (2) system production costs without the proposed nuclear addition available; (3) the capacity factor assumed for the nuclear addition; (4) the average fuel cost and variable O&M for the nuclear addition and the sources of replacement energy (by fuel type) - both r expressed in mills per kWh; and (5) the proportion of replacement energy assumed to be provided by coal, oil, gas, etc. (The base year for all costs should be identified.)

4

RESPONSE

A response to this request has been submitted to the NRC

• under separate cover on September 9, 1983.

m

(_ Supplement 3 Q&R E320.1-1 September 1983 1

_m- ,

_--,-,_,-,m , _ _ , - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - , - -

Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS QUESTION E320.2 Frovide average, present worth fuel and O and M costs fo.r the Nuclear Unit. (This cost should be calculated for both a 30-year and a 40-year operating life.) Provide escalation, discount rates, and 'all other variables assumed in calculating these costs.

RESPONSE

A response to this request has been submitted to the NRC l3 under separate cover on September 9, 1983. I l

l Supplement 3 Q&R E320.2-1 September 1983 O

~.

~, _

Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ER-OLS A

() QUESTION E451.1 Hourly data tape with onsite meterological data for Nine Mile Point-2 was submitted on March 4, 1983. Dew point temperatures were not included on this tape. Provide the dew- point temperatures from November 1, 1973, through October 31, 1980.

RESPONSE

The meteorological data tape, submitted by Niagara Mohawk in a letter dated March 4, 1983, did not contain the dew point temperatures from November 1, 1978, through October 31, 1980, since these data were not employed in any of the meteorological cooling tower plume or cooling tower drift analyses.

Dry bulb and dew point temperatures, as well as pressure '

measured at the meteorological installation, have been added to a revised NRC formatted tape that has been submitted with 3

a separate transmittal letter dated April 29, 1983. FSAR Table 2B-52A lists the monthly data recovery for the dew point temperature for the 2-year period. The format of the revised tape is shown in FSAR Table 2B-54.

O v

i Supplement 3 Q&R 451.1-1 September 1983

\

,. . , . .., .. _- , , , _ _ _ . _ . , _ . - , , _ . . , _ . , _ . . _ . , , _ , . _ _ _ , , . . . _ _ . . - . . , . _ _ , . , _ . - - . . . . , , ,.