ML20083C179
| ML20083C179 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 05/08/1995 |
| From: | Thompson F Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| LR-E95054, NUDOCS 9505150170 | |
| Download: ML20083C179 (131) | |
Text
a O PSEG Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bndge, New Jersey 08038-0236 Nuclear Business Unit CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED ARTICLE NUMBER: P 884 152 389 MAY 0 81995 LR-E95054 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Cont @ Desk Washington, DL 20555 Gentlemen:
HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-57 f)OCKET NO 50-354 iJPDES PERMIT NO, "70025411 The enclosed supplemental information, in support of a request for renewal of the New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) Permit No. NJ0025411, is submitted pursuant to the requirementa of Subsection 3.2 of the Hope Creek Generating Station Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), Non-Radiological (Appendix B to Facility Operating License).
The renewal application for the NJPDES Permit was submitted in accordance with New Jersey Administrative Code, Section 7:14A-2.1(g)5 on March 30, 1990 and supplemented on August 19, 1991.
Should you or your staff require any additional information, please contact Mr. Frank X. Thomson, Jr., Manager - Licensing and Regulation, at (609) 339-1229.
Sincerely, F. X. Thomson, Jr.
Manager -
Licensing and Regulation Enclosure (1) 9505150170 950508 pDR ADOCK 05000354 PDR 000k u
10fIdU lIl WilI LULA
\\
95 Pte REV 694
MAY 0 81995 Document Control-Desk 2
LR-E95054 i
EJK/kjb C
(All w/o Enclosure)
Mr.
D. Moran, Licensing Project Manager I
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Mail Stop 14E21 Rockville, MD 20852 Mr. R. Summers (SO9).
USNRC Senior Resident Inspector Mr. T.T. Martin, Administrator - Region I U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road i
King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. Kent Tosch, Manager IV NJ Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Protection Bureau of Nuclear Engineering CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625
4 t.h L)
I CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED ARTICLE NUMBER: P 884 152 388 MAY 051995 LR-E95055 Mr. George Caporale, Chief New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Water Resources Bureau of Information Systems CN-029 Trenton, NJ 08625-0029
Dear Mr. Caporale:
HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION RENEWAL APPLICATION SUPPLEMENT NJPDES PERMIT HO. NJ0025411 In support of the Hope Creek Generating Station NJPDES Permit renewal application submitted on March 30, 1990 as supplemented O
on August 18, 1991, Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G) is hereby submitting additional information with respect to certain facility operations and discharges (1995 Supplement).
Please insert these pages into the Hope Creek Generating Station Permit Renewal binder, discarding the old pages.
The following summarizes the information included in this 1995 Supplement:
a)
Section II.B.1 of Form 2C has been modified to update the flow and treatment descriptions (Exhibit 1),
i b)
Section II.B.3.a of Form 2C has been modified to include j
greater detail as to the flows, sources, and treatment technologies (Exhibit 2);
]
c)
Additional pollutant data has been included in Section V of Form 2C for outfall DSN 461A.
Supplemental information has been provided to identify the alternative monitoring methodologies available if a continuous monitor is ten.porarily inoperable and an updated schematic is provided (Exhibit 3);
l (2)
i i
Q MAY 0 51995 fT :
NJDEP 2
\\_/ -
LR-E95055 d)
Supplemental information has been provided for DSN 461C to identify the alternative. monitoring methodologies available if a continuous monitor is temporarily inoperable and an updated schematic is provided (Exhibit 4);
9 e)
A proposal to. reroute the Sewage Treatment Plant effluent to DSN 461A is discussed (Exhibit 5);
j t
f)-
Revised schematics for DSN 462A and DSN 463A are provided to update those originally submitted and to indicate the presence of new catch basins installed in the yard drain systems (Exhibit 6);
g)
Revised Schematic of Water Flow updates the flow information j
(Exhibit 7); and, j
.i h)
A supplemental analysis providing further support for the proposed thermal df arge limitations (Exhibit 8).
f The information supplied in this application supplement is in addition to the pollutant and flow data supplied monthly in the l
Discharge Monitoring Reports.
~
If you or any members of your staff have any questions on this submittal, please contact Mr. Frank X. Thomson, Jr., Manager -
j Licensing and Regulation, at (609) 339-1229 or Mr. Edward J.
l Keating at (609) 339-5430.
We are available to meet with you or your staff at your earliest convenience to discuss this matter.
l Sincerely, i
i i
i Enclosure (1) i C
Honorable Wallace Bradway - LACT Ms. Cari J. Wild, Esq. - Division of Law Mr. Flavian Stellarine - NJDEP 95 4933
{
L
r i
MAY 051995 f--
NJDEP 3
t ]j LR-E95055' s_
EJK/kjb BC General Manager - Hope Creek Operations (H07)
General Manager - Environmental Affairs (Newark 17G)
Chemistry Manager - Hope Creek (H15)
Manager - Licensing ann Regulation (N21)
Principal Engineer - Environmental Licensing (N21)
E. J. Keating (N 21)
P. J. McCabe (N 21)
M.
F. Vaskis, Esq. (Newark SC)
M.
F. Strickland (Newark 17G)
C.
E. White (H15)
Microfilm File 2.1.1 HC
'N (O
i l
l f')
s.)
4
E:
}
County of Salem
.d State of New Jersey I, Robert J.
Hovey, General Manager - Hope Creek Operations, certify under penalty of' law that the information provided in this document is true, accurate and complete.
I am aware that there are significant civil and criminal penalties for submitting false, inaccurate or incomplete information, including the possibility of fine and/or imprisonment.
ff l
I V Robert J.
Hovey GeneralManager/
Hope' Creek Operations O.
Sworn and subscribed to bygore me this7 f
ch h
- day of (Ahh 1995
"~.I
.~
/
f l
i f
3\\'..m k/LE4 )b Y ifCLLv'
' Notary Publib gf New Jersey My Commission Expires KlMBERLY JO BROWN NOTAAY l'UBilC Of NEW JERSEY Mr Conwninion tipires 4'il 41998 O
c 1
.g-l t
i County of Salem j
State of New Jersey I,
J. J.-Hagan, Vice President - Nuclear Operations, certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am l
i familiar with the information submitted in this application and j
all attached documents, and that based on my inquiry.of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining.the information, I believe that the submitted information is true, accurate and complete.
I am aware that there are significant i
civil and criminal penalties for submitting false, inaccurate or incomplete information, including the possibility of fine and/or imprisonment.
J. [. aga
\\
Vid re ident l-1 Nuclear O at ons Sworn and subscribed to beforemethis!)Vr/h day of 1995
- / )
^
f}
/AA
- l. sf
(
- k. ' h
- l' Notary Public /of Wew" Jersey l
My. Commission Expires KIMBERLY JO BROWN NOTARY PUBtlC 0F NEW JERSEY
~
My Conunission tip;re, g,g,, jgg, O
O HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION 1995 RENEWAL APPLICATlON SUPPLEMENT EXHIBIT 1 O
(LOCATE BEHIND TAB " FORM 2C: ITEMS l-IV")
O
,i
a..
.-e..
NJ0025411 e.e e e,.,, os. -e...,ee-,,. -.
..:.-2--....=:
..a,:
M APPLICAftog 802 8ttwit 'o olSC>i A2CE stas?t 's ATio 2
g EXISTING MANUF ACTUCING, CCMMERCIAL. MINING AND $1LVICULTUilAL ;PER ATIC*.S anoSs Conscucorre Permurs P"coram b
per seen guttest. seet the ietstues asW iongsfuse of.tt 'ocatica to tae aearest t 5 seconos ene tae aeme of the ecce. ng meter.
-w1-a
- a. 6a viewes I
c wo-o ruo.
'YE' p a
- C8*'"*"'T**'***"
<....i....i
... +.........
l l
n.1 wa r.
461A l
39 l
28 15 7c U
in of...
4618 l
39 i
28 l 15 l 75 32 1 30 i Delaware River I
461C 39 28 15 75 32 30 Betaware Rive-462A i
39 28 ;
15 j 75 1 32 ' 30 Delaware River I Delaware River l
15 l 75
- 32 30 4628 l
39 28 1
463A l
39 28 l 00 75
! 32 l30 Delaware R1ver
- n. plows. souncas orTottution. Ano imaArmant Tacx=otocias j A. Attaca e i.n. orow.n, snow.ae in aetw fiow enroven ine reco.ev. encicate sowroe of intese water. ooerotions comr.owt,.ece. ster 3 -, +".e--
and treatment units tece+ed to coreceponal to the more osteines concriptions en item S. Construct a water Desence on the sene orewieg v seca *i s.e 3) flows between intetas operetsont, treatmerit watts, and outfeilt. If a water bedence cannot De optormened Io g. for go,qeen sen,ng ac t,,, r.pg,
- .q osctonet osecription of tne nature ene amou t of env sources of water and any cod 6sction or trestment mesmares.
n
- 8. For secn outten, provice e osecription of: it s Ain operations contriewting westoweter to tne efftwent. inoweing procoes autswete sea.ta v si e.e e coosing noter, one storm water runoff: (2) The overage flow conenbuted av eacn opeestson: and (3) The treetment rece.ved Dv ine.estenere- ::* ? a.
on socitiones sneets.f necauserv
......,,o s e i c o.. e u,,- o,o o.
, oo,.
F -T. i*f u ' -
' 'J:',," *
- e. 0,.....,i,,
- ^ l:f * *,*,.*n.",.',* "
=.ee imo-Cooling Tower Blowdown 40.5 MGD See Attachment IF 2r l
461A
>r SP i
j 1F Licuid Radioactive l 0.039 MGD See Attaenmeat Waste ystem 2K 4618 (Batch Ooeration) ac I
Low Volume and l 0.06 MGD See Attachment 1H 1V 461C 011y Waste l
41 50 Treatment System l
0.16 MGD l
North va rd g,, 3,,,, %,.,,
u 462A Storm Drain f la t e ani t t ea t Fl awi l
W Sewa9e Treatment j 0.0 6 g,, att,c,,,,,
462B System l
2F 3A l
4A SL l
South Yarc l 0.19 MGD See Attachment 44 463A Stom Drain l
fIntemittent Flow) i o.*.c.....ao~6,
..,...,,,.....e<.....-..
- ; ' " ~ ~
EPA perm ast o 2C ins, 2-8si o AGE 1 or a 9'
e*.
3 *.-s.*
s eene y as y aves a w.ee sco'" t**es **.
K1&nstAi1 e5 8-- -o******-**aa a-->a-:-
poems As*LICAflOft PD2 P(WIT ?O OtSCHAact #ASTtvv&f te II EXISTING MANUPACTURING. COMMERCIAL. MINING AND SILVICULTURAL C8ER ATICNs nplms Conschdated Serverats Program
[
, e, e.,t.e,..
- e..e,,,es
, - e..t.
ast.. to t e ~.,s.
,, _ end - - e, tr,e re.e g ;,s e,.
""" ** g 6 m,6a gevves
- c. 60meetwee m
-vrw=
- c8a*=**=='-
.. ee.,
6 I
464 39 28 15 75 32
! 30 Delaware River 1
l i
l I
I i
l I
I I
I II. PLOeWE. OnMJACSS OF POLLUTIO88. AMO TRBATMSNT TECH 8eOLOG185)
A. Atteen a sono eresang an. sang the mener flow througn the feestity, indicate sounze of intees aster, eseresseets sentretusq morteweter to ae.a,e-and trootment unene 6eesses to correseene to the more eetened concrietions en stern 8. Cenemset a usesor emance en the hne crowing av ro s
s.e flees totuusen entestes, oseretsons, tressment unets, and outfalis. 49 e meter casense eennet he estermones fag. W eerisest snenent activeries, J poetenet sourwtion of the nature one ernount of evy sowress of soster one any ennection er trusement measures.
- 3. Per seen auttosa. provies e seek.'iecen of: til AM eserations contriputing suosienneur to ano effluent. ensuesng presses sortemeter. naastam es owat eneseng neuer, one storm noter runeM: (2) 1he esorego new contnbuted Dy seen eserecen: one (3) The tresement resones try the aesteware. :a? -
en essationes enests of nessenerv
..,e....... e. e. -,...,.. e o..
..,.e.,.e.,
,rr,;'*
- e...e s. vi.. ru..,
- 1.0,: ^ff ",,',*-
..e.co m...
T.gm -
Perimeter Storm Drain 0.23 MGD t.. a.+uwm.n+
13 464 Service Water travelling screen 4 MGD ( Ma x. )
See Attachment N/A
\\,
Item backwash, strainer backwash and A
sumps Chlorination structure drains Intermittent See Attachment N/a
! tem i
j B
l I
l N
ore.o*6.aa o~6.,,,n..,,...
...,e EPA Perm 3510 2C tRev 2 86)
PAGE O fr 4
+4D A
/
HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION 1995 RENEWAL APPLICATION SUPPLEMENT i
EXHIBIT 2 O
(LOCATE BEHIND TAB " FORM 2C: ITEMS l-IV")
l O
,n
m 1
II.B.3.a FLOWS, SOURCES OF POLLUTION, AND TREATMENT j
C)/
t TECHNOLOGIES i
Outfall No -
461A Description - Cooling Tower Blowdown sources Flow Cooling tower blowdown 40.5 mgd i
Chlorine analyzer drains 0.024 mgd Storage thak dike drains N/A Truck unloading containments N/A Turbine building circulating 0.018 mgd water dewatering sump Reactor building service water 0.011 mgd dewatering sump Operation - DSN 461A is the largest discharge from the Hope Creek Station.
It is primarily composed of cooling tower blowdown with several minor waste stream contributions. Cooling tower blowdown is Delaware River water which has been recirculated through the main condensors and cooling tower with treatment to prevent scaling and biofouling.
Many of the pollutants in the River water are concentrated up to 2.0 times due to the evaporative and drift losses from the tower.
,a(')
The chlorine analyzer drains are de minimis waste streams from the circulating water chlorination and dechlorination systems which are used to control the addition of chlorination and dechlorination reagents.
These waste streams may contain small concentrations of acetic acid and potassium iodide, reagents used in the residual chlorine analysis.
The dechlorination system control building floor drains are routed to the cooling tower blowdown line and could contain fresh water or ammonium bisulfite, the dechlorination chemical.
The turbine building circulating water (TBCW) dewatering sump and the reactor building service water dewatering sump collect miscellaneous sources of wastewater in the turbine and reactor buildings and discharge to the circulating water system.
Sources of wastewater include the air conditioning system condensate drains, water box draining, leakage from valves and equipment, and groundwater infiltration.
The dewatering sumps may contain de minimis levels of radioactivity but are continuously monitored and contain provisions for automatic isolation if radioactivity is detected.
In addition to the waste streams listed above, Outfalls DSN 461B, the Liquid Radioactive Waste System, and DSN 461C, the Low Volume and Oily Waste (LV&OW) system, also discharge through DSN 461A.
Additional information on these outfalls is provided below.
U
Treatment - Condenser cooling water is treated to remove heat by
[Y circulation in an evaporative natural draft (counter current)
Sodium hydroxide is added to protect the tower cooling tower.
\\-
fill from chemical deterioration and sodium hypochlorite is added to prevent biofouling of the condensers and cooling tower.
A portion of the recirculated cooling water is continuously removed as required to prevent solids buildup.
This waste stream, the cooling tower blowdown, is then treated with ammonium bisulfite, a dechlorinating agent, to reduce chlorine residuals to permitted j
levels.
Sediment which collects in the cooling tower basin is removed as l
necessary and is disposed of at an onsite dredge spoil area.
O O
i 1
l N
Outfgli 4613-l
[ls) l
\\
Description'
. Liquid ~ Radioactive Waste. System
. I Flow sources Equipment drains 0.020 mgd Floor drains 0.020 mgd.
High conductiv1.ty wastes 0.002 mgd:
<0.0005 mgd Chemical wast s
<0.0001 mgd j
Detergent'wasta, t
Operation
.The Liquid Radwaste System is designed-to process all i
waste streams from inside.the power block that may potentially l
contain radioactivity.
As discussed in the-Liquid Radioactive Waste System Treatment Works Application, the treatment system contains all necessary equipment to meet both U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission standards for the discharge of radioactivity'and the applicable New Jersey State Water Quality Standards.
Much of the wastewater processed through the system is recycled back into a 500,000 gallon condensate storage tank-
-for reuse by the reactor water makeup systems.
However, water l
used in the reactor must be of an extremely high purity level and, although some of the wastewater would be considered clean i
according to drinking water standards, it is not practical nor i
economical to continue the further processing of the wastewater O
necessary to reach the level of purity needed for reuse in the 3
reactor.
l To describe the operation of the treatment system, it is necessary to understand the source and quality of the five different types of influent waste streams.
The influent waste streams are as follows:
" Equipment drain wastes" or "high purity wastes" have a a) conductivity value of 10 micromhos per centimeter or less and radioactivity levels ranging from those typical of reactor water to those typical of condensate.
Sources of such vaste include: Reactor recirculation system, condensate system, feedwater system, cleanup phase separator decant, waste sludge phase separator decant, and excess flow from the reactor water cleanup system.
b)
" Floor drain vastes" or " low purity wastes" have a conductivity on the order of 10 to 100 micremhos per centimeter and generally a low radioactivity concentration.
Low purity wastes stem from floor drains, fuel pool cooling, and residual heat removal system flushing.
c)
"Nigh conductivity wastes" have a conductivity on the order of 1,000 micromhos per centimeter or greater and a potentially high radioactivity level.
These wastes can be O
produced by regenerating the condensate demineralizers and the liquid radwaste demineralizers themselves; although, to
-m-
-.-s C
r^N minimize the volume of radwaste, resins in the liquid
()
radwaste system are not currently regenerated.
"High conductivity wastes" also arise from certain high
'~
conductivity sumps in the turbine and auxiliary buildings.
" chemical wastes" have a conductivity on the order of 1,000 d) micromhos per centimeter or greater with variable chemical concentrations, pH, and levels of radioactivity.
Chemical wastes include those from laboratory drains, decontamination drains, radwaste filter drains, and fuel pool filter demineralizer drains.
Laboratory drains contain small amounts of typical analytical reagents, standards, cleaning solutions, and buffer solutions.
e)
" Detergent wastes" have a variable conductivity, low radioactivity levels, but potential surfactant and other organic content.
Personnel decontamination and the chemistry laboratory produce such wastes.
The plant was also designed to handle laundry cleaning wastes, but protective clothing is currently shipped offsite for cleaning.
During normal modes of operation, the Liquid Radwaste System receives waste inputs from the liquid waste drainage and collection system, and from the solid radwaste collection subsystem.
The inputs are segregated as to chemical content and purity level, with radioactivity level being a secondary
(,_)i consideration, then processed on a batch basis in the appropriate K-subsystem.
Processed radwaste is then returned for plant reuse or discharged to the cooling tower blowdown through DSN 461B.
Treatment - Treatment of liquid radwaste influent is dependent on the source and type of wastewater received.
Each of the five types of influent waste streams is processed differently and can be routed through various components of the treatment system.
Wastewater is treated in a batch mode and not all wastewater is routed through every component of the treatment system.
High purity wastes are normally processed by filtration and deminerraization and returned to the condensate storage tank for plant reuse.
Low purity wastes can be processed by filtration and demineralization followed by plant reuse or discharge.
Future plans include evaporation as an option in which the distillate can be returned for plant reuse or discharged.
Chemical wastes can be processed in several different ways.
When the evaporator is functioning, pH adjustment and evaporation produces a concentrate which can then be solidified and drummed in the solid radwaste system prior to offsite disposal.
The distillate can then be recycled to the high purity waste influent
/
stream.
Detergent wastes are generally not suitable for plant
(,g reuse and are normally processed by filtration and discharged.
/
If necessary, "high conductivity wastes" from the regeneration of J
i the condensate'demineralizers'or liquid radwaste domineralizers
['y can be collected in the neutralization tank and treated to a
~(_/
preset pH value by the addition of chemicals. - When the
- evaporator:is available, these wastes can also be processed-through the waste evaporator for concentration to remove excess The distillate can then be transferred back to.the waste-water.
collection tank.for further processing..
The'various subsystems of the' liquid radwaste treatment system
.have camerous cross-connections to allow operating flexibility.
Wastewaters can also be recirculated back to collection tanks for reprocess 2ng as necessary to meet U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission standards for_ discharge of radioactivity and to-meet N.J. State Water Quality Standards.
After batch processing, treated wastewaters in excess of plant needs are collected in the final sample tanks where water quality is checked prior to discharge.
Because of the need to' minimize radiation exposure of operating personnel, sampling of these 1
tanks is generally conducted remotely via installed conductivity and radioactivity monitors.
A remote sampling panel is also available where various analyses can be performed to check water quality.
However, further sampling of the treated effluent could unnecessarily expose operating personnel to additional radioactivity.
1 O
i i
i I
1 O
i I
()
Outfall - 461C Description - Low Volume and Oily Waste System <
,j i
Eleg m
Sources.
0.045 mgd Oily waste collection system iLow volume collection system 0.015 mgd Auxiliary boiler blowdown 0.002 mgd i
Turbine building emergency sumps N/A operation - The low volume and oily waste (LV&OW) system collects and. treats potentially oily wastewater from area, building, and The oily waste collection equipment drains throughout the site.
i system includes transformer catch basins, switchyard underdrains, the fuel oil tank dike and transfer station, secondary containments for tank truck unloading areas, emergency diesel I
fire pump oil tank dike drains, the turbine building emergency The low volume system sumps, and miscellaneous equipment drains.
collects waste streams from cooling tower chemical tank dikes and drains (sodium hydroxide and sodium hypochlorite),' chlorine analyzer drains, circulating water system building drains, the fuel oil day _ tank containment drain, the asphalt boiler system and building drains, and the auxiliary boiler building drains.
Auxiliary boiler blowdown and quench waters are also treated by Most flows to the system are intermittent.
the LV&oW system.
()
In addition, the turbine building emergency sumps are directed to the LV&OW system.
These sumps are designed to remove excess water from the turbine building in the event of flooding.
Discharges from these sumps are minimal and are composed primarily of groundwater infiltration.
The LV&OW system oil holding tank secondary containment can be drained of collected precipitation to the LV&ow effluent line through a manually controlled valve, after inspection to ensure no oil is in the containment.
Treatment - Collected waste streams are processed through an API-type oil water separator for removal of solid and floatable Settleable solids are removed from the waste stream materials.
by gravity separation and are transferred to the oily sludge holding tank before being trucked offsite to a licensed disposal facility.
The system also has provisions for recycle of thisOil oily sludge to aid in settling of the influent wastewaters.
and floatables removed by the separator are routed to the waste oil tank before being trucked offsite to a licensed disposal facility.
Treated effluent is then discharged to the Delaware i
River through DSN 461A.
O l
l
t r. -
P h
Outfall - 462A fS
)
k/
Descriotion - North Yard Storm Drain Sources Flow Site drainage from the facility parking 0.16 mgd lots, Centralized Warehouse roof drain, loading ramp catch basins, and underdrain
. sump, Auxiliary Boiler roof drain, Fire Water Pumphouse, Radwaste building roof drains, No. 2 Reactor Building roof drain, construction and excavation dewatering, air conditioning condensate drains, CWS valve pits, and runoff from other 1
miscellaneous sources. The sewage treatment plant (DSN 462B) also discharges through this outfall but is monitored independently.
Operation - The North Yard storm drain collects precipitation runoff and groundwater.
Due to the facility elevations and proximity to the River, this outfall is tidally influenced.
Treatment - Because the collected wastewaters are comprised of mostly groundwater and precipitation runoff and there is minimal
/~N chemical contact, no treatment is provided for this discharge.
(_),
No sludges are generated by this system.
Outfall - 462B
,q.
l\\ ')
Descrintion - Sewage Treatment Plant Sources Flow Sanitary wastewater from Salem and Hope 0.03 mgd Creek Stations Operation - The sewage treatment plant treats sanitary wastewater collected from the Salem and Hope Creek Stations.
Analytical laboratory drains contain small amounts of typical analytical reagents, standards, cleaning solutions, and buffer solutions.
Septage waste generated at unserviced buildings onsite is also transported to the Sewage Treatment Plant for treatment.
Treatment - Collected wastewaters receive secondary treatment from a single channel oxidation ditch which oxidizes the organic constituents of the influent wastewater.
Solids are then removed in two clarifiers with a portion of the sludge recycled back to the oxidation ditch.
Clarifier effluent can then be polished in sand filters for removal of any fine solids.
Final effluent is chlorinated prior to discharge to the Delaware River through DSN 462A.
f%
Excess sludges collected in the clarification process are stored
(_,/
temporarily in an aerated sludge holding tank before final disposal at an offsite licensed treatment or disposal facility.
l l
i 1
' O
.y_
~ _ _.
.i
~
.l i
outfall - 463A' I
i Description - South Yard Storm Drain t
Elgy Sources Site drainage.from the Security Center roof 0.19 mgd
?
drain and parking lot, Administrative Building roof' drain, Auxiliary Building roof i
drain, Turbine Building roof drain, Centralized Warehouse roof drains, Nuclear Services Building roof drains, air l
conditioning condensate, Radwaste Building i
roof drains, service-water valve pit
~
l dewatering sump, Reactor Building roof drains, intake desilting effluent, Chlorine l
Structure drains (See Item B), construction and excavation dewatering, and runoff from other miscellaneous sources.
i a
coeration - The South Yard storm drain collects precipitation runoff and groundwater. Due to the facility elevations and proximity to-the River,.this outfall is tidally influenced.
Treatment - Because the collected wastewaters are comprised of j
mostly groundwater and precipitation runoff and there-is minimal O
chemical contact, no treatment is provided for this discharge.
No' sludges are generated by.this system. Intake desilting is an intermittant (approximately four times per year)' activity in which sediment laden water from the cooling water intakes is pumped to a settling basin, where much of the sediment is removed' through gravity separation and filtration, before the effluent is routed to the DSN 463A outfall for discharge.
Additional information on the chlorine structure drains is provided under Item B.
O
t
(T outfall - 454 Asl Descriotion - Perimeter Storm Drain i
Flow Sources site drainage and runoff from the access 0.23 mgd road area, Administration Building roof drains and parking lots, laydown yards, Combo Shop roof drains, catch basins in undeveloped portions of the site, groundwater infiltration, and areas external to the Hope Creek site (adjacent marshes).
Operation - The Perimeter storm drain collects precipitation runoff from several non-process areas on the Hope Creek site as well as natural drainage from the adjacent marshes.
Due to the 4
facility elevations and proximity to the River, this outfall is tidally influenced.
Treatment - Because the collected wastewaters are comprised of mostly groundwater and precipitation runoff and there is minimal chemical contact, no treatment is provided for this discharge.
No sludges are generated by this system.
O t
P
(
f f
r i
Outfall - Item A Descriotion - 8ervice Water traveling Screen Backwash, Strainer
\\
Backwash, Service Water Building Susps, and Deicing System Flow Sources Service water screen wash 4 mgd - maximum from wash water sources Strainer backwash Service water building sumps Deicing system Operation - The service water traveling screens and strainers are designed to remove solid materials from the influent Delaware River water which could interfere in the plant's operation.
During operation of the traveling screens, debris collected on the screens from the River is removed by applying a screen wash spray to dislodge the debris. The debris is then washed into troughs which return the debris to the River.
Following the traveling screens, the intake water passes through the service water strainers which are designed to remove small particles from River water to prevent clogging and damage to the heat exchangers in the nuclear safety-related service water system.
The strainers are backwashed to remove the collected solids using j
service water and returned to the Delaware Riv9r along with the traveling screen spray wash water.
Since sodiun hypochlorite is added to the suction side of the service water pumps, residual O
chlorine may be present in the service water used to wash the screens and strainers.
The small volume of this waste stream should have minimal impact on the River and any residual chlorine should not be detectable after the immediate and rapid mixing provided beneath the trough's discharge.
During periods of I
extended freezing, antifreeze (e.g. ethylene glycol, propylene glycol) can be added to the service water system seal water backup tank.
If the seal water backup system is required to be placed in service, some minute amount of antifreeze may enter the system (or the building sumps) through normal seal leakage.
Any leakage or drains within the building housing the service strainers, and associated equipment is water pumps, screens, directed to the building sumps which discharge to the Delaware River along with the backwash waters.
A deicing system is also provided to protect the service water intake against clogging by ice.
The system distributes up to 12,000 gpm of hot water along the intake opening outboard of the trash rack.
The hot water is provided from either the circulating water system or the cooling tower makeup and will contain residual chlorine concentrations.
However, the deicing system is only used in extreme cold weather situations to protect the supply of cooling water to nuclear-safety related equipment.
()
Treatment - No treatment is necessary for this discharge because it is primarily Delaware River water.
c
}
gm Outfall - Item B t
)
Descriotion - Chlorination Structure Drains Sourggs Flow Sodium hypochlorite tank dike N/A Bulk unloading spill containment Control building drains Chlorine analyzer drain Qgeration - This system is described in detail because it is a potential procer.s discharge to the South Yard storm drain, DSN 463A.
The nodium hypochlorite tank dike has a valved drain which is normally closed.
When rainwater collects in this dike, it is analyzed for pH and the presence of chlorine residual and only drained to the South yard drain if pH limits are met and no chlorine residual is present.
If sodium hypochlorite leaks or spills into the dike, it would be recovered for use, treated or removed to a licensed treatment facility, as appropriate.
j The spill containment pad surrounding the sodium hypochlorite i
unloading area is designed to collect the maximum probable spill from a tank truck and prevent the material from entering the site
(' T drainage system.
Normally, the drain in the spill pad is open, kJ allowing precipitation to discharge to the yard drain.
- However, during truc.1 unloading, the drain in the spill containment pad is plugged, effectively isolating the system.
If a spill does occur, the material is recovered for use or removed to a licensed disposal facility, as appropriate.
The chlorine control building has valved floor drains which are nornally closed.
If wastewater is collected in the control building, it is sampled for pH and chlorine residual and only discharged to the South yard drain if pH is within acceptable limits and no chlorine residual is present.
A service water system chlorine analyzer, identical to those described in the blowdown waste stream, is used to regulate the addition of sodium hypochlorite to service water.
The small volume (<0.008 mgd) of chlorinated water discharged does not warrant treatment and is unlikely to be detected at the outfall.
Treatment - No treatment is provided for this discharge.
N.)
O i
HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION 1995 RENEWAL APPLICATION SUPPLEMENT 1
1 i
EXHIBIT 3 O
(LOCATE BEHIND TAB "2C-V:DSN 461 A")
l O
-r-w.
\\
(V)
/
un e-D. eeumoo n icopy #*ons dreas i of For== f) g,,,g oegt % 2040cm PLE AsE PRINT OR 7 YPE IN THE UNSHADED ARE AS ONLY. You may report some or att of
- "*' ***"" ' 3 ' 88 in.,.nsormet.on on up. rete shuts tuse see sarne to,merf.nirved of compeet.no enese pa,.s.
NJ0025411 srt msinocTeoNs 6l PART A. You must provide the resuMs oehorg snelysts for every pollufent in this table. Complete one table for each outfall. Seeinsouc
- 4. INT AKE forefosesif
- 3. U NITS
.L %j y,.$ *VT-.1. EFFLUENT f'8'wify if ed.nk) 0,sg egt,n,e
-ar.
c.LoNr. Tygg. v ALuz
- "a'"**
v v ALua I. POLLUTANT a me Asseswee casov wnLips;W%" 8Wj
....i..i..-
i.i.
,c.a, ",=-
=.eA.e
.-AL,sie
-....e_ m_ _ m.m.....
i
. e.oen.m.c.
1.8 353 3
fs*JE,"
2.0 240 1.5 179 2
mo/1 ko/d fc'J7," ****
698.0 83,140 437.0 52.050 146.6 17.493 146 mg/l kg/d 113 22,090 147 o ca.mee.:
- c. coon trocs 25.0 2,980 18.6 2,220 5.5 655 I46 mg/l kg/d 5.6 1.090 147
- c. Tot.: Oro.nic a toe.e so n.tw 47.5 5,667 2
mg/l kg/d 87 17,103 3
soian (18ss 56.0 6,670 0.35 42 2
mg/l kg/d 0.27 53.5 3
0.65 77 VALuE yALug v a Lis t-v a L u t.
t F ion 31.47 cont.
n/a MGD 51.66
- cont, 72.50 vALuf vALua vmLua vALug C
9.72 821 18.96 cont.
33.80 t..
- rer, WA1**t vALuE WALut 28.70 cont.
25.03 458
'a "' "'" 8 35.73
~
p minimum u n sa tu um usMauum w a n suuu l
ST AND ARD UNITS N
6 pH N
I-Mort "X" en column 2-e for each pollutant you krsove or have rosson to beleeve is present. Mark -'X~ en column 2-b for each pollutant you beheve to be obsent. If k
which se hmrted eether directh or irdroctfybut engireso8y. 6n en offluent Ismitetsons guidetme. you must provide the resuits of et least one eneNees for that pollut PARTB-column 2a. you must provide quemetetive date or en explanation of their presence m your deschergo Complete one toble for each outfelt. See the instruc
- 5. IN T A KE (opriewies)
- 4. U NITS
- 3. EFFLU ENT fjl c Lowr. Tgu g g vALus gog Enu 2 M A nn *m'
- 3. POLLtJT.
vvALut h ^
AMT ^
' ' * * " * ' ** D
'**'UE
'8
- bg,EE....,ic/,,",,",,,, " s. :....
,,,,,, il),,,,,,
'*h...
,,,,, JJ,,,,,,,
i.:....
veas
== a v so n C SN
_, fjA,,,,,,
io...
,,,e e,,
vir a.6us
.. eromio.
1 mg/l 16.1 1
(2 esse 67 91 X
21.0 e, c morsn..
<0.05 4,380 mg/l X
I.30 CLPT
- e. cow 1
Units 30 2
X
>100 MPN/
d F.c.I 1
100 m) 1 1
coidor=
X
<1 l
1 mg/l 0.4 1
. r i.e io.
X 0.05 osm e as ai i
- e. Netr 1
mg/l 1.3 1
l Nfwite f.e NJ X
0.3 PAGE V-I COf4TINUE ON REVERST I
EPA Form 3510-2C (Rev. 2-85) l i
i
m h
gy
(
\\
(
osos no 2000 cm.Y outrau nuwzE n uA e o au=64 a won imm tem #
jn v
Approweleapets 13158 NJ0025411 461A CONTINUED FROM PAGE 3 OF FORM 2 C youmuetseetfor.heorWhoo'
- PART C-If yov ero e primerv industry endicith - ^ A a process westewater. refer to Tabse 2c-2 en the mstructeens to determene w=.of she GC/Mg x *.o.sendbryIriseWWR.#styre +ss 2-e(so 2-s f.or m8l such GC/MEtractione Q'you.r indu,.stry a.nd for.n co toeic metens, cyonule,iutant -now or here,eeson M be e.d to apertL ALL
- s. eno total phenoas. If you are not require ma w oresca - -
- es o,, me, r
umn t bforeech po
,,eescu siranypomuesnt,youenuetprovideshere.ses wes swafe,- esc.
pollutent, you must provide the results of et least one enesysis for that pollutant,if you mort coeuen 3R4 2.4 _
know or heve reeson to beleeve et we t be dischstged in concentretws of 10 pob or grosser.'If goes egeek column 2h 9er screte6n. enrytoniene beliere se ebeene. If yoit voo enuet provide the resutts of et least one enefysis for each of these poisutents whech s
of at loest one enopyois for that diewtrophenot, or 2-reastsy44,6 be disc:~.
- 4. Peace that %,r., _ _ _.___.
port please rua.. each carefuity Complete one tab #e (ett 7 pages/ for each out' alt. See instrusseens for adsstional seatente ensi m -- A conceintreconsof 1CD 4 UNIM
.7ydyd4*-
- 3. EFFLtJENT
- 5. POLLUTANT a.neaanrr
- 7.*,J'.d,* %j,* *,*.
e6 se Amteves DAsLY V ALUE to. M Am pgu y gvvawE. c.wns Tg gg. v awe 4"O F
e concW9e-tm, as AoS vses'
'"^T"-
"!.~.:'
t 8 -~
p NUMBER
.p.
- 2n
.v.;r, _ t:!,,*,g f.i -...
,,,,,,!,,i..,_
i.....
,,,,,, r,s.,,
- v. i....
ut a.m,
'4 ~
METALS, CV ANIDE. ANO TOTAL. PHENOLS
<0.003
<0.003 2
mg/l
<0.003 3
- ^"***v-X X
Tot;A 044o 36 of
,"4837s X
x (0.004
<0.004 2
mg/l
<0.004 3
Toui 744o si n X
X 0.007 (0.005 2
mg/l
<0.005 3
3M. Bergrek,m, 4M.c.omh,m.
0.024 6
mg/l 0.005 3
Tota p44443 e>
X X
0.086 rous p440 4 7 3 X
0.018 0.010 2
mg/l 0.008 3
SM. Chrom'e"$.
X poetosi X
0.016 0.010 2
mg/l 0.008 i
3 en cem..
_X y
1 943e s2 il X
X (0.002
<0.002 2
mg/1
<0.003 3
l 7et tsat Tess 17439 97 4)
X X,
<0.002 (0.002 2
mg/l 0.0005 3
CM. M.rcury, Totet eM. nice.e. To"'
X 0.07 0.052 2
mg/l 0.03 3
I 1
044o020 X
}",,,, $j".*,,,
X
<0.02
<0.02 2
mg/l
<0.003 3
X i,Lsj X
(0.01
<0.01 2
mg/l 0.007 3
To"'
X I
X
<0.002
<0.002 2
mg/1 (0.003 3
}'"g, J,'*e "g,*g o, x
X 0.05 0.034 2
mg/l 0.014 3
13M. Zlac, Totet 044Ssemi X
l X
<0.01
<0.01 2
mg/l
<0.01 l 3 ieu. cver.co..
T us es712-si X
x
<0.05
<0.05 2
mg/l 0.024 3
j5,"g, "'*"*-
D90 KIN
',e M OEscnesenatuLTs 2,3,7,e 1stre cMorodet.nto P-X Ososivi(1764ot6)
CONTINUE ON REVERSE PAGEV-2 EPA Form 3510-2C (Rev 2-85)
3
~
V
'E O, m M v 1
1 3
4 4
4 4
3 2
2 2
1 1
1 1
3 2
1 1
1 1
E 8
8 8
8 G
O AP N
O
^
E U
2 N
I i
TN O
C A %
T N
6 7
8 3
5 9
t 7
1 1
2 2
6 0
7 0
0 0
0 3
2 3
5 5
0 1
4 1
4 0
1 2
5 7
J J
0 5
0 1
3 5
5 4
1 5
0 1
0 0
0 2
1 0
0 0
0 l
0 7
3 4
1 1
5 1
3T I
N U. "m 1
l l
I 1
1 1
l l
l l
l l
l 1
l l
l l
1 l
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
4 a
g g
g 1
i i
i g
g g
g g
g g
g g
g g
g g
g m
m m
C C
C C
m m
m m
m m
m m
m m
m m
m m
p p
p p
y 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
g.
1 1
1 I
1
_1 c
2 o.
1 1
2 v
E u
L A
V.
i, g
i gt 2
/
V g
E T
1 7
7 G. r.
3 0
G 8
m a
0 s
~
c jt E
T u
N L
a A
E 1
w 4
L yp i.i U
6 F $
N F d S
E i
d**
D 3
Q J
A 4
A 1
1 5
2 S
3'0 U
J L
N A
w i.
v L
I A
D w
u 7
4 8
5 3
e 3
6 6
1 6
2 2
0 4
0 1
1 _ 8 1
6 0
2 0
1 0
1 7
s
't, e
9 0
N0 f.
6 5
3 0,
2 0
0 0
4 5
0 0
0 0
n a
0 5
0
)
4 5
s 1
5 0
1
(
(
1 5
a 8
1 M
e 2
Y v
f H E I
e R(
i t
s D n C
_I
_X I
X X
X X
K X
X X
f a
2 X
X i e 1
m X
X X
y X
X X
X 0
N s
1 5
e l
=.
m 1
l u
)
m
)
3 4
43 te 3
u s
't
)6 m
m.
s, 1
)
an
,n m
s,
1
)
- e. ' )
7 e
e e
n
- s. *s tn 3 o mb -
r 5
o-u u
k,.
m87 *
's 9
3 4
n.e
.*0
e 4 e e p
1 2
r T.3 T8 4
9 2
M o
- 4 9 g e e
7'1
.4 v_g^Nm h
s s.
y e
(
'r u
( M.$[
8a4 ti4 F
e ao m
4e g
o o-e i9
'0 G
.d*
n9 t89 e
t s3 Ip r0c
"= s _
- d E* Er2 '" lt a7 S
'a 4 4 A o3 T4 Tm ro o3 s
=
te2
- 4 M
oA we 4
e,,
. 4 P 4
Ala MN4 s.8 e tr4 4
s.
o7 a7 4
4 t4 p
sw 7
v[
- 7t 7T1 E 7
m <= 1 s. a t
a T4 T6 F8 aa t[
E
)2 7
7 7
7 Ci E F <= 7(
8 i4T s
r f
- y, o
i 4
F o
7 (2
4 g
str
HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION DSN 461A NJPDES PERMIT NJ0025411 COOLING TOWER BLOWDOWN SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PAGE 1 OF 2 DSN 461A monitoring is performed continuously for effluent temperature, influent teraperature, effluent flow, and chlorine produced oxidants (residual chlorine). PSE&G has developed alternative monitoring mechanisms to temporarily meet the continuous monitoring requirements during periods of corrective or preventative maintenance, instrument and circuitry calibration, or inoperability or failure of the measuring equipment.
These alternative monitoring mechanisms provide an adequate representation of the monitored parameter although the degree of precision may not be identical with that of the primary instrumentation. When the alternative mechanism is functioning concurrently with the primary monitoring instrumentation, only the primary monitoring instrumentation results will be reported.
1.
Effluent temperature is continuously monitored at the cooling tower blowdown line stilling well through the radiation monitoring system. The data is automatically transmitted to the plant computer. If this primary monitoring methodology is unavailable, the following alternative monitoring mechanisms may be used for reporting:
temperature detector at the dechlorination system inlet, located upstream of n
a.
U the primary monitoring device in the cooling tower blowdown; b.
temporary temperature monitoring device placed in the cooling tower blowdown line and continuously recording temperature; or, manually obtaining a temperature sample from the cooling tower blowdown c.
line once per shift.
l 2.
Influent temperature is continuously monitored by temperature detectors at the service water intake structure and transmitted to the plant computer. If this primary monitoring methodology is unavailable, the following alternative monitoring mechanisms may be used for reporting:
temporary temperature monitoring device placed in the intake water stream a.
l at the service water intake and continuously recording temperature; or, O
L_
(L
i DSN 461A HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION n.
V-NJPDES PERMIT NJ0025411 COOLING TOWER ILLOWDOWN PAGE 2 OF 2 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION t
i b.
manually obtaining a temperature sample of the intake water at the service water intake once per shift.
3.
Effluent flow is continuously monitored using an installed ultrasonic flowmeter which measures the height of water over the cooling tower blowdown weir. The height of water over the weir is converted to flowrate and transmitted to the plant computer. If this primary monitoring methodology is unavailable, the following alternative monitoring mechanisms may be used for reporting:
an installed float meter which also measures the height of water over the weir a.
on a continuous basis; b.
manual measurement of the height of water over the cooling tower blowdown weir and calculation of flowrate once-per shift; or, calculation of intake flow from intake flowmeter or service water pump m
c.
operating hours and subtraction of the estimated evaporative losses.
During the periods when the cooling tower is bypassed, such as during cooling tower maintenance, the effluent flow is equivalent to the intake flow which is measured using the installed flowmeter or calculated from the operating hours of the service water pumps.
4.
Chlorine produced oxidants (residual chlorine) is continuously monitored with the installed instrument which measures at the cooling tower blowdown line stilling well. If this primary monitoring methodology is unavailable, the following alternative monitoring mechanisms may be used for reporting:
a redundant analyzer located at the cooling tower blowdown line stilling well; a.
b.
an analyzer located at the dechlorination system inlet, subject to dechlorination system demand rate; or, manual grab sample collected and analyzed each day.
c.
4 O
--e
-r
9 a
E Q
m
~
mme g
ii_
i l:!jj.
_l !
EK E
{,
!OMh\\
f$
f Vh V
VD P
US MW C
PS H
L O
R RS F
I S
I N
T L
A E.
@@AA T
CC E
T U
I SS R
O N
S N
G FS RS 0
k W
L A EA b f" E
L WP T T ME O Y L
RA S
E L U
A A
B B
A AOA X 1
2 C
S CUI t
2 S
U AXU R
3eg 8z R TUiA I
I 3
NOAI G NR E I
S O
SC M
b h y-8z P
E I
N C O 4
T O O 9
B O U Owy8!
U N g
N G GS Sh Yi m%$m S t
^y a
T E M Lt b
- jl!
M CC 4_
WOM AH ARIA UL C
TNN I
I MU SO O
E TR O
C R
CN N
O P
A AN A
DM Um
,T N
(NT K G I
E K
M aO UT
.E EA PG I
O N PO D
NN S
H E
S W
)
C E
E N
R R
S
,G
/
+
l eT 1
m u
n MN CH A
J J O O L
PPOP y,
L EE mn SS N C A
GD n
FM AI G
L T E
+
l b
L. N N O B E T@
L DP O RA SU0WT N0 N
/T 6 2OG 4
1 5 MS 4
A 1
T 1
A T
O N
9
~
a n.
a w-O HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION 1995 RENEWAL APPLICATION SUPPLEMENT i
1 1
EXHIBIT 4 i
O (LOCATE BEHIND TAB "2C-V:DSN 461C")
i O
HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION DSN 461C hc NJPDES PERMIT WJ0025411 LOW VOLUME & OILY WASTE SYSTEM SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PAGE I OF 1 DSN 461C monitoring is performed continuously for effluent flow. PSE&G has developed alternative monitoring mechanisms to temporarily meet the continuous flow monitoring requirements during periods of corrective or preventative maintenance, irtstrument and circuitry calibration, or inoperability or failure of the measuring equipment.
These alternative monitoring mechanisms will provide an adequate representation of the monitored parameter although the degree of precision may not be identical with that of the primary instrumentation. When the alternative mechanism is functioning concurrently with the primary monitoring instrumentation, only the primary monitoring instrumentation results will be reported.
Effluent flow is continuously monitored using an installed flowmeter and totalizer. If the installed flowmeter is unavailable, the lift station pump operating hours or pumping events are calculated as flow based on pump capacity.
O O
~.
~l
\\
~}/
M R
E T
E S
/
V e
Y W d S
F T
4h k E
N R
W.
A T
W A
N A
OE L
I T T
E AE1 D
L TT1 A
SS4 C S
G A S1 C
O NW0 Es e 1
I 0
P TYJN 6
Y S
4 A L N.D B K I
I S
N C D RO O-S T U R E O NL D
U R E P
O T P EN T L AE M O GA A
D EMT F
U R K
WMP U P EMF U E
C R NU PO L
U A O COSS t
S P V F VEE E
OD If b
PWPP O OJ J HLNN m
TN E
L U
t A
e L
S s
F O
s E
F e
Y P
n B K S a
I t
C D n
T U R o
U R E c
O T P p
K D MO N
A E
J R
P A P T
. M OR P
E n U A O G
l i
S O
f T
P R
M R O U
E T P
T A E
A R L
W A C
J P Y
L E C
O S E
R.
d 5
I N
0 NO T
F A
I C
S O
A L
E i
E M
L M
P M
C A
L S
F I
I OF C
8 1
1 N
N O
O T
T A
A T
T S
S T
T S
F L
L l
l; I
1
.O HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION 1995 RENEWAL APPLICATION SUPPLEMENT 1
EXHIBIT 5 l
O (LOCATE BEHIND TAB "2C-V:DSN 462B")
)
i 5
O
i-HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION DSN 462B gy SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT V
NJPDES PERMIT NJ0025411 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PAGE1OF1 l
1.
The Sewage Treatment Plant effluent (DSN 462B) currently discharges through the North Yard Drain (DSN 462A). PSE&G proposes to reroute the effluent of the Sewage Treatment Plant to the cooling tower blowdown line (DSN 461A), at a location prior to the residual chlorine monitoring point. Hypochlorite is used in the Sewage Treatment system as a biocide and a residual level is required to ensure proper disinfection. Rerouting this effluent to discharge through DSN 461A would provide dechlorination of the Sewage Treatment plant effluent using the residual ammonium bisulfite dechlorination chemical. No additional chemicals would be required and any residual chlorine would be monitored at the DSN 461A monitoring i
point. PSE&G proposes accomplishing this discharge modification no later than one year after the effective date of the final permit. The Sewage Treatment Plant.
effluent would then be an internal monitoring point and, with the exception of the BOD loading allocation assigned by the DRBC on September 23,1987, the DRBC effluent and water quality requirements would not be applicable to this effluent.
O r
i i
O HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION 1995 RENEWAL APPLICAT!ON SUPPLEMENT EXHIBIT 6 O
(LOCATE BEHIND TAB "2C-V:DSN 462A" AND "2C-V:DSN 463A")
O 4
,M (w.-)
g 5
b i
e i J
e n
I I
i i!
E I
El h
Eg Il lgll 0
en x
x t
i-I--
i i
i m
I I
5 E
I i
l l
l i
1 1 li
-+
l i-*11.i t i
--g g
_ir s
g k
l 5
~,,
1r I
h
~E y l
E I
E I
8
~
I ils 5
5 I+1
_I_
- +- -.-
E i
_-I 1r 1r 1r 1r k
qr g
-+
s
-+
-+
. -
- a -*
-* g I.
I 7
,7
,7 K
1 4
- 4
+
m c
,c 1
,g i i
l l
2 i
- i. i i
1 a
c c
,c IW l
t e
i i
a e i i
e -* i a
+-
m i
t g
-i h
h
,]
i i
m I
I 2
o
,c
,c c
,c 5
8 i
E a
g4 i
i l-*i i _!s fm
\\
l
ww I
w
./
o no u
e v
m i
i osw i
s s
m o
ee w
uc.
vo u
w w ums l
o aNo u-A uT h
I 4
l mms ta Ouwu e
o m
s xCoet i
n e
e o
E rNucr uo s
e e
e mAuss t
t i
i a
i a1Hm m
u m
n mDmem i
l l
4 OSu I
N e
tr m
m i
o l
e e
e e
s, l,"
A" s
s i
w w
n
=
l 4
l i
l 4
l l
l I
l m'
w o
E i
c i
o i
e e
o
=,
n l
s s
s e
s e
s e
s, w
i m
e e
e i
4 j-4 i
s t u u
a u
i w
w m
I m
s l4u w
n m
=
=,
iw l
b l
l l
F l
w i
4 I
l I
l l
l F.
I l
i I
e s
s z
x e
m e
o i
a e
a e
w 1
I I
w o
s e
s s
s s
o n
i ea w
m w
m m
u u m s.
s o
s s
t i t s t i t i
i s
a so m
u ua s
t i
l I
i l
i I
l u
a l
l
=
w i
1 I
I 4
I 1
l l
l I
S l
l I
F I_
s a
s c
e o
i e
e o
s s
e c
o o
s e
c c,
z, s
a s
e w
w w
a i
'a s
li i
a t
i t a
u t u t s
u t i
t t
u a
i i s
a w
m w
m n
n
- n u
n m
m n
u I
I l
i l
I l
l l
k k
l k
F l
l H
I l
l I
y
=
i s
o a
w e
c c
i c
s s
c e
e z,
w e
E e
s T
w w
w s
n e
a l
t g
t l'
u A
t t t i
+ i
=
u u
s s
=
u i
m w
n m
m m
l w
H i
'il l
l
=
w w
u
.w i
l I
1 l
l N'"H I
J' k
3 8
I
{
z H
I l
V i,
1 M
e s
e i
e c
e s
o c
e H
s w
s s
s a
c o
c c,
e e
s e,
e e
i
==
e a
s c
V i
e s
i t
t i
a y
s s
u
% s a
t i t i i t
i a
n o
w u
m m
a m
m w
m u
m u
13 w
0 l
=
l g
h l
l I
l I
l I
i l
e l
=
e l
l l
l M
v s
a o
i i
n a,
i s
s s,
c e
e i
e a
u u
u 4 4
u n
n i
m n
w u
i l
I N
l j
i
O HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION 1995 RENEWAL APPLICATION SUPPLEMENT EXHIBIT 7 O
(LOCATE BEHIND TAB " MAPS, FIGURES, PHOTOS")
l l
0
7
(-
(v-s v
EVAPORATION MO DRFT DELAWARE RIVER F
\\
~
4 4 g 4 4@
565 6 l
5 Y
/ 'bWWN$$
4 CIRCULATNG e
SEFMCE WATER SW4W:S NATURAL DRAFT g
NTAKE
'm WATER HEAT EXCHANGERS COOUNGTOWER N
') y e
- =
s**
Dex:NG UNe gs a
40 5 MOD COOUNG TOWER BLOWOOWN 44 TURBNE/NACTOR 4
CONDENSATE STEAM Cm STORAGE TANKS m
o i
k l
d e
' NO 1 h3 h
Y o"
I I
V,ATER STORAGE UQUO RADWASTE DE E M M
R g
SYSTEM FEED TANF.
TANKS SYSTEM l
k k 4
0 NO2 WSSES y
m.
V 8
DOMESTIC WATER AND Aum am EOUPMENT DRANS l
STORAGE TANKS g
g g
e e
a N USES @
y I 02 MGD LOW VOLUME AND POTABLE WATER M
OILY WASTE q
SYSTEM rs SYSTEM SEW E OSN4629 p
4 0 03 MOD D
DE F
TRAVEuNeG AuonsE TAftose it UICEWAY g
STORM DFWNS suw ruw me HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION y
- m" vg co"s r",'toufD.
SCHEMATIC OF WATER FLOW SALEM rg
= a "u".o*.E. = L %" "J "
NJPOES PERWT NO. NJ0025m
'"^*E"' o
@?,ay=='ag a==-
SyS,,
j eEmMeTERORAN
@)
y Am. sente NOTE. ALL REPORTED FLOW VALUES ARE DAILY AVERAGES UNLESS OTHERMSE STATED
~.. - -
e
+
I l
l.
l
' O HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION 1995 RENEWAL APPLICATION SUPPLEMENT EXHIBIT 8
)
O (LOCATE BEHIND TAB "2C-V:DSN 461 A")
)
O 1
m,
t O
Hope Creek Generating Station Proposed Thermai Discharge Limits O
snygiementai inaiysis April 11,1995 O
4
(;
Table of Contents V
I.
Introduction II. Derivation of Proposed Limits III. Evaluation of ITDRT's Results Relative to DMR Data III.A Analysis of Results for the Winter Periods III.B Analysis of Results for the Summer Periods IV. Qualifications for Applying the Proposed Limits V.
Summary 1
O ii
(l List of Tables Q)
Table 1.
Cooling Tower Blowdown - Computed Maximum Heat Rates Table 2.
Comparison of Blowdown Characteristics Table 3.
Comparison of CWS and ITDRT Inputs and Discharge Temperatures - Winter Days of Maximum Heat Rate Table 4.
Comparison of DMR and ITDRT Discharge Heat Rates -
Winter Months Table 5.
Comparison of CWS and ITDRT Inputs and Discharge Temperatures - Summer Days of Maximum Heat Rate Table 6.
Comparison of DMR and ITDRT Discharge Heat Rates -
Summer Months Table 7.
Effect of Three Service Water Pumps on the Unadjusted Heat Rate bi V
1 l
l l
1 l
l l
I l
r~
l 4
lii
r'~T List of Figures V
Figure 1.
Correlation Between Intake Temperature and Intake Flow Rate Figure 2.
Monthly Frequency Distributions of Daily Response Temperature O
' O iv
?
GV Hope Creek Generating Station Supplemental Analysis Supporting the Proposed Thermal Discharge Limits I.
==
Introduction:==
This report supplements
(" Supplemental Report") the June 21, 1994 report entitled Hooe Creek Hydrothermal Studies (the " Report"),
that Public Service Electric and Gas Company ("PSE&G") submitted in support of its proposed limits on the discharge rate of heat
(" Heat Rate") and effluent temperature in the blowdown from the Cooling Water System ("CWS") of Hope Creek Generating Station
(" Station").
(See Attachment 1).
The Supplemental Report:
I summarizes the procedures used in deriving the proposed limits on Heat Rate; provides a more detailed evaluation of the Integrated Thermal Discharge Rate and Temperature ("ITDRT") model to further support the proposed limits; and discusses the key assumptions that were used in the analysis which provides the basis for PSE&G's being reasonably confident that the proposed limits are reflective of the discharge characteristics under varying meteorological and operating conditions.
i II. Derivation of Proposed Limits The NJPDES Permit for the Station requires compliance with the limits on Heat Rate and discharge temperature on a daily basis.
The current limits in the NJPDES Permit for the Station's CWS are O
1
based on average atmospheric conditions and intake water
[d temperatures, and generic cooling tower performance capabilities.
They do not account for the actual cooling performance and the range of natural factors which can significantly affect the Heat Rate and blowdown temperature.
Under the terms of a 1990 Administrative Consent Order ("ACO"),
interim limits on Heat Rates and blowdown temperature were imposed, and PSE&G was required to conduct a cooling tower blowdown ("CTB") study with respect to the limits for Heat and temperature under various operating conditions for a well operated cooling tower.
The results of the CTB Study were provided to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection ("NJDEP") in O)
(,
1991 and were based on: an average intake flow rate; the Station operating at 100% power; and infrequent atmospheric conditions and river water temperatures that induce high Heat Rates.
Since the submisslu.. of the CTB Study, the maximum measured blowdown temperature has equalled the permit limit, and the maximum measured Heat Rate (422 MBTU/hr) during the Summer period (June through August) is only slightly less than the ACO's interim summer limit (443 MBTU/hr).
The small margin of compliance (21 MBTU/hr) with the interim limit in the ACO on Heat Rate, and the measurement of a discharge temperature equal'to the permit limit indicated a potential for the ACO limits to be exceeded.
Therefore, another study was performed to determine if other V
2
t i
I
^
3.)(
combinations of atmospheric conditions, intake temperatures,.and Station operations could potentially cause Heat Rates greater than those in the CTB Study or the ACO.
At PSE&G's request, J.
E. E(linger Associates, Inc.
(" Edinger")
developed and applied the. numerical model, ITDRT, to construct a i
46-year' synthetic record of daily. averages of intake temperatures, daily Heat Rates for the Summer period (June through August) and-l t
the Winter period (September through May), and blowdown temperatures for the Station's CWS.
The long-term synthetic T
record provided PSE&G with a basis for determining appropriate limits on Summer and Winter Heat Rates which reflect the CWS's performance relative to a more complete spectrum of atmospheric conditions!, intake water temperatures, Station operations (expressed as percent power), and intake flow rates.
Daily Heat Rates during each of the Summer and Winter periods between 1948 i
and 1993 were calculated and then adjusted for uncertainties in the predictions.
The adjustments were based on a statistical i
analysis of the differences between observed and predicted Heat Rates for those days in 1992 and 1993 when the Station was operating at approximately 100% power.2 Table 1 summarizes the 3
maximum (unadjusted and adjusted) Heat Rates by seasonal period'
)
I The atmospheric conditions are those which have been observed at Wilmington, Delaware for the 46 year period (1948 through 1993).
2 Hope Creek Hydrothermal Studies, Figure 12.
3
" Unadjusted" and " adjusted" Heat Rate are calculated by ITDRT.
3
for the three Station power scenarios that were analyzed (100%,
a 79% and 50% power), the years in which the maxima occurred, and the adjustments (approximately 100 MBTU/hr) that were applied.
PSE&G proposed the maxima of the adjusted Summer and Winter period Heat Rates listed in Table 1 as the CWS's seasonal limits.
Table 2 compares the current limits, the interim limits under the ACO, the proposed limits, and the seasonal maxima of the Heat Rates and discharge temperatures that were measured between 1990 and 1993.
The ACO's and the proposed limits are greater than the current NJPDES limits.
The ACO's interim Winter limit is greater than the proposed Winter limit.
The ACO's interim Summer limit, however, is less than the proposed Summer limit.
Assumptions made on intake flow rate, Station power, and atmospheric conditions account for the differences between the ACO's interim limits and the proposed limits for Heat Rate and blowdown temperature.
A direct comparison of the maximum Heat Rates reported on the Discharge Monitoring Reports ("DMRs") for the years 1990 through i
1993 with the proposed limits suggests that the proposed limits provide a large margin of comfort with respect to compliance.
The maximum Heat Rates reported on the DMRs, however, reflect the 1
effects of a relatively limited sampling of atmospheric conditions and intake temperatures.
Furthermore, between 1990 and 1993, the
' The seasonal periods correspond to the periods used in the NJDEP's Surface Water Quality Standards for temperature, i.e. June through August O
( " Susene r" ) and September through May
(" Winter").
4
~
l i
i 4
Station nearl'y always operated at approximately 100% power with the exception of infrequent and brief periods of transient operations at less than 100%.5 The effluent limitations being proposed, however, account for the potential range of atmospheric and operational conditions that can reasonably occur.
The proposed limits ensure compliance with the surface water
~
quality standards on the allowable temperature increase at the edge of the heat (lissipation area ("HDA").
Based on dilution studies of the Station's blowdown, and a subsequent assessment by Edinger of heat losses to the atmosphere (See Attachment 2), PSE&G concluded that the blowdown from the Station's CWS will not increase the daily average water temperature at the edge of the HDA by more than 1.S*F during the Summer period, nor by more than 4.0*F during the Winter period.
As discussed in the Report, the
]
i Station is in compliance with the limitation of the maximum j
temperature at the edge of the HDA except when the ambient River i
water temperature exceeds 84.5*F.
j
'l III. Evaluation of ITDRT Relative to DMR Data ITDRT is a mathematical representation of complex thermodynamic processes involving heat transfer between the atmosphere and the Station's CWS.
The Report demonstrates that ITDRT provides 5 When the Station is operated at less.than 100% power, the natural draft cooling tower does not necessarily decrease the amount of waste heat discharged to the River.
Rather, the natural draft cooling tower may be less efficient and more heat may be discharged via the blowdown.
5 a
(~
reasonable estimates for daily averages of the CWS's Heat Rate,
' V) blowdown temperature, and blowdown flow rate based on daily 6
averages of response temperature, intake flow rate (expressed as a number of service water pumps), relative humidity, and air temperature.
This supplement further demonstrates that ITDRT is a reasonable predictor of Heat Rates and discharge temperatures.
The following paragraphs document that ITDRT reproduces measured Heat Rates on those days in 1990 through 1993 when the computed or the measured Heat Rates is a maximum.
The maxima were selected because they represent results closest to the proposed limits.
A demonstration that ITDRT reasonably and consistently approximates the higher
[
measured Heat Rates for the four year period (1990 through 1993) suggests that ITDRT will predict with equal reliability the Heat Rates for those days in the 46 year period when the atmospheric conditions, intake water temperatures, presumed intake flow rates, and presumed Station pcwer induce marginally higher Heat Rates.
On that basis, the seasonal maxima of these predictions are appropriate for use as the proposed limits on the Heat Rates and blowdown temperature of the Station's CWS.
ITDRT computes Heat Rates in a manner consistent with the calculation of the Heat Rates reported on the DMRs.
The Heat Rate
- The response temperature is a surrogate for ambient river water temperature.
Details on the calculation of response temperatures are provided in the Report (Pages 7 - 10).
6
I
(
is proportional to the product of the temperature rise (AT) across Q
the CWS and the blowdown discharge rate.
In ITDRT, AT is the I
difference between the computed discharge temperature and the response temperature; and the blowdown discharge rate is the difference between the computed daily average intake flow rate and the computed daily avaporation rate.
On the DMRs, AT is the measured difference between the daily average discharge temperature and the daily average intake temperature; and the blowdown discharge rate is a measured value.
The approximations that are included in ITORT affect the accuracy of the predicted blowdown characteristics, while the precision of the measurements affect the accuracy of the Heat Rates and OQ temperatures reported on the DMRs.
The difference between each computed and measured Heat Rate, therefore, reflects both the uncertainties in the predictions and the accuracy of the measurements.7 The approximations which affect the confidence in the predicted blowdown characteristics include: (1) response temperatures as a surrogate for the intake temperatures, (2) a presumed functional relationship between intake flow rate and response temperature, and (3) cooling tower performance curves as a simplification of the thermodynamic processes.
The performance i
i l
7 The precision of the measurements of intake temperature, intake flow rate, discharge flow rate, air temperature, and relative humidity has a direct bearing on the accuracy of the measured Heat Rates and discharge temperatures.
Because the measurements are used as the benchmark, any significant error in a measurement will reflect negatively on ITDRT's performance. These errors may
\\
be due to instrument resolution / malfunction and/or human errors.
id 7
i
(3 curves are semi-empirical relationships that predict the amount 8
Q) of circulating water that evaporates to the atmosphere, and the temperature of the blowdown.
The validity of the first approximation was demonstrated in the Report. The Report summarized the principles underlying the response temperature concept, and the application of response temperatures to the calculations of the Station's Heat Rate.
ITDRT was calibrated so that the response temperature for each day of 1990 through 1993 very closely matched (typically within 3 F) the corresponding measured intake temperature.' Maximum differences were on the order of 5 F and were infrequent.
Sections III.A and III.B of this Supplemental Report demonstrate that these differences do not significantly affect the predicted Heat Rates.
The second approximation relates service water intake flow rate to response temperatures.
Figure 1 shows the actual relationship between intake flow rate and ambient river water temperature.
The presumed intake flow rate is equal to 35,000 gpm (or two service water pumps) when the response temperature is less than 65 F; otherwise the intake flow rate is presumed to equal 47,000 gpm (or 8 These relationships are considered semi-empirical because the solutions to the thermodynamic equations which describe the cooling tower's heat balance must be calibrated to match observations.
Because these relationships are not exact, they also contribute to the uncertainty in ITDRT's calculations of the blowdown characteristics.
' Hope creek Hydrothermal Studies, Figures 1 through 4.
8
4
()
three service water pumps).
Infrequent exceptions to the presumed
?
V flow rates are evident.
The impact of these exceptions on the current evaluation of ITDRT's ability to predict blowdown characteristics is discussed in Sections III.A and III.B.
~
The differences between the predicted and measured Heat Rates that can not be attributed to the first two approximations represent the combined contributions from the third approximation (namely, the use of the cooling tower performance curves) and the precision of the measurements that are made to determine Heat Rate.
The cooling tower's performance curves were developed by the manufacturer for constant intake flow, intake temperature, and atmospheric conditions'(relative humidity and air temperature).
()
PSE&G adjusted the curves to account for the actual efficiency of the cooling tower based on cooling tower performance testing.
The daily averages of intake water temperature, intake flow rate, and meteorological variables have been assumed to represent constant conditions.
Water temperatures within (and blowdown from) the CWS, however, respond slowly but continuously to the more rapid and continuous changes that typify intake water temperature, intake flow rate, and meteorological variables.
The blowdown characteristics as listed on the DMRs reflect the average of the variations over a twenty-four hour period.
Thus, ITDRT predicts blowdown characteristics based on the average of the input conditions, whereas the DMRs reflect a true daily average of the O
9
O discharge".
The impact of the approximation on predicted blowdown V
characteristics can not be quantified.
Differences between the predicted and measured Heat Rates due to the third approximation (as well as, the precision of the measurements taken for Heat Rate) represent the baseline uncertainty in ITDRT's predictive capability to predict Heat Rates.
t The Report showed the correlations between the predicted and measured Heat Rates, and between predicted and measured blowdown temperatures.
These correlations demonstrated ITDRT's ability to reasonably predict the thermal characteristics (temperature and Heat Rate) of the Station's blowdown.
The following sections present more detailed evaluations that further demonstrate ITDRT's overall predictive ability, thereby reinforcing the confidence in the predicted Heat Rates and discharge temperatures that are based on the full 46 year meteorological record and the three Station power scenarios.
The evaluations consider those days in each of l
the Winter and Sumu~r periods of the years 1990 through 1993" when either the Heat Rate reported on the DMR or the unadjusted Heat Rate is a maximum.
ITDRT's performance is measured by the
- The volume of water in the CWS (approximately 11 x 10' gallons) would require several hours of constant meteorology and intake flows for the j
circulating water temperature and the blowdown characteristics to reach l
equilibrium (" steady-state").
Thus, the CNS's performance curves can not be used to predict blowdown characteristics at time scales that are less than the time to reach equilibrium.
" This supplement does not consider data that were collected prior to 1990. Certain changes were made in the measurements of discharge flow rates, intake flow rates and intake temperatures after 1989.
Thus, any uncertainties / errors in pre-1990 data are not reflected in calculations made by ITDRT.
10
(]
differences between the measured blowdown characteristics and the V
predicted blowdown characteristics.12 Factors which contribute to predictions outside of the 95% Confidence Interval" are identified and assessed for their effect on the predictions.
III.A Analysis of Results for the Winter Periods The Heat Rates reported on the DMRs were reviewed to determine the maximum measured Heat Rate and its time of occurrence in each of the four Winter periods (1990 - 1993).
A similar review was made of ITDRT's unadjusted Heat Rates to determine the time of occurrence of the maximum unadjusted Heat Rate at al./ Station power level in each of the Winter periods.
Table 3 identifies these days and summarizes for each day: the actual number of service water pumps and the number of pumps used by ITDRT; the CWS's measured intake temperatures (T,), discharge temperatures (Tu), ano temperature rises (AT); the respective values used or
)
computed by ITDRT for the Station at 100% power; and the i
i deviations in the values for ITDRT and the CWS.3' 12 The Station records indicate that the Station operated at nearly 100%
power for each of the days included in this evaluation.
Thus, only the predicted blowdown characteristics for the Station at 100% power are compared to the measured blowdown characteristics.
U Hope Creek Hydrothermal Studies, Figure 12.
I' The DMRs include data for February and March 1991. Although the CWS discharged blowdown during these months, the Station either was not generating power, or was attempting startups, conducting tests, or operating at a low power level.
Since ITDRT was not designed to handle these modes of operation, the evaluation does not include any days in the Winter period for 1991.
11
4 Table 3 shows that for each day, the response temperature and the CWS intake temperature agree within 12'F.
CWS and ITDRT blowdown temperatures show equally good agreement.
The deviations in the l
Tw's and Tu's do not show any bias; that is, the CWS's values are not consistently underpredicted (positive errors) or overpredicted j
(negative errors).
The deviations in ITDRT's ATs (which equal the deviation in Tu minus the deviation in Tm) aie typically within 13 F.
As discussed below, this level of consistency contributes l
significantly to ITDRT's ability to predict the Heat Rates for-t each day with the exception of 25-Apr-93.
On 25-Apr-93, the CWS was operated with three service water pumps, whereas ITDRT assumed two service water pumps.
l Table 4 summarizes for each day: the source of the data (namely, DMRs or a Heat Rate calculated by ITDRT); ITDRT's adjusted and unadjuci;ed Heat Rates for the Station at 100% power; the Heat Rate reported on the DMRs; the difference between the Heat Rate l
reported on the DMRs and the unndjusted Heat Ratesis for the Station at 100% power; revisions to the adjusted and unadjusted Heat Rates based on certain changes (as described below) in the f
i intake temperature and intake flow rate; and the difference between the Heat Rate reported on the DMRs and the revised j
15 This evaluation is based on the " unadjusted" rather than the i
" adjusted" Heat Rate.
The unadjusted Heat Rate is the expected value for a specific combination of atmospieric inputs, river water temperature, service water flow rate, and station power. The adjusted Heat Rate includes a component which quantifies a level of uncertainty in the expected value. Aa noted in the Report, the adjusted Heat Rate is the upper bound of the 95%
confidence interval.
12 b
.,r_.
l
(~
unadjusted Heat Rate.
b}
The maximum Heat Rates reported on the DMRs for the Winter periods of 1990, 1992 and 1993 ranged from 433 MBTU/hr to 492 MBTU/hr.36 The Heat Rater report;ed on the DMRs on days when ITDRT predicts the highest unadjusted Heat Rate are not significantly different and range from 40i MBTU/hr to 490 MBTU/hr.
For all days except 25-Apr-93, ITDRT'e unadjusted Heat Rates agree reasonably well (from -78 MBTU/hr to 57 NBTU/hr) with the Heat Rates reported on the DMRs.
This range of variation falls well within the bands of the 95% confidence interval (approximately 100 MBTU/hr) described in the Report.
For 25-Apr-93, the DMR Heat Rate (492 MBTU/hr) is 172 MBTU/hr greater than ITDRT's Heat Rate
()
(320 MBTU/hr).
The magnitude of the difference suggests a mer.surement error or an input to ITDRT that is not consistent with actual CWS operations (e.g.,
the intake flow rates).
The Heat Rates predicted by ITDRT are based on response temperatures in lieu of actual river water temperature, and a presumed serv'se water flow rate (expressed as an equivalent number of service water pumps).
Deviations between the response temperature and the actual river temperature and/or the presumed and nctual service water flow, therefore, will have some effect on the predicted Heat Rates.
To assess the contribution of these 16
/
See note 14, above.
i N/
13
deviations to the differences between the unadjusted and measured Heat Rates, ITDRT was used to recalculate the Heat Rates that would occur if the measured intake temperature were used in place of the response temperature, and the intake flow was equal to that provided by three service water pumps.
The results are summarized in the right half of Table 4.
Unadjusted Heat Rates are between
-77 MBTU/hr to 32 MBTU/hr of the DMR Heat Rates.
The differences between the unadjusted Heat Rate and the Heat Rate reported on the DMRs are relatively unchanged for all the days except 25-Apr-93.
The small differences between the response temperature and the measured intake water temperature did not significantly affect the differences between the unadjusted Heat Rate and the Heat Rate reported on the DMRs for those days when the presumed and measured intake flow rate were in agreement.
The unadjusted Heat Rate is relatively insensitive to small differences between the response temperature and measured intake water temperature.
Based on these results, it is reasonable to assume that the deviation in the response temperature from the measured intake l
water temperature for 25-Apr-93 does not contribute significantly to the large difference between the unadjusted and measured Heat Rates for that day.
The only remaining input variable with a potential to cause auch a large difference is the intake flow rate.
Based on the response temperatures, ITDRT assumed two service water pumps, whereas three service water pumps were operated.
Thus, ITDRT underestimated the intake service water i
14
flow rate.
When the CWS intake temperature and the actual number of~ service water pumps are input to ITDRT for 25-Apr-93, the unadjusted Heat Rate increases to 513 MBTU/hr from 320 MBTU/hr for a net increase of 193 MBTU/hr.
This revised unadjusted Heat Rate reflects actual operations and is in excellent agreement with the Heat Rate reported on the DMR (4 92 MBTU/hr).
Thus, the agreement between the unadjusted and measured Heat Rates for 25-Apr-93 is due primarily to the number of service water pumps that were used in the calculation.
The results in Tables 3 and 4 demonstrate that ITDRT reasonably predicts the Heat Rates for these six Winter days provided the number of service water pumps is correctly specified.
Small
()
deviations in the response temperature do not significantly affect the results.
Based on this level of performance, it is reasonable to expect that predictions for other atmospheric conditions will be on the same order of accuracy; therefore, the proposed Winter limit on the Heat Rate is appropriate.
The potential effect that i
a third pump has on the unadjusted Heat Rate and the implications that the effect has for compliance are discussed in Section IV.
i l
III.B Analysis of Results for the Summer Periods Consistent with the methodology outlined in Section III.A, the Station's DMRs and ITDRT's results were reviewed to identify the days in each of the four Summer pe -iods when the DMR Heat Rate and i
15
ITDRT'e unadjusted Heat Rate are the maxima."
The data for I
2 evaluating ITDRT's performance for these days are presented in
]
Tables 5 and 6.
Table 5 identifies the seven days and summarizes for each day: the actual number of service water pumps and the number of service water pumps used in ITDRT; the CWS's intake l
temperature (Ts), blowdown temperature ( T,1, ), and temperature rise j
i (AT); the respective temperatures used or computed by ITDRT for i
the Station at 100% power; and the deviations between the i
temperatures for ITDRT and the CWS.
j i
With the exception of 3-Aug-92, the response temperatures are within 15 F of the measured temperatures, as expected.is ITDRT l
predicts blowdown temperatures that are approximately within 13*F e
of the CWS blowdown temperatures for the remaining six days listed in Table 5.
The results for these six days show a tendency for a i
small overprediction (less than 2*F on average) of the blowdown temperature.
The combined effects of the deviations in intake and discharge temperatures are computed temperature increases that a
differ from the measured temperature increases across the CWS by
^
l
-5.6 F to 4.7'F.
l l
l t
U For 1993, ITDRT computes a maximum Heat Este on 9-Jun-93.
This is the same day that the DMRs for 1993 report the maximum Heat Rate.
This evaluation, i
therefore, is based on Heat Rates and blowdown temperatures for seven days.
I r
I8 ITDRT was calibrated so that response temperature correlated with measured intake ;. saperature. The Re5.ni ?raphically illustrated the correlation for the years 1990 through 1993.
Very good agreement was typical, but infrequent and brief periods existed when the two differed by as much as 5*F.
Reeponse temperatures that differ significantly by more than 5'F from intake temperature suggest the possibility of measurement error.
16 i
l
./I For 3-Aug-92, the response temperature is 9.9*F greater than the measured intake temperature, while the predicted and measured blowdown temperatures differ by less than 1 F.
The difference between the response temperature and measured intake temperature exceeds the expected range of variation ', and accounts for the 8
10.7*F difference between the predicted and measured temperature increase across the CWS.
A reexamination of the CWS's data for the period around 3-Aug-92 in conjunction with the preparation of this Supplemental Report suggests that an intake thermistor malfunctioned.
The malfunction would cause the CWS's data processor to record a lower than actual intake temperature.
Table 6 summarizes for each of the seven days: the source of the
()
Jata (namely, DMRs or a Heat Rate calculated by ITDRT); ITDRT's adjusted and unadjusted Heat Rates for the Station at 100% power; the Heat Rate reported on the DMRs; the difference between the Heat Rate reported on the DMRs and the unadjusted Heat Rates for the Station at 100% power; revisions to the adjusted and unadjusted Heat Rates based on certain changes (as described below) in the intake temperature and intake flow rate; and the difference between the Heat Rate reported on the DMRs end the revised unadjusted Heat Rate.
The P. eat Rates reported on the DMRs range from 151 MBTU/hr to 422 MBTU/hr.
The unadjusted Heat Rates range from 140 MBTU/hr to 351 MBTU/hr.
The differences between 39 Hope Creek HydtpJhermal Studies, Figures 1 through 4.
0 17
the_ unadjusted Heat Rates and those reported on the DMRs are as small as 3 MBTU/hr, and as v2ch as 226 MBTU/h.r.. Excluding the results for 3-Aug-92 and 3-Jun-90. the differences are i
approximately equal to or within the 95% Confidence Interval; the maximum overestimation and maximum underestimation of the measured l
Heat Rate are 102 MBTU/hr and 87 MBTU/hr, respectively.
L ITDRT was rerun using the CWS intake temperature in lieu of the response temperature for each day to remove the effect of the deviations in T from the unadjusted Heat Rates.
ITDRT was also rerun with two service water pumps for 3-Jun-90 in order to
)
simulate the actual intake flow rate.
The results are summarized 1
in the right hand side of Table 6.
The revised unadjusted Heat i
Rates and the DMR Heat Rates differ no more than 180 MBTU/hr.
j This range is consistent with that found for the Winter months and
)
is within the 95% Confidence Interval.
Based on the revis.vas to these inputs, the most significant reductions in the difference between the computed and the measured Heat Rate occur for 3-Jun-90, 3-Aug-92, and 9-Jun-93.
The primary 1
i factor that contributes to the large deviation in the Heat Rate for 3-Jun-90 is the deviation in the intake flow rate (or equivalently, the number of service water pumps).
Using the actual number of service water pumps for 3-Jun-90 reduces the deviation in the Heat Rate to -70 MBTU/hr.
The primary factor
]
that contributes to the large deviations in the Heat Rates for 4
1 18
3-Aug-92 and 9-Jun-93 is the deviations in the response temperature from the measured intake temperahire.
As noted previously, the 9.9'F deviation for 3-Aug-92 is likely due to a malfunction of the intake thermistor.
The effect of the malfunction is a DMR Heat Rate that is higher than actual.2 The deviation between the response temperature and intake temperature for 9-Jun-93 is just within the range of calibration of the response temperature.
Substitution of the measured intake temperature into ITDRT for 9-Jun-93 eliminates the deviation in
\\
the Heat Rate.2i The results in Tables 5 and 6 demonstrate that ITDRT reasonchly predicts the Heat Rates for the seven Summer days provided the number of service water pumps is correctly specified and the deviations in the intake temperatures are within the range of the correlation presented in the Report.
Deviations of 13*F in the response temperature do not significantly affect the results.
Based on this demonstration, it is reasonable to expect that predictions for other atmospheric conditions and Station operations will be on the same order of accuracy.
l 2
The temperature data which indicate that a thermistor malfunctioned also indicate that the response temperature for the data is a suitable approximation for the intake temperature.
Thus, the unadjusted Heat Rate (140 MBTU/hr) is an appropriate estimate of the actual discharge rate of heat for the day, 2
The 5'F difference for 9-Jun-1993 is just within the observed range of uncertainty in the response temperature. While some measurement error may be embedded in the 5'F differential, there is no basis to discount or adjust the Heat Rate reported on the DMR (or the revised unadjusted Rate).
19
/~T IV. Qualifications for Applying the Proposed Limits The proposed limits for Heat Rate and blowdown temperature are based on ranges of natural inputs (atmospheric conditions and river temperatures), and Station operations which have occurred or are reasonably likely to reoccur.
Because the bases for the proposed limits do not encompass all the natural conditions and operating situations which could conceivably eccur during the remainder of the Station's life, a possibility always exists that the proposed limits might be exceeded.
Consideration of the full spectrum of conditions, both operational and meteorological, would j
include joint occurrences of more extreme and infrequent natural inputs, and atypical Station operations; and would result in significantly higher proposed limits on Heat Rate and blowdown
()
temperature.
In deriving the proposed limits, an attempc has been made to strike a balance between the magnitude of the proposed limits and their probability of being exceeded.
The following paragraphs summarize the key assumptions, their application to the analysis, and their relevance to the proposed limits.
The foregoing analysis of the Winter data revealed that the number of service water pumps has a very significant impact on the Heat Rate.
The number of service water pumps in operation is based on the cooling needs of the small reactor auxiliary heat exchangers, pump testing requirements,and requirements of peripheral equipment necessary to meet Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC")
operating conditions.
The service water demands and operating and
, (,'N O
20
1 testing requirements can not be precisely anticipated.
For example, during periods of warm ambient river conditions (including April, May, September and October), additional service water flow may be necessary to' meet NRC operating requirements for the small' reactor auxiliary heat exchangers.
Although the actual number of pumps that are in operation are not based on the needs of the Stations's CWS, a comparison of intake 3
t flow rates and intake temperatures shows a serendipitous relationship.
Figure 1 shows the relationship between daily 1
intake flow rates and daily average intake temperature.
The daily I
average service water flow rates for two and three pump operations correspond to approximately 35,000 gpm and 47,000 gpm,
()
respectively.
ITDRT was constructed such thac the intake flow rate is equivalent to operating two service water pumps when the response temperature is less than 65 F.
Otherwise, ITDRT uses an intake flow rate that is equivalent to operating three service water pumps.
Figure 1 shows that this generally reflects the historical record.
Figure 2 shows the monthly frequency distributions of response temperatures for the 46 year period.
The distributions indicate that ITDRT rarely uses an intake flow rate that is equivalent to three service water pumps during the Winter months.
Figure 1 l
shows, however, that three service water pumps have been used when intake temperatures have been as low as 45*F.
The use of the 21 i
i
i d
(~N thir' 'ervice water pump during periods of cooler ambient river b
wate. cemperature is likely the result of pump testing i
requirements and testing requirements of peripheral equipment.
l Table 7 lists the unadjusted Heat Rates that would be expected if three service water pumps had been presumed for all response temperatures.
The unadjusted Heat Rates for 13-Mar-90 equal or exceed the proposed Winter limit on the Heat Rate.
Had ITDRT been constructed to use three service water pumps for the 46 year period of simulation, the proposed Winter limit would be much greater.
Thus, the proposed Winter limit on the Heat Rate in the Station's permit does not entirely eliminate the possibility that the Station could exceed the Heat Rate Limit when three service
]
(
water pumps are operating in the Winter months.
The maximum reported Summer Heat Rate for the years 1990 through 1993 is 422 MBTU/hr (Table 2), and corresponds to the Station l
operating at approximately 100% power.
The maximum predicted unadjusted and adjusted Summer Heat Rates when the Station 1
operates at 100% power are 381 MBTU/hr and 483 MBTU/hr, respectively (Table 1).
Thus, the maxitum reported Summer Heat Rate falls approximately mid-way between the unadjusted and adjusted Heat Rates for the Station at 100% power.
Based on the resulto presented in Table 1, the atmospheric conditions and intake water temperatures that induced the highest predicted Heat Rate occurred in 1971 and 1989.
Thus, the Heat Rates reported on 22 l
4 l
the DMR do not necessarily represent the maximum Heat Rate that could occur in response to the broader spectrum of atmospheric conditions that have occurred or to a lower operating power.
The proposed Summer Heat Rate limit of 534 MBTU/hr is 112 MBTU/hr i
greater than the maximum Summer Heat Rate (422 MBTU/hr) reported l
on the DMRs.
The 112 MBTU/hr differential is approximately equal to the 95% Confidence Interval (approximately 1100 MBTU/hr).
The proposed limit accommodates the potential effects of lower Station power on the Heat Rate and the broader spectrum of meteorological conditions and intake river temperatures that have occurred or could reasonably occur.
()
Finally, PSE&G proposed an increase to the limit on blowdown temperature.
The highest measured blowdown temperature in the years 1990 through 1993 equals the existing limit on blowdown f
temperature (Table 1).
Based on the 46 year simulation, ITDRT predicts a maximum discharge equa?. to 97.1 F (3 6. 2 C).
ITDRT's demonstrated ability to reasonably predict discharge temperatures for the four Summer periods without significant bias supports the increase in order to account for the possible effects for the broader spectrum of atmospheric conditions.
V.
Summary In the Report, PSE%G proposed the following thermal limits on the blowdown from the CWS of Hope Creek Generating Station:
O
. \\~s]
l 23
'k Effluent Temperature:
97.1*F (3 6. 2
- C)
(O 534 MBTU/hr Net Heat Rate: Summer
-~
Winter 662 MBTU/hr These. proposed limits are based on the results of ITDRT that uses a long term synthetic record of river water temperatures and presumed Station operations with an actual 46 year time-series of meteorological conditions.
The proposed limits are based on reasonably conservative assumptions that affect the magnitude of predicted Heat Rates and blowdown temperatures.
The cooling tower blowdown thermal characteristics are expected to comply with the proposed limits.
()
This expectation is based on the upper bound of the 95% Confidence Interval that, characterizes the predictive accuracy of ITDRT.
Consideration of more adverse meteorological conditions in combination and Station operations that induce greater Heat Rates and occur infrequently would result in proposed limits that would j
be markedly greater.
The proposed limits ensnre compliance with the temperature standards (meas'ared as a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> average) at the edge of the designated heat dissipation area whenever the ambient river water temperature does not exceed 84.5*F.
i 1
24 I
- - = - --
4-g 60000 1
1
.. _._ SAM k 50000 --
..,~..c. c.
1%
.f.
a
. ~.
1 5
g 40000 -
y~...
- O d-h h k :.
j m
3 30000 -
i e
.9 te 20000 -
v) 10000 l
l l
i l
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Intake temperature, F Figure 1: Correlation Between Intake Temperature and Intake Flow Rate a
I
.-3,.
v.
100 100 J**"esy a
l **ad*'
a d.
J.
1 3.-
L L
]
} ". j
] ".
m e
m so n
m ao a
so Temperetwo (Deg. F)
P Temperstwo (Dug. F)
Iao een l
3,,
p,,
[
i
'~
1 1
E E
d.
d.
g g
a m
m so ao a
si to
- s ao m
so so
?
. Tongerenne (Deg. F)
Response Teampstetwo (Dog. F) i sco too l
7 M
no a g
p $5 t-3*
3 4
so a
m m
m m
so Respones Temperetwo (ths. F)
Totapersome (Dag. F) k too 10 0 g
Ap d g
septemtwe f.
f.
3 I so E
K d.
5 g
g i
w o
m, so a
so m
ao so ao so en Response Tempersmie (Dog. F)
Respones Temperetwo (Deg. F) non too t
May August i.
l.
1 1
E K
d 3*
2 40 m
so to lo ao
$D eo a
so i
Tesuporetwo (Ikg. F)
Respamme Toimpereers (Deg. F) ino 100 Jwne
- Jue, g
j n
g: si p so so so 1,-
1,-
m m
Respamme heremus (Dog. F)
Response Tempsvetwo (Deg. F)
Figure 2.
Cumuisdve Frasquency Distremtion of Response Temperatures et Hope Creek Cru; Station
1 i
.TT Table 1 U
Cooling Tower Blowdown - Computed Maximum Heat Rates 1
i l
Summer Period i
Rate (MBTU/hr)
Adjustment Year (MBTU/HR)
Output Unadjusted Adjusted j
100%
1971 381 483 102
)
l 79%
1989 401 504 103 8
50%
1989 430 534 104 Winter Period Net Heat Rate (MBTU/hr)
Adjustment Year (MBTU/HR)
Output Unadjusted Adjusted 100%
1979 500 606 106 j
79%
1979 531 639 108 2
50%
1964 554 662 108 Pr:pcsed Rate Limit for the summer period.
2 Proposed Rate Limit for the winter period.
O O
O' Table 2 Comparison of Blowdown Characteristics Winter Period Summer Period Blowdmvn MBTU/hr MBTU/hr Temperature Current Limits 338 238 96.0 F (35.6 C)
A. C. O. Limits 731 443 96.0 F (35.6 C)
Proposed Limits 662 534 97.1 F (36.2 C) 1990 - 1993 DMRs' 492 422 90.0 F (35.6 C)2 9
I The Heat Rates and blowdown temperatures represent the maximum measured values over the four year period.
2 Blowdown temperature measured on September 3, 1993.
The temperature of the makeup water on this day was 84*F.
O O
l J Table 3 Comparison of CWS and ITDRT Inputs and Discharge Temperatures Winter Days of Maximum Heat Rate Service Pumps CWS ITDRT
. Deviations Date CWS ITDRT T.
- Toi, AT' T,
T,,,
AT' Tm T,8 d
2 i
ai 13-Mar-90 2
2 48.1 83.6 35.5 46.3 84.1 37.8 1.8
-0.5
-2.3 17-Feb-91 2
38.6 63.9 25.3 03-Feb-92 2
2 35.6 69.0 33.4 37.5 68.3 30.8
-1.9 0.7 2.6 25-Apr-93 3
2 52.3 83.0 30.7 54.0 81.3 27.3
-1.7 1.7 3.4 18-Jan-90 2
2 37.3 77.2 39.9 38.7 78.7 40.0
-1.4
-1.5
-0.1 2-Mar-91 2
43.7 53.5 9.8 31-Dec-92 2
2 39.3 77.0 37.7 39.2 78.6 39.4 0.1
-1.6
-1.7 5-Jan-93 2
2 41.2 79.4 38.2 42.0 77.9 35.9
-0.8 1.5 2.3 8
AT = Temperature Rise across the CWS = T
- Tm 2 Deviation = (T,7
- (T )"I where (Tw) " T is the Response Temperature N
Deviation = (T )N - (T ) mr
- Deviation = (AT) N - ( AT) rroar
O O
C Table 4 Comparison of DMR and ITDRT Heat Rates - Winter Months ITDRT DMR Dif f.2 ITDRT - Revised Diff.
8 Date Data Adjusted Unadj'd Adjusted Unadj'd uB m sr kmRuhr MBTU.hr MBmhr hurrU/hr Em m hr MBW!hr 13-Mar-90 D
539 435 433
-2 518 414 19 17-Feb-91 D
390 3-Feb-92 D
496 393 449 56 521 417 32 25-Apr-93 D
421 320 492 172 620 513
-21 18-Jan-90 I
584 478 418
-60 601 495
-77 2-Mar-91 I
145 31-Dec-92 I
585 479 401
-78 583 478
-77 5-Jan-93 I
537 433 490 57 547 443 47 I
"D" indicates that the DMR Heat Rate is the maximum for the period.
"I" indicates that ITDRT's Heat Rate is the maximum for the period.
2 Heat Rate " - Heat Rate' "
O O
O Table 5 Comparison of CWS and ITDRT Inputs and Discharge Temperatures Summer Days of Maximum Heat Rates Service Pumps CWS I T D R*A' Deviations Date CWS ITDRT Tw
- Tai, AT' T
2 3
T, AT T
- Tai,
?.f ai g
m 15-Jul-90 3
3 77.8 88.8 11.0 76.7 92.0 15.3 1.1
-3.2
-4.3 18-Aug-91 3
3 76.9 89.2 12.3 78.2 90.8 12.6
-1.3
-1.6
-0.3 3-Aug-92 3
3 70.6 89.3 18.7 80.5 88.5 8.0
-9.9 0.8 10.7 9-Jun-93 3
3 65.5 89.4 23.9 70.5 89.7 19.2
-5.0
-0.3 4.7 3-Jun-90 2
3 68.5 84.4 15.9 6t 2 87.7 21.5 2.3
-3.3
-5.6 16-Jun-91 3
3 79.5 89.7 10.2 78.0 91.6 13.6 1.5
-1.9
-3.4 8-Jun-92 3
3 74.2 89.0 14.8 70.5 90.7 20.2 3.7
-1.7
-5.4 1
AT = Temperature Rise across the CWS = T. - T.
2 Deviation = (T ) N - (T.) ""T 3 Deviation = (T
)" - (T ) NT 4 Deviation = (AT) N - (AT) *"'
u
O O
O'~
Table 6 Comparison of DMR and ITDRT Heat Rates - Summer Months ITDRT DMR Dif f.2 ITDRT - Revised Diff.
8 Date Data Adjusted Unadj'd Adjusted Unadj'd MBR!!hr MBRI&r MBniar MBTU4r MBTUlr MBRWr MBTU!br 15-Jul-90 D
366 266 164
-102 346 247
-83 b
18-Aug-91 D
317 219 216
-3 340 242
-26 3-Aug-92 D
235 140 331 191 414 313 18 9-Jun-93 D/I 436 335 422 87 526 422 0
3-Jun-90 I
479 377 151
-226 319 221
-70 16-Jun-91 I
334 235 169
-66 307 209
-40 8-Jun-92 I
453 351 254
-97 387 287
-33 mr 3
=D" indientes that the DMR Heat Rate is the maximum for the period.
=Ia indicates that ITDRT's Heat Rate is the maximum for the period.
2 Heat Rate"" - Heat Rate""'
^
< +.
Table 7 i
Effect of Three Service Water Pumps on the Unadjusted Heat Rate Response No. of Pumps Unadiusted Rate (MBTU/hr)
Date Temp.
(op)
CWS' ITDRT DMR 100% Power 79% Power 50% Power 13-Mar-90 46.3 2
3 NA 662 699 743 17-Feb-91 38.6 2
3 NA 540 531 482 03-Feb-92 37.5 2
3 NA 577 572 538 25-Apr-93 54.0 3
3 492 483 602 615 1 The Heat Rate reported on the DMR can not be compared to ITDRT's calcult.<1 Heat Rate for the shaded cells since the specified service water flow rate is different from the actual ilow rate.
O ATTACHMENT 1 HOPE CREEK HYDROTHERMAL STUDIES.
O 1
O
p-L f
-t i
Hope Creek Hydrothermal Studies Prepared for Public Service Electric and Gas Company i
P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 i
Q Prepared by' John Eric Edinger Edward M. Buchak J. E. Edinger Associates, Inc.
37 West Avenue Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087-3226 Document No. 94-059-R June 21,1994 O
i 1
. m.
(,)
Table of Contents -
n Iht of Tables
...........................................Page1 List of Figures........................................... Page 2 S u mmary........................................... <.. Page 3 Introd uction............................................. Page 5 i
The Model
.............................................Page7 i
Intake Temperature Computation............................ Page 7 Cooling Tower Performance Computation..................... Page 10 Long-term Discharge Simulations............................... Page 14 Maximum Discharge Temperature.....................
.... Page 15 Maximum Thermal Discharge Rate and Rise for the September-May Period Page 16 Maximum Thermal Discharge Rate and Rise for the June-August Period.. Page 16 Heat Dissipation Area Limitations.............................. Page 18 S
Temperature Rise at the Edge of Heat Dissipation Area............. Page 18
)
Temperature at the Edge of Heat Dissipation Area................ Page 19 t
v References
...................................... Page 2 0 i
O
b r
i
)
)..
f t
Page 1 N
List of Tables l
i t
l Table 1. Temperature corrections (*F) by day and month.
i i
Table 2. Annual maximum discharge temperatures, June-August thermal discharge rates j
and temperature rises, and September-May thermal discharge rates and temperature rises computed by ITDRT for the 46 year meteorological period of f
- record, i
i Table 3. Annual maximum ambient temperatures computed by ITDRT for the 46 year f
i meteorological period of record.
i
-I i
l i
i I
l I
I e
i i
l i
t J. E. FAinger Associates, Inc.
Document No. 94-059-R
. ~. _.
- -, _.. ~....
p h
~
I 1
Page 2 List of Mgures Figure 1. Time series of computed and observed intake temperatures for 1990.
Figure 2. Time series of computed and observed intake temperatures for 1991.
Figure 3. Time series of computed and observed intake temperatures for 1992.
Figure 4. Time series of computed and observed intake temperatures for 1993.
Figure 5. Example cooling tower performance curves.
I Figure 6. Time series of computed and observed discharge temperatures for 1992.
Figune 7. Time series of computed and observed discharge temperatures for 1993.
l i
Figure 8. Time series of computed and observed blowdown rates for 1992.
i Figure 9. Time series of computed and observed blowdown rates for 1993.
I Figure 10. Time series of computed and observed thermal discharge rates for 1992.
i Figure 11. Time series of computed and observed thermal discharge rates for 1993.
l
-i Figure 12. Computed ver;us observed thermal discharge rate for 1992-1993 and the I
95% confidence interval.
l t
Figure 13. Computed versus observed discharge temperature for 1992-1993 and the
{
95% confidence interval.
l l
l t
O i
l J. E. Edinger Associates, Inc.
Docwnent No. 94-059-R I
f
gY Page 3 Summary
]
This study used a model to simulate 46 years.? operations of the Hope Creek cooling tower blowdown system. The model consisted of two components, each one calibrated by comparison to observations. The first component was used to compute intake temperatures; the second component was used to compute cooling tower discharge characteristics.
Each component relied on observed meteorological data for input. The outputs of the model were daily intake temperatures, blowdown rates and temperatures, thermal discharge rates, and temperature rises at the point of discharge to the Delaware. By examining the time series of these computed variables over the 46 year metcorological period of record, maximum thermal discharge characteristics for each of two seasons were identified. These are discharge temperature:
- 97. l *F June-August maximum thermal discharge rate:
533.9 MBtu h-8 June-August maximum temperature rise:
28.4*F September-May maximum thermal discharge rate:
662.3 MBtu h'8 September-May maximum temperature rise:
46.2'F.
The two maximum temperature rises were compared to the minimum dilution obtained from a dye study of the discharge; the comparison showed that the Surface Water Quality Standards' ("SWQS") temperature rise limits at the edge of the heat dissipation area ("HDA")
would not be exceeded. An examination of the computed time series of intake temperatures shows that the ambient River temperatures may exceed 86*F due primarily to natural O
J. E. Edinger Associates, Inc.
Document No. 94-059-R
i i
f g
i Page 4 meteorological conditions. In fact,' the River temperature was predicted to exceed 86*F twice i
i in the last 10 years due to meteorological conditions.
I r
l b
J i
i i
t I
i I
-1 J. E. Edinger Associates, Inc.
Document No. 94-059-R
... - - ~
G Page5 Introduction PSE&G's Hope Creek Generating Station uses a closed cycle, evaporative cooling tower P
to provide condenser cooling water. Service water is withdrawn from the Delaware Estuary to provide makeup water to the cooling tower to replace water lost to evaporation and blowdown.
Blowdown water limits the buildup of solids in the tower basin and constitutes the discharge from the cooling tower back to the Delaware Estuary. The temperature of the service water
(" intake temperature") is the ambient temperature of the Estuary in the vicinity of Hope Creek and is determined primarily by meteorological conditions. The temperature of the blowdown water is determined by meteorological conditions and Station operating conditions.
[
The purposes of this study are to determine thermal discharge rates and discharge L
temperatures and temperature rises of the cooling tower blowdown; to evaluate the thermal discharge relative to the SWQS 1.5*F rise for June-August and 4.0*F rise for September-May at the edge of the heat dissipation area; and to examine the SWQS 86*F limit at the edge of the heat dissipation area relative to variations in ambient temperatures due to meteorological conditions. The thermal discharge rate is the product of the temperature rise and the blowdown rate. The temperature rise, in turn, is the difference between the intake and discharge temperatures.
As part of this study, a computer model of the Hope Creek cooling tower performance was constructed that computes daily blowdown thermal discharge rate and discharge temperature.
l The model has two components. The first component is the computation of daily intake temperatures using meteorological data observed at Wilmington, Delaware.
The second J. E. Edinger Associates, Inc.
Document No. 94-059-R
O
'J Page 6 component is the computation of the thermal discharge rate and discharge temperature based on published cooling tower performance curves (calibrated to reproduce actual performance as observed during monitored tower operations). The second component of the model uses daily Station power levels, service water intake rates, daily mean meteorological data, and computed daily mean intake temperatures from the first component. The modelincorporates these two components and is called the Integrated Thermal Discharge Rate and Temperature model
("ITDRT"). ITDRT was verified by comparison to observed discharge temperatures and flow rates. Because the model's components depend solely on meteorological data and Station operating conditions, ITDRT can be used to simulate long periods of time for whir.h meteorological data are available and for which Station operating conditions can be assumed.
ITDRT computes daily values of the intake temperature, thermal discharge rate and temperature, v
and the temperature rise (discharge temperature minus intake temperature) for each day for which meteorological data are available.
ITDRT was run for the 1948-1993 period (the period of record for Wilmington meteorological data) to simulate intake temperatures, thermal discharge rates and temperatures, and temperature rises that would have occurred had the Station been operating during this period. Uncertainties in the model derived from the comparison to observed thermal discharge rates and temperatures are included in the computation by applying confidence bands to the model output.
Maximum values of the intake temperature, thermal discharge rates and temperatures, and temperature rises are summarized from the model's time series results and are presented in the last section of this report.
O J. E. Edinger Associates, Inc.
Document No. 94-059-R
O Page 7 The Model The model for computing the Hope Creek cooling tower discharge temperature and the thermal discharge rate has two components. The first component is used to compute the service water intake temperature from meteorological data. The second component is the cooling tower performance computation itself. The intake temperature component was calibrated and combined with the second component to form ITDRT. The model was then verified by comparison to observations. Uncertainties were considered by applying confidence bands to the model results.
Intake Temperature Computation The service water intake temperature to the Hope Creek cooling tower is computed from the response temperature as co'.reued for observed variations. The response temperature is the temperature of the Delaware Estuary in the vicinity of the Station that results from the response to meteorological conditions alone. The response temperature considers only surface heat exchange. Corrections to give service water intake temperatures, required primarily during the winter months, are developed by comparison to observed intake temperatures.
The response temperature is computed from the relationship of dT, H,
(1)
=
dt pc,D where
[')
T, response temperature, F
=
v J. E. Edinger Associates, Inc.
Document No. 94-059-R
h i
l t
- . /%
l}
Page 8 time, s t
=
net rate of surface heat exchange, Btu s-' fr2 H.
=
the density of water, 62.4 lb fr5
. 'p
=
c, specific heat of water,1 Btu lb-' *F8 l
=
depth of water column, ft, taken as 20 ft for the Hope Creek reach of the
.j D
=
Delaware Estuary, t
The net rate of surface heat exchange is computed from
}
H, = (H, + H, - H,, - H.,) - (H. + H, + H,)
(2) i where H,
shortwave solar radiation
=
H.
longwave atmospheric radiation
=
H,,
reflected shortwave solar radiation
=
H.,
reflected longwave atmosp aric radiation
=
back radiation from the water column H.
=
evaporative heat loss from the water column f
H.
=
conductive heat exchange wHi the water column.
H,
=
i Solar radiation, H,, can be measured or computed from cloud cover. Atmospheric i
radiation, H, is computed from air terrperature and cloud cover. Reflected shortwave and i
longwave radiation, H, and H.,, are taken as a fraction of H, and H,. Back radiation from the water column, H., is computed from the water temperature. Evaporative heat loss, H,, is computed from the windspeed and the difference between the water surface vapor pressure and the atmospheric vapor pressure. Heat conduction, H,, is computed from the Bowen ratio, the
]
l J. E. Edinger Associates, Inc.
Document No. 94-059-R j
(O)
Page 9 wind-speed and the difference in water temperature and air tempeiature. Details of the methods for computing the individual terms in the net rate of heat exchange, Equation 2, are given in Ryan, et al. (1972), Wunderlich (1972), and Edinger, et al. (1974).
The surface heat exchange computations require knowing shortwave solar radiation or cloud cover, air temperature, dewpoint temperature, wind speed, and atmospheric pressure. The longest and most complete source of meteorological data close to Hope Creek is from Wilmington, Delaware (NOAA-NCDC First Order Station Number 13781). This weather observation station has hourly (or, for a period in the 1980's, three-hourly) data available from 1948 to the present. The observations at Wilmington do not include solar radiation but do include cloud cover from which solar radiation can be computed.
Intake temperatures are monitored at Hope Creek. Since 1990 these data are retrievable L
on an hourly and daily basis for use in this study. Response temperatures were computed hourly then averaged to daily mean temperatures for 1990-1993 and were compared to the observed intake temperatures over the same period. It was found that the response temperatures tended to under-estimate intake temperatures during the late fall and winter months and slightly over-estimate intake temperatures in the summer months. To calibrate the intake temperature component of the model, a correction to the response temperatures was denloped by computing the difference between the observed temperature and the response temperature for each day of the period 1990-1993 and then averaging the difference over the four years for the same calendar day. The correction applied to the computed response temperature for each calendar day is shown in Table 1. The daily mean response temperature coupled with the correction is the service water intake temperature for the Hope Creek cooling tower makeup water. This J. E. Edinger Associates, Inc.
Document No. 94-059-R
f3 L)
Page 10 temperature is also the computed ambient temperature of the Delaware Estuary in the vicinity of the heat dissipation area for the HDA evaluation.
Annual time series of the computed intake temperatures using Wilmington meteorological data and the observed intake temperatures are given for 1990-1993 in Figures 1 through 4.
These figures show that computed intake temperatures closely represent the observed temperatures.
Cooling Tower Performance Computation The cooling tower discharge temperature and thermal discharge rate depend on: the Station power level; the service water pumping rate; the wet bulb temperature, dry bulb temperature and relative humidity; and the service water intake temperature. The cooling tower performance computation for Hope Creek was developed by PSE&G from design cooling tower performance curves and calibrated based on performance tests of the tower.
ITDRT uses daily average values of the meteorological variables required for the cooling tower portion of the computation, including the calibrated response temperature that represents the intake temperature in the long term simulations. The choice of daily mean values, rather than the hourly values available from the meteorological record, was made in order to be consistent with the reporting procedure for the thermal discharge rate, which is on a daily mean basis.
Figure 5 shows an example of a cooling tower performance curve for a range of wet bulb temperatures and four relative humiditics for a constant intake temperature, service water pumping rate, Station power level, and dry bulb temperature. The following example is J. E. Edinger Associates, Inc.
Document No. 94-059-R
r Page 11 L
presented to illustrate how the cooling tower computations are used in ITDRT. For the conditions shown in Figure 5, that is, an intake temperature of 40*F, a service water pumping rate of 35,000 gpm, a Station power level of 100%, a dry bulb temperature of 60*F, and an l
assumed wet bulb temperature of 50*F and relative humidity of 60%, a discharge temperature i
t of approximately 78*F is found.1TDRT computes an evaporation rate of 11,260 gpm for these conditions. The thermal discharge rate, therefore, can be calculated as follows:
thermal discharge rate = blowdown rate temperature rise heat capacity (3) i where blowdown rate = 35,000 gpm - 11,260 gpm = 23,740 gpm, or 1,424,400 gal h '
temperature rise = 78'F - 40*F = 38'F heat capacity = 1 Btu /lb/ F.
The thermal discharge rate equals (1,424,400 gal h-') - (8.33 lb/ gal) - (38*F)
- (1 Btu /lb/*F) = 451 MBtu h-'.
i The coupled intake temperature and cooling tower computations that comprise ITDRT were run for the 1992-1993 period for verification. This period was used because meters to monitor the service water intake flows have been in operation since 1992. The ITDRT computations were performed for each day in this two year period assuming a 100% power level and the monitored service water flows. The time series comparisons for 1992-1993 computed and observed discharge temperatures are shown in Figures 6 and 7, the time series of comparisons of computed and observed discharge rates are shown in Figures 8 and 9, and the time series comparisons of computed and observed thermal discharge rates are shown in Figures 10 and 11.
J. E. Edinger Associates, Inc.
Docwnent No. 94-059-R
gO Page 12 The comparisons of observed and computed parameters in Figures 6 through 11 show good agreement; however, there are uncertainties in the tower performance computations that need to be accounted for when using the model to compute tower performance as it would have occurred over past years. One uncertainty in the model is that it assumes that the cooling tower responds instantaneously to meteorologica' conditions when in fact any mechanical system has a finite response time. Second, as in any analysis of this type, there are uncertainties in the measurement of the blowdown flow rate and in the measurement of intake and discharge temperatures on which the observed thermal discharge rate depends as well as uncertainties in the model computations. Furthermore, for 1992-1993, the model computations were carried out assuming the Station was operating at 100% power level which was the case most of the time P
but not all of the time.
d The observed and computed thermal discharge rates for the 1992 to 1993 period are compared in Figure 12. Also shown on Figure 12 is the 95th percentile confidence interval for computing the thermal dScha ge rate. The 95th percentile confidence interval means that there is 95 percent certainty that a computed value of the thermal discharge rate will fall within the confidence band when compared to observations. The 95th percentile interval is commonly used in scientific computations to account for uncertainties. The upper band of the 95th percentile confidence interval was used to compute the maximum thermal discharge rate for the long term simulations. That is, the computed thermal discharge rate is adjusted by an amount that places all but 2.5% of the computed values above the observed values. The equation for computing the upper band of the 95% confidence interval is approximated as follows:
TDRu = 91.615 + (1.0294 TDR,)
(4)
J. E. Edinger Associates, Inc.
Document No. 94-059-R
i
(,)
Page 13 v
where TDR,5 is the 5% upper interval thermal discharge rate in MBtu h-'
TDR, is the observed thermal discharge rate in MBtu h-8 4
91.615 and 1.0294 are the slope and intercept of the upper band of the confidence interval shown on Figure 12.
The observed and computed discharge temperatures for 1992-1993 are compared in Figure 13. Also shown is the 95th percentile confidence interval. Similar to the thermal discharge rate, the upper band of 95th percentile confidence interval on the discharge temperature was used for the long term simulations. As a result, the computed discharge temperature is adjusted by an amount that places all but 2.5% of the computed values above the
/'N observed values. This equation is as follows:
U T,5 = 16.67 + (0.853 T.)
(5) 4 where T,5 is the 5% upper interval discharge temperature in "F T, is the observed discharge temperature in *F 4
16.67 and 0.853 are the slope and intercept of the upper band of the confidence interval shown on Figure 13.
Use of the above relationships results in conservative estimates of the thermal discharge rate, discharge temperature and temperature rise (the difference between the discharge temperature and the intake temperature).
J. E. Edinger Associates, Inc.
Document No. 94-059-R
i
'O Page 14 Long-term Discharge Simulations ITDRT was applied day by day for the period of meteorological data observations (1948-1993) in order to compute the daily discharge temperature and the thermal discharge rate for assumed Station power levels and pumping rates. Time series of discharge temperatures and thermal discharge rates computed by ITDRT were then examined to determine the maximum, long-term thermal discharge rate and discharge temperature. These analyses were repeated to determine long-term maxima for both the June-August and the September-May periods. The meteorological data used for the computation of the intake temperature and the tower performance are from the Wilmington record.
Q The ITDRT simulations were made for each day assuming that two service water pumps V
were operating (35,000 gpm), unless intake temperatures exceeded 65*F, in which case three pumps were assumed (47,000 gpm). This assumption approximates the conditions used by operators at Hope Creek for service water pump operations.
The simulations were made for three different power levels because a property of the cooling tower is that higher thermal discharge rates can occur at power levels less than 100%.
There are two factors responsible for this phenomenon. The first factor is that the discharge temperature is dependent primarily on meteorological conditions and much less on heat load.
For this reason, discharge temperatures are nearly constant for a given set of meteorological conditions. The second factor is that decreased power levels decrease the evaporation rate from the cooling tower and therefore increase the blowdown rate for a given service water pumping rate. As shown in Equation 3, the thermal discharge rate is the product of the temperature rise J. E. Edinger Associates, Inc.
Document No. 94-059-R
gY Page 15 (which is nearly constant for given meteorological conditions) and the blowdown rate (which can increase as power levels decrease). Because of these two factors, a power level less than 100%
can result in a higher thermal discharge rate than a power level of 100%. To capture the highest thermal discharge rates, ITDRT computed thermal discharge rates and temperatures for power levels of 100%, 79%, and 50% for each day and selected the highest thermal discharge rate and maximum discharge temperature for inclusion in the time series. The two lower rates were selected to account for the expected range of operations at Hope Creek. A power level of 79%,
rather than 75 %, was used because cooling tower performance for this level is cataloged by the manufacturer.
The long-term daily simulation results from 1948-1993, based on the hourly meteorological record used to compute daily values of the thermal discharge rate and the discharge temprature, are summarized in Table 2 as the annual maxima.
Maximum Discharge Temperature Table 2 shows that the calculated maximum discharge temperature is 97.1 F, which occurs three times in the record. The maximum occurs on July 19,1972 and is a result of a high computed intake temperature (82.4*F), high service water pumping rate (47,000 gpm), a Station power level of 100%, and meteorological conditions for the cooling tower portion of the computation of 79.0*F wet bulb temperaturc; 81% relative humidity; and 84.0*F dry bulb temperature. The discharge temperature values for the 79% and 50% cases are nearly identical at slightly less than 97.l*F and 96.7 F, respectively.
O J. E. Edinger Associates, Inc.
Document No. 94-059-R
'O Page 16 Maximum Therrnal Discharge Rate and Rise for the September-May Period The calculated mr.imum thermal discharge rate for the September-May period would have occurred on December 26,1964, when a computed value of 662.3 MBtu h-' was*obtained.
This value is the result of a high discharge temperature (82.7'F) coupled with a low intake temperature (39.9*F). The high discharge temperature in tum is related to meteorological conditions for the cooling tower portion of the computation of 56.5*F wet bulb temperature; 88% relative humidity; and 58.7'F dry bulb temperature. This thermal discharge rate is obtained for the 50% power level, with the values for the 100% and 79% power levels being 593.5 and 629.8 MBtu h, respectively.
The calculated maxiinum temperature rise for the September-May period in the long-term Q
simulations would have occurred on January 1,1979, when a computed rise of 46.2*F was V
obtained. This value is the result of a high discharge temperature (82.2*F) coupled with a low intake temperature (36.0*F). This temperature rise is obtained for the 100% power level and is related to the relatively poor performance of the cooling tower due to the following meteorological conditions: 50.0 F wet bulb temperature; 85% relative humidity; and 52.3 F dry bulb temperature.
Maximum Thermal Discharge Rate and Rise for the June-August Period The calculated maximum thermal discharge rate for the June-August pernJ would have occurred on June 1,1989, when a computed value of 533.9 MBtu h ' was obtained. This value is the result of a high discharge temperature (94.1*F) coupled with a relatively low intake temperature (69.7*F). The high discharge temperature in turn is related to meteorological J. E. Edinger Associates, Inc.
Document No. 94-059-R
Page 17 G'
conditions of 73.7 F wet bulb temperature; 68% relative humidity; and 82.6*F dry bulb temperature. This thermal discl'.arge rate was obtained for the 50% power level, with the values for the 100% and 79% power levels being 476.9 and 504.1 MBtu h*', respectively.
The calculated maximum temperature rise for the June-August period in the long-term simulations would have occurred on June 2,1961, when a computed rise of 28.4*F was obtained. This value is the result of a high discharge temperature (92.0 F) coupled with a relatively low intake temperature (63.6*F). This temperature rise was obtained for the 100%
power level.
O O
J. E. Edinger Associates, Inc.
Document No. 94-059-R
(
)
Page 18 Heat Dissipation Area Limitations The uesignated heat dissipation area ("HDA") for the Hope Creek cooling tower discharge extends 1500 ft out from the shoreline, and 2500 ft up estuary and 2500 ft down estuary from the point of discharge. The USGS topographic map (U. S. Geological Survey, 1993) that covers the vicinity of Hope Creek Generating Station shows the boundary between New Jersey and Delaware to be approximately 5500 ft offshore and generally running north-south near the middle of the Delaware River. The boundary turns sharply east approximately 9800 ft north of the discharge and crosses the tip of Artificial Island. The HDA dimensions are such that it lies entirely within the boundaries of the State of New Jersey, approximately 4000
{v]
ft distant from the boundary on the west, and 7300 ft distant from the boundary on the north.
The SWQS indicate a temperature rise at the edge of the HDA limited to 1.5'F for June-August i
and 4*F for September-May and a maximum temperature limit of 86*F at the edge of the heat dissipation area.
Temperature Rise at the Edge of Heat Dissipation Area The discharge temperature rise across the cooling tower is the difference in the discharge temperature and the intake temperature. The discharge temperature rise used in the evaluation (Tn) is conservative because the discharge temperature is computed from its upper 95%
confidence bound value.
The maximum daily discharge temperature rise is 28.4*F for the June-August period and is 46.2 "F for the September-May period. The temperature rise at the edge of the HDA depends J. E. Edinger Associates, Inc.
Document No. 94-059-R
Page 19 on the tidal flow dilution between the discharge and the edge of the HDA. Tracer dye dilution I
~ tudies were performed by LMS (1991). LMS states that at no time were the dilutions less than l
s 3
20:1 and were typically greater than 100:1. During the June-August period, the predicted 1
maximum daily temperature rise at the edge of HDA will be less than 1.4*F (28.4 F/20 =
1.4*F) because dilutions are generally much greater than 20:1. Similarly, during the September-May period, the predicted maximum daily temperature rise at the edge of the HDA will be less i
than 2.3*F (46.2"F/20 = 2.3'F).
l Temocrature at the Edee of Heat Dissination Area The edges of the heat dissipation area are close enough to the cooling tower intake that i
the intake temperature can be considered to be the ambient temperature at the edge of the heat dissipation area. The ambient temperature is strongly influenced by shortwave solar radiation and varies from day to day due to heat exchange at the air-water interface, as shown in Equations 1 and 2. The reliability with which the intake temperatures and hence the ambient j
i temperatures can be computed using surface heat exchange computations was illustrated in j
Figures I through 4.
The ambient temperatures are a result of naturally occurring meteorological conditions.
The maximum ambient temperature in each year from 1948 to 1993 as calculated from meteorological data is given in Table 3. Table 3 shows that an ambient temperature of 86'F is j
predicted to have been exceeded twice in the past 46 years. Both exceedences occurred in the i
past 6 years and were due to meteorological conditions alone.
O J. E. Edinger Associates, Inc.
Document No. 94-059-R
l j
/O l
()
Page 20 References Edinger, J. E., D. K. Brady and J. C. Geyer. 1974. Heat Exchance and Transnort in the EnvironrEnl. Cooling Water Studies for the Electric Power Research Institute, Research Project RP-49, Report 14. Palo Alto, California. EPRI Publication Number 74-049-00-3. November.
LMS.
1991. Hope Creek Generating Station Cooling Tower Blowdown Thermal Plume Mapping Thermal / Dye Surveys - September 1991. Prepared by Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers, Pearl River, New York for Public Service Electric & Gas Company, Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey. October 1991.
Ryan, Patrick J. and Keith D. Stolzenbach.1972. Chapter 1: " Environmental Heat Transfer" in Engineering Aspects of Heat Disposal from Power Generation, (D. R. F. Harleman, ed.).
R. M. Parson 12boratory for Water Resources and Hydrodynamics, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. June.
U. S. Geological Survey.1993. "Taylors Bridge Quadrangle, Delaware-New Jersey 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic)". 39075-D5-TF-024. Denver, CO.
Wunderlich, W.1972. Heat and Mass Transfer between a Water Surface and the Atmosphere,
\\
Water Resources Research Laboratory.
Report No.14, Report Publication No. 0-6803, Tennessee Valley Authority, Division of Water Control Planning, Engineering I2boratory, Norris, Tennessee. April.
O J. E. Edinger Associates, Inc.
Document No. 94-059-R
,,()
Table 1. Temperature corrections (*F) by day and month. The corrections shown are used to modify the computed response temperature to obtain the computed intake temperature (i.e.,
intake temperature = response temperature - correction). For example, intake temperatures in January are computed by adding approximately 3.8'F to the response temperatures.
months day.g 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 1
-2.5
-4.4
-3.9
-3.0
.5 1.7 1.0
.2 1.3
.2
-1.8
-2.8 2
-2.8
-4.6
-4.3
-3.1
.7 1.7 1.0
.8 1.3
.3
-2.0
-3.9 3
-3.5
-4.4
-4.5
-3.1
.4 1.2 1.2
.8
.1
.6
-2.4
-4.2 4
-3.7
-4.4
-3.9
-2.7
.1 1.2
.8
.6
.4
.7
-2.0
-3.9 5
-3.9
-4.3
-4.0
-2.6
.2 1.9
.9
.3
.1 6
-2.3
-2.9 6
-3.5
-4.2
-4.4
-2.6
.4 2.0
.9
.2
.1 6
-2.6
-3.0 7
-3.8
-4.0
-4,5
-2.3
.5 1.5 1.0
.3
.1
.3
-2.4
-3.4 8
-4.0
-4.1
-4.4
-2.1
.5 1.2
.8
.3
.1
.6
-2.5
-3.4 9
-3.9
-4.0
-4.3
-2.3
.7
.9
.6
.2
.1
.9
-2.7
-3.6 10
-4.1
-4.5
-4.2
-2.3
.4
.9
.0
.6
.4
-1.0
-2.6
-3.4 11
-4.2
-4.8
-4.4
-2.2
.6 1.3
.1 1.2
.1
-1.0
-2.5
-3.3 12
-4.6
-4.4
-4.3
-1.7
.5 1.8
.3 1.2
.1
-1.0
-2.5
-2.6 13
-4.6
-4.2
-4.0
-1.0
.8 1.9
.9 1.2
.2
.9
-2.8
-3.4 14
-4.6
-4.5
-3.0
-1.0
.7 2.0
.6 1.0
.1
-1.1
-2.8
-3.6 15
-4.4
-4.9
-3.0
-1.0
.9 1.7
.3 1.3 4
-1.4
-3.0
-3.9 16
-4.4
-4.4
-3.4
-1.5
.8 1.2
.1 1.2 3
-1.4
-2.8
-4.2
("']
17
-4.3
-4.5
-3.4
-1.4
.9 1.3
.2 1.1
.4
-1,6
-2.7
-4.0
's,)
18
-3.7
-4.3
-3.1
.9 1.1 1.8
.3 1.4
.8
-1.6
-2.8
-4.3 19
-3.4
-4.1
-2.9
-1.1 1.6 2.1
.8 1.2
.5
-1.2
-3.1 4.2 20
-3.4
-4.0
-2.8
-1.2 1.9 1.9 1.0
.8
.5
-1.0
-3.3
-4.5 21
-3.4
-4.1
-2.8
-1.2 2.2 1.6
.9
.7
.3
-1.4
-3.3
-4.5 22
-3.4
-4.0
-3.2
-1.2 1.6 1.3
.8
.8
.1
-1.8
-3.4
-4.3 23
-3.6 4.4
-3.3
-1.1 1.4 1.6 1.1
.6
.2
-1.8
-3.6
-4.8 24
-3.5
-4.1
-3.0
-1.0 1.7 1.3 1.4
.5
.2
-2.2
-3.7
-4.5 25
-3.0
-3.4
-3.0
.8 1.3 1.2 1.6
.6 1.0
-2.4
-3.3 3.6 26
-3.6
-3.3
-3.6
-1.2 1.9 1.0 1.4
.5
.8
-1.9
-3.0
-2.6 27
-3.5
-3.3
-3.6
-1.0 2.0
.9 1.6
.3
.7
-1.9
-3.2
-3.1 28
-4.0
-3.5
-3.6
.5 1.5
.7 1.4
.2
.2
-1.7
-3.5
-3.3 29
-4.2
-3.5
.2 1.7
.4 1.2
.4
.1
-1.5
-3.5
-3.9 30
-4.4
-3.1
.3 1.8
.6 1.3 1.5
.3
-1.9
-3.2
-3.5 31
-4.4
-2.8 1.8 1.1 1.3
-1.8
-3.4 max
-4.6
-4.9
-4.5
-3.1
.7
.4
.0
.8
.4
-2.4
-3.7
-4.8 mean
-3.8
-4.2
-3.6 1,6 1.0 1.4
.8
.6
.2
-1.2
-2.8
-3.7 min
-2.5
-3.3
-2.8
.2 2.2 2.1 1.6 1.5 1.3
.2
-1.8
-2.6 i
l t
e.
\\
]
%]
Table 2. Annual maximum discharge temperatures, June-August thermal discharge rates and temperature rises, and September-May thermal discharge rates and temperature rises computed by ITDRT for the 46 year meteorological period of record.
entire year June-August September-May discharge temperature, 'F thermal discharge rate, MBru h-'
temperature thermal discharge rate, MEtu h-'
temperature rise, 'F rise, 'F 1948 96.I 431.5 22.3 649.3 44.2 1949 96.2 475.5 23.3 645.4 44.2 1950 95.3 471.5 23.7 637.5 43.3 195I 95.3 440.4 21.7 602.9 42.6 1952 96.9 460.6 23.2 637.3 44.3 1953 96.3 486.9 23.6 612.4 43.0 1954 95.5 451.0 22.4 646.0 44.5 1955 95.8 432.9 22.3 567.1 40.8 1956 94.8 466.3 27.3 585.5 41.6 1957 95.9 493.9 23.8 624.2 43.7 1958 95.1 474.7 23.3 562.7 40.8 1959 96.I 459.1 22.2 619.6 43.9 1960 95.3 463.1 22.6 601.8 41.9 1961 95.3 468.9 28.4 592.8 42.0 1962 93.8 414.6 20.4 589.4 42.4 1963 95.5 465.0 23.0 564.8 41.0 1964 95.1 470.3 22.6 662.3 45.3
p
,r m J
entire year June-August September-May year discharge temperature, 'F thermal discharge rate, MBtu h-'
temperature thermal discharge rate, MBtu h-'
te+..imo rise, 'F rise, 'F 1965 96.1 465.5 21.9 617.1 43.3 1966 95.0 483.6 23.8 632.7 44.1 1967 94.5 463.3 26.7 641.3 44.6 1968 95.8 509.3 26.7 587.0 42.0 1969 95.8 447.5 21.4 562.9 40.6 1970 96.5 456.1 22.4 583.3 41.8 197I 95.0 515.4 25.5 590.6 41.9 1972 97.1 500.4
- 8.7 655.0 44.2 1973 96.7 487.3 23.5 648.7 45.0 1974 95.3 516.5 23.9 640.5 44.4 1975 95.5 443.3 21.9 619.0 42.8 1976 94.2 473.6 25.8 604.7 43.0 1977 95.3 465.1 22.8 588.6 42.2 1978 96.I 476.I 22.8 577.9 41.4 1979 95.5 506.0 24.9 660.9 46.2 1980 95.2 475.9 22.8 616.4 43.0 1981 95.9 462.0 22.6 587.7 41.7 1982 97.1 488.0 23.3 617.4 43.7 1983 95.7 452.2 22.5 586.0 41.7 1984 95.3 530.2 25.1 617.6 43.0
/~5 m
f' \\
h entire year June-August S@Ai-May yar discharge kuwenue, 'F thermal discharge rate, MBtu h-'
temperature thermal discharge rate, MBtu h-'
teraperature rise, 'F rise, 'F 1985 96.0 460.9 22.2 646.5 43.9 1986 95.3 424.9 20.3 635.7 44.7 1987 96.2 461.2 21.9 619.6 43.7 1988 96.8 470.7 22.6 6510 45.1 1989 96 4 533.9 24.9 639.8 44.5 1990 95.4 517.7 26.0 654.4 45.1 1991 96.9 362.8 16.8 621.0 43.0 1992 95.5 496.6 23.5 642.4 44.6 1993 97.1 474.2 22.7 588.2 41.2 maximum 97.1 533.9 28.4 662.3 46.2 O
)
n()
Table 3.
Annual maximum ambient temperatures computed by ITDRT for the 46 year meteorological period of record.
year ambient year ambient temperature, 'F temperature, 'F 1948 83.1 1971 80.8 1949 84.6 1972 84.9 1950 81.5 1973 83.6 1951 83.2 1974 79.8 1952 85.3 1975 84.6 1953 83.9 1976 79.4 1954 82.8 1977 82.2 1955 84.9 1978 80.7 1956 79.5 1979 82.9 1957 80.0 1980 83.5 j
1958 82.6 1981 81.4 1959 82.6 1982 84.4 1960 79.8 1983 83.1 1961 82.4 1984 81.5 1962 78.9 1985 81.3 1963 83.0 1986 82.4 1964 80.7 1987 84.3 1965 80.6 1988 86.3 1966 82.8 1989 83.1 1967 81.8 1990 81.3 1968 82.4 1991 83.3 1969 81.0 1992 81.9 1970 84.0 1993 86.8 maximum 86.8
i 4
k Figure 1. Time series of computed and observed intake temperatures for 1990. The horizontal'.
scale is the date 'as a two4igit year concatenated with the Julian day; the tic marks divide the scale into months.
?
e computed intake temperature observed Hope Creek mtake temperature 100-t 90-o P"
py%
/
4 c)
L 70-C a
c64o 60-A b
e) p 50-40-30 i
90001 90091 90181 90271 90361 Time, year! days O
i
q, a
-. = +
a
'l
.l Figure 2. Time series ~of computed and ot, served intake temperatures for 1991. The horizontal scale is the date as a two-digit year concatenated with the Julian day; the tic marks divide the scale into months, 3
i computed intake temperature observed Hope Creek intake temperature 100-90-O
-[
- p;Y 1%
e 5
1 6
70-1 a
d r
c) 60-i l
5 d./
a e
p 50-
\\
40-\\
30 I
i 91001 91091 91181 91271 91361 Time, yearidays O
l
\\
l
c:
h i
Figure 3. Time series of computed and observed intake temperatures for 1992. The horizontal scale is the date as a two-digit year concatenated with the Julian day; the tic marks divide the scale into months.
1 computed intake. temperature l
observed Hope Creek intake temperature 100-j 90-t 80-t U
.s.
\\
e L
70-p s
a Cd g
w e
60-I
[
50-j l
O 30
)
92001 92091 92181 92271 92361
(
Time, yearldays g
i
7.,
(.j Figure 4. Time series of computed and observed intake temperatures for 1993. The horizontal
~
scale is the date as a two-digit year concatenated with the Julian day; the tic marks divide the scale into months.
computed intake temperature observed Hope Creek mtake temperature 100-90-i 1 ".%
o g
80-w.-
G o
)
v s,
g 70-a a
m V
T 4
I o
60-a i
'}
H 50-A j,,
40-30 93001 93d91 93181 93N71 93d61
,Time, yearldays O
i A
V Figure 5. ' Example cooling tower performance curves. These curves are for a range of wet l
bulb temperatures and four different relative humidities for constant intake temperature (40*F),
l service water pumping' rate (35,000 gpm), plant load (100%), and dry bulb temperature l
(approximately 10*F above wet bulb).
i t
i i
i 100-t
/
/
i g
o
/
/'
i
/
/,
o 90-p
/
/,,-
1 O
M
./, ,-
i V
a
/,',',-
i cc
/,-
e j
/
g
/
l 80-i o
/
.5' '
100 per cent
/, ' '
90 per cent e
/,-
.60 per. cent bo
- /,., 3
- - 30 per cent j
k ed l
4 70-o rn arW i
4 c
i
~
60 i,,,,,,,,i,,,,,,,,,i,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
40-50 60 70 80 wet bulb temperature, F
)
i 1.-
t Figure 6.
Time series of computed and observed discharge temperatures for 1992. The horizontal scale is the date as a two-digit year concatenated with the Julian day; the tic marks divide the scale into months. Observations for days when Hope Creek was not in operation were excluded from the figures.
l r
t i
i computed Hope Creek blowdown temperature observed Hope Creek blowdown temperature 100-i 90-r
},.
f-
'0 I i
80-Jj O
F lp) 70-n
., -f,, h, e t
z m
o 60-
./
b 1
e g
50-t 40-
[
30
[
92001 92091 92181 92271 92361 Time, yearldays O
'(_)
Figure 7.
Time series of computed and observed discharge temperatures for 1993. The horizontal scale is the date as a two-digit year concatenated with the Julian day; the tic marks
~
divide the scale into months. Observations for days when Hope Creek was not in operation were excluded from the figures.
L computed Hope Creek blowdown temperature observed Hope Creek blowdown temperature 100-q.y f(f *.
t.
90-R..
a Jf
. 7
)
r.
g~
,a 80-hhl...
jkE g
i, i, d*t >Q.
A.
4 70-'.
.rv-IJ.
C l ).
6V
.T...
.... H, a
,.y x
' A' N
60-
'~
o g
c) p 50-1 40-30 93001 93d91 93181 93271 93N61 Time, yearldays O
x)
Figure 8. Time series of computed and observed blowdown rates for 1992. The horizontal
/
scale is the date as a two-digit year concatenated with the Julian day; the tic marks divide the ccale into months. Observations for days when Hope Creek was not in operation were excluded from the figures.
computed Hope Creek blowdown rate 1
observed Hope Creek blowdown rate 50000 -
L 45000 -
I
$ 40000-I %U a
s.
M 5*fb.i - t' MW 35000 -
f Y
f j 30000-n 25000-d*-
th
$ 20000-5 M 15000 -
1 CQ 10000 -
l 5000 -
0 j
92001 92091 92181 92271 92361 Time, yearldays O
Figure 9. Time series of computed and observed blowdown rates for 1993. The horizontal scale is the date as a two4igit year concatenated with the Julian day; the tic marks divide the scale into months. Observations for days when Hope Creek was not in operation were excluded from the figures.
i computed Hope Creek blowdown rate observed Hope Creek blowdown rate 5000C-45000-
$ 40000-
- \\"'~
h Y
35000 -
a.
O er l
1 e
% 30000 -
l Q
kJf c 25000-f,
.i 1)
,*k
{
>:..).:l&
W.g
's y%'r,g, i,y, y 20000 -
y M 15000 -
m 10000 -
5000-0 93001 93091 93181 93271 93361 i
Time, yearldays i
O l
i 1
~
?
y~
( 'i Figure 10. Time series of computed and observed thermal discharge rates for 1992. The'
. horizontal scale is the date as a two-digit year concatenated with the Julian day; the tic marks -
divide the scale into months. Observations for days when Hope Creek was not in operation were excluded from the figures.
k r
computed thermal discharge rate observed thermal discharge rate 800-1 i
.c p700-c"c M 600-t O
i d 500-4
<u i
bD4 00 -f i
4
)
e 3
i s8 1'
I p
')g
{'.1
,c w"[e i
.n O300-,#
5 -
t' e, t,.g.,sj.*'
. '. 1 -
<)
e
' ' ' (\\
l
.. r. s.
n-
~ fi':
~ 200-
\\
t.?
n i,
'1 i
y100-
- -)";.ij[I('q l
l' 3
6 i
.c a
U 92001 92d91 92181 92d71 92 del i
Time, yearidays O
e I
l
.,(j Figure 11. Time series of computed and observed thermal discharge rates for 1993. The horizontal scale is the date as a two-digit year concatenated with the Julian day;. the tic marks divide the scale into months. Observations for days when Hope Creek was not in operation were
. excluded from the figures.
i computed thermal discharge rate observed thermal discharge rate 800-t Ia i
s700-a CQ e#
600-p f
d
- d 500-L e
id,4i M400-i
..N-9
!.d t
1 e
- Iyl, t, <,
o.,.*k.g e
x
.)j,I..
O 300-4
= 's,s.
tn
'$,f r
g *.
~
f g
s 4
. t,,J t,,.I;
~ 200-
'y b
j
\\
'f v 'j f[ -[f d
s 3
d
' * ", *f I
$100-
[
x 0
i i
i 93001 93091 93181 93271 93361 Time, yearldays O
(3
't
)
Figure 12. Computed versus observed thermal discharge rate for 1992-1993 and the 95%
confidence interval.
l 7.c s600-a cp
- E ci 500 -
a ec L
U O
y400-g
.Pg.
=
.c y
t l..
- g 300 -
- f i
y g
.<g.;, ; ; ; :
.i$4
,. f..lN'Y, '
t2
~
.c
.y. v -
a
..,.y. a.
m
=
o100-
- s.....-
a y
a 5
O 0
y i
i i
i i
i 0
100 200 300 400 500 600 Ob.
rved thermal discharge rate, MBtu h-*
O
4
' 'j Figure 13. Computed versus observed disenarge temperature for 1992-1993 and the 95%
~
confidence interval.
100-o c)
~
k 2
~
4 d
s k
90-
' J.
F o
4
. sy,.
t y
- .. ;f. \\...ser c)
.o 1
a t :.
c) s*
i ew
...
- w:
k 60-a'I *, *y d
. p.,s A
,e 1
0
.. = s.
w s f,*
's y
.T.C{s '.e <(.d. 7
- g*
.?
l 70-ca a
y/b :.-
~*
a 6
a l
O 1s.:
o.
60*
c.......
.ii.
.i d0 70 80 90 100
/
Observed discharge temperature, F
- O s
--w-,a
,a O
1 l
ATTACHMENT 2 EVALUATION OF SURFACE COOLING O
O
e l
J. E. Edinger Associates, Inc.
(
Consultants in Environmental Hydrology and Waterbody Dynamics
' "')
37 West Avenue Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087-3226 John Eric Edinger phone 610 293 0757 Edward M. Buchak fax 610 293 0965 Memorandum Date:
September 16, 1994 94-127-M To:
Thomas J. Harlukowicz From:
John Eric Edinger Edward M. Buchak
Subject:
Estimate of reduction in temperature rise at the end of the heat dissipation area due to surface cooling at Hope Creek (3
.J The temperature rise at the end of the heat dissipation area for the highest discharge temperature rise and the lowest dilution was determined to be 1.4 *F (Edinger and Buchak,1994, page 19). This estimate assumed that the heat was diluted like the conservative dye, without any heat dissipation to the atmosphere. The temperature rise without heat dissipation can be corrected for surface cooling using Equation 8.1.11 on page 60 of Edinger, et al. (1974) as:
0 Exp[-Kt/(pCpD)]
O'
=
where the time, t, has been substituted for (X-Xs)/u and where:
Temperature rise without surface cooling,1.4*F.
i O
=
Temperature rise with surface cooling, to be computed.
O'
=
Coefficient of surface heat exchange, Watts /m /*C. A nominal value is 2
K
=
25 W/m /*C (Edinger, et al.,1974, Figure 2.4.2).
2 Density of water,1000 kg/m'.
=
p
[]
Cp Specific heat of water,4186 Joules /kg/*C.
=
V
Depth of water column,20 ft = 6.1 meters.
D
'=
pO Time for the plume to develop. For a tidal plume it is approximately 6
]
t
=
hours from low tide to high tide for the plume to develop in the upestuary direction, or 21,600 seconds. _ Note that using this time will give an estimate of the maximum cooling that could take place.
[
Rawa on the above dimensions then:
l i
- Kt/(pCpD) = 2.12x10-2 l
i and Exp[Kt/(pCpD)] = 0.979. Thus, O' = 1.4*0.979 = 1.37'F. Surface cooling therefore has a small effect in reducing the temperature rise at the end of the heat dissipation area.
i References Edinger, J. E. and E. M. Buchak. 1994. Hooe Creek Hydrothermal Studies. Prepared for Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey. Prepared by J. E.
Edinger Associates, Inc., Wayne, Pennsylvania. Document No. 94-059-R. 21 June.
Edinger, J. E., D. K. Brady and J. C. Geyer. 1974. Heat Exchange and Transoort in the Environment. Cooling Water Studies for the Electric Power Research Insdtute, Research Project O
RP-49, Report 14. Palo Alto, California. EPRI Publication Number 74-049-00-3. November.