AECM-86-0112, Annual Environ Operating Rept,1985
| ML20204A244 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1985 |
| From: | Kingsley O MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| References | |
| AECM-86-0112, AECM-86-112, NUDOCS 8605090522 | |
| Download: ML20204A244 (180) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:, GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT
; - essa.
8605090522 851231 _ eg c t ka)
l l l l l l l I PREFACE l The Annual Environmental Operating Report (AEOR) presents the information and data obtained from the implementation of Grand Gulf Nuclear Station's (GGNS) Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) Appen-dix B to the GGNS I.ow-Power Operating License (NPF-29), for the period January 1 through December 31, 1985. Historical information
~
has also been included where applicable for comparison purposes. The GGNS EFP requires monitoring for potential erosion along transmission line corridors and impact of cooling tower drift on vegetation. These are the only terrestrial issues required to be addressed by. the GGNS EPP. No aquatic issues were identified in the GGNS Final Environ-mental Statement. Consequently, none are addressed by the GGNS EPP. Effluent limitations and monitoring requirements for aquatic matters are contained in the GGNS National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit issued by the Mississippi Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). The MDNR regulates matters involving water quality e.nd aquatic biota. In addition to the requi ec ec estrial issues, the AEOR also addresses environmental issues which are not within the scope of the EPP. This is done to provide a more comprehensive report for the Environmental Surveillance Program and to keep the Nuclear Regulatory Commission informed of environmental activities at GGNS. 11 J20RPT85030606 j
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE PREFACE.................................................... 11 LIST OF FIGURES............................................ v LIST OF TABLES............................................. vi LIST OF APPENDICES......................................... vii SECTION TOPIC
1.0 INTRODUCTION
..................................... 1-1 1.1 GGNS Site Characteristics................... 1-1 1.2 History of Operation and Present Status..... 1-3 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES............ 2-1 2.1 Smoke Contro1............................... 2-1 2.2 Erosion Control............................ 2-1 2.3 Transmission Line Surveys................... 2-2 2.4 Chemical and Solid Waste Management......... 2-3 2.5 Land Management and Wildlife................ 2-4 , 1 2.6 Groundwater Monitoring..................... 2-5 2.7 NPDES....................................... 2-6 2.8 Thermal Monitoring.......................... 2-7 , 2.9 Cooling Tower Drift......................... 2-8 k 2.10 Meteorological Data......................... 2-11 2.11 Environmental Evaluations................... 2-12 3.0 OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS.................... 3-1 3.1 Smoke Contro1.............................. 3-1 3.2 Erosion Control............................ 3-1 3.3 Transmission Line Surveys................... 3-2 3.4 Chemical and Solid Waste Management......... 3-2 3.5 Land Management and Wildlife................ 3-5 l 3.6 Groundwater................................. 3-6 3.7 NPDES....................................... 3-7 3.8 Thermal Monitoring......................... 3-10 3.9 Cooling Tower Drift......................... 3-11 3.10 Meteorological Data......................... 3-17 3.11 Environmental Evaluations................... 3-18 iii J20RPT85030606
P TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) 3 5 PAGE SECTION TOPIC ; 1 1 4.0 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS..................... 4-i 4.1 EPP Changes................................ 4-1 4.2 EPP Non-Compliances........................ 4-1 4.3 Non-Routine Reports........................ 4-1 i 4.4 Potentially Significant Unreviewed ; Environmental Issues....................... 4-2 ; t t r f t O i 6 L
?
I i i I e 4 0 1V J20RPT85030606
LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE NUMBER PAGE l-1 General Area Map......................... 1-7 1-2 Property Boundary........................ 1-8 2-1 Local Drainage Basins..................... 2-17 2-2 Transmission Line Routes.................. 2-18 2-3 Regional Groundwater Well Locations....... 2-19 2-4 Location of Construction Dewatering & Observation Wells (Perched Groundwater)... 2-20 2-5 Salt Deposition Station Locations......... 2-21 2-6 Salt Deposition Control Station.......... 2-22 2-7 Meteorological System Location........... 2-23 V J20RPT85030606
LIST OF TABLES TABLE NUMBER PAGE 2-1 . Regional Groundwater Well Locations In Figure _2-3.............................. 2-14 , 2-2 Perched Groundwater Well Locations In Figure 2-4.............................. 2-15 2-3 Salt Deposition Station Locations In Figure 2-5 and 2-6...................... 2-16 , 3-1 1985 TSS Analysis Results.................. 3-19 3-2 Regional Groundwater Monitoring Data (1985).3-20' 3-3 Perched Groundwater Monitoring Data (1985). 3-21 1 3-4 1985 Precipitation Measurement............. 3-22 3-5 Salt Deposition Data....................... 3-23 3-6 1985 Salt Deposition Rainfall Data......... 3 3-7 Salt Deposition Data - Replicate Samples... 3-29 3-8 Summary of ANOVA (Based on Salt Deposition Rates)........... 3-33 3-9 Summary of ANOVA (Based on Composition).... 3-34 3-10 Salt Deposition Data (Single Sample)....... 3-35 3-11 Summary of ANOVA (No Interaction Between Period and Location)....................... 3-39 3-12 Salt Deposition Environmental Factors...... 3-40 3-13 Salt Deposition Summary of Regression Analyses................................... 3-41 3-14 1985 Joint Frequency Distribution, 50 Meter Level ............................ 3-42 3-15 1985 Joint Frequency Distribution, 10 Meter Level ............................ 3-43 3-16 1985 Percent Bad Data Report".............. 3-44 3-17 Environmental Evaluations - 1985 Summary Sheet......................... 3-45 vi J20RPT85030606
LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX NUMBER PAGE I Semiannual Transmission Line Surveys................................. I-i II Spill Reports........................... II-i III Hydrographs for Perched Groundwater Wells................................... III-i IV Environmental Evaluations............... IV-i V Non-Routine Reports..................... V-1 i a vii L J20 RET 85030606
SECTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1-1 T?nRPTR5010606
INTRODUCTION The environmental impact of Grand Gulf Nuclear-Station (GGNS) operational activities between January 1 and December 31, 1985 was monitored by the Environmental Surveillance Program. The results of the Environmental-Surveillance Program contained in the following sections indicate the environment was not adversely impacted in 1985 by the operation of GGNS. No harmful effects or evidence of trends toward irreversible damage to the surrounding environment have been observed at GGNS. Factual information about GGNS and its operation is provided in the remainder of this section. 1.1 GGNS SITE CHARACTERISTICS Grand Gulf Nuclear Station is a nuclear-power station owned by Middle South Energy, Inc. and South Mississippi Electric Power Association (SMEPA) and operated by Mississippi Power & Light Company (MP&L). It consists of one operating boiling water reactor rated at 1250 MWE and a similar unit under construction. idt area map showing the geographical location of GGNS is provided in Figure 1-1. Grand Gulf Nuclear Station is located in Claiborne County, Mississippi, on the east bank of the Mississippi ~ River, approximately 25 miles south _of Vicksburg and 37 miles north-northeast of Natchez. Grand Gulf Military Park borders a portion of the north side of the property, and the small community of Grand Gulf is approximately 1-1/2 J20RPT85030606 1
miles to the north. The town of Port Gibson is about 6 miles southeast of the site. Two lakes, Gin Lake and Hamilton Lake, are located in the western portion of the : site. These lakes were once the channel of the Mississippi ; River and average about 5 to 7 ft in depth. Site and Its Environs , The site and its environs consist primarily of woodlands divided between two physiographic regions. The western half of the site is in the alluvial plain of the t Mississippi River; the eastern half is in the Loess or , Bluff Hills. The elevation of the site varies between 60 I and 80 ft above Mean Sea Level (MSL) in the alluvial plain l t region, while the Loess Hills portion varies from 80 to i more than 200 ft above MSL. The property line shown in Figure 1-2 encompasses the 2376 acres originally purchased by MP&L. However, due to ; erosion activity of the Mississippi River along the western , c boundary of the site, this acreage figure continually decreased until the river bank from the barge slip to the ! north boundary of the site was stabilized through the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers shoreline modification program. The present acreage figure for the site due to erosion is 2300 acres. The site boundary is the same as the property line except in the southwest and west-southwest sectors as shown in Figure 1-2. A 2-acre residential property within the southwest sector is privately owned. _ _ __ __-__-_ ____-__-___-___ __ _ _ ____ _ -_ R@FM@%@S@Xb@Xb _ 8 .
There are no industrial, commercial, institutional or residential structures within the site boundary. No railroads or waterways traverse the site. An unpaved county road runs through the site in the south-southeast, south, south-southwest, and southwest sectors. This road provides access to Hamilton and Gin Lakes and the Mississippi River from the Port Gibson-Grand Gulf Road. Access The site area is accessible by two major highways: U. S. Highway 61 and State Highway 18, which connect Port Gibson (6 miles southeast of the site) with Natchez, Jackson and Vicksburg. 1.2 HISTORY OF OPERATION AND PRESENT STATUS Unit 1 of GGNS received a Low-Power Operating License on June 16, 1982. Fuel loading began on July 1, 1982 and was completed on August 6, 1982. Initial criticality was achieved on August 18, 1982. Low-power testing began on September 25, 1983 and was discontinued on November 8, 1983 with 995.3 hours of operation at less than 5 percent power recorded for Unit 1. Low-power testing resumed on April 22, 1984 and was completed shortly thereafter. The Full-Power Operating License was granted on August 31, 1984, and commercial operation began on July 1, 1985. J20RPT85030606 3 . - _ _ _ .
The following list summarizes significant dates ; associated with the operation of Unit 1: o Low-Power Operating License June 16, 1982 o Initial Criticality August 18, 1982 o Began Low-Power Testing September 25, 1983 o Discontinued Low-Power Testing November 8, 1983 o Resumed Low-Power Testing April 22, 1984 o Full-Power Operating License August 31, 1984 o Startup After Full-Power License September 5, 1984 o First Synchronization October 20, 1984 - o Commercial Operation July 1, 1985. Unit 2 is in a construction phase and was approxi- , mately 33.8% complete as of December 31, 1985. The minimal Unit 2 construction activities occurring in 1985 were for the purpose of protecting the original investment. Preoperational Study ; A preconstruction environmental impact study was initiated in 1972. This study was modified and expanded ! into an Environmental Surveillance Program in 1974 to determine the impact of the construction and operation of GGNS on the environment. The preoperational Environmental Surveillance Program 1 continued until June 16, 1982 when GGNS received a Low-Power Operating License. No adverse environmental impact l was observed during the preoperational study. 1982 Annual Environmental Operating Report (AEOR) The operational phase of the Environmental Surveillance Program began when GGNS Unit I received a Low-Power Operating License on June 16, 1982. During 1982, ; Unit I did not begin power ascensions consequently, 1982 ; l J20RPT85030606 4
operational activities were an extension of preoperational activities. No environmental consequences of GGNS operation were noted between June 16 and December 31, 1982. 1983 AEOR Low-power testing of GGNS Unit 1 began in September 1983. No noticeable changes in the environment were detected by the Environmental Surveillance Program as a result of low-power testing. Results of the Environmental Surveillance Program during 1983 remained similar to those of previous years. An assessment of GGNS operation by Environmental Surveillance Program personnel at the end of 1983 confirmed there was no adverse impact to the environment. 1984 AEOR As a result of the required operation testing schedule, operation of GGNS increased in 1984. Environmental surveillance was continued in 1984, but no appreciable difference was noted from that of previous years. Surveillance results also remained at the levels of previous years. As assessed by Environmental Surveillance Program personnel, the operation of GGNS in 1984 did not adversely impact the surrounding environment. 1985 AEOR The following sections present the Environmental Surveillance Program results for the period January 1 to December 31, 1985. Where applicable, comparisons with results from previous years are provided. J20RPT85030606 5
An assessment of the following information by Environ-mental Surveillance Program personnel indicates there was no adverse environmental impact to the surrounding environ-ment due to the 1985 operation of GGNS. The measurable environmental effects occurring in 1985 were confined to onsite areas previously disturbed during site preparation and plant construction. 9 M -R
l 1 g f \ 8 l 4( e . .g. 8"' h a
; Ar#,
I I 'r Mm/Ame/ wtsf catt0LL ,s 5 1, : sf.<*u 1* - /srys/ Talet d** ! u . , - f 4 ,855 U \,
--j,)
- 5 massen q,
L ., j ,___ _
-3
! aminy s 4 was L_ l couw _!
_ _] w
'- r LutAn g
v anises ' 1* ,
'. son h[__ ,
l ' y asso m ;
} ,
; na anonia h,
I
/ / means !
- o j
- t* g catoutti p ,, a j I ,
*'"T*" __.. - - - - . . .
9 / . ___. _ _ _ _ _
.nusan,
"' 5 ^8
- i. '"" cnysru. pni I{ t siersu j- ,
P' sai aossm. . p q
', {
caran vts [ T***" , jg, , ! _
~. - -
w q , g vr i i
3 r +- l Eaai 4 ______ ..__
'" j 8 * *iDGEca
$,, in , , , "'T
* """ W y c co a -A La
/ j
. <, auns ,e w-
['j /S.1
-: N f i g
1 1 I l LOUISlANA Wy w amitt % NenuMkr inson N,T- (, ' M,/ww/ MISS IPPI ; rew/ Su o_ _ _6 e M at s.6r MIS $1SSIPPI POWER Si LIGHT COMPANY GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION i UNITS 1 Si 2 sounce: om.w % a.e.L nevei Omment W a.e thed spp6 (1971) FIGURE 1-1 r I i GENERAL AREA MAP j l 1-7 .
-,v-vw- y , .n,-,,------e--.,.--,,
--,.,..v--,-. -
,,-._,,a_, -,.m ., -._-,--_,,_+,mm.,_,e.,,,,,.,wn-.-,w _n._n n ne
O N
.. y \, h y o I #1
\'
?E g \ -
-S 1
' )Y !- !
\ '
. ,h i '
; '- \ l \
,~+l G... . 3g.'
7 ' s . \ r' s ' l' N ,. J t
. . * * *' \
\
\ ,
,e
?
x, y i /
\
N
'~
n s
\ %
in; t
\
m \i \ , fI d i 4 j h s( > 1 41 t)i \ 11 i { k
SECTION 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES l' O J20RPT85030606 1
[ 2.1 SMOKE CONTROL Open burning of waste materials at GGNS is not permitted. Wastes are burned in a pit utilizing an air curtain destructor incinerator which blows air over the fire to insure complete combustion of ignitable material. This process reduces particulate emissions to the environment. Daily inspections of the burn pit are made by Environmental Surveillance Program personnel to insure compliance with the State of Mississippi's air pollution regulations. 2.2 EROSION CONTROL 4 Erosion control at GGNS is a priority because of the proximity of GGNS to the Mississippi River, the hilly terrain, the average annual rainfall of approximately 50 inches and the loess soils which are extremely susceptible to erosion. The methods utilized to control erosion are: o Immediate revegetation of disturbed areas o Utilization of concrete chutes and flumes which channel runoff into two sediment basins, A and B (Figure 2-1). Sedimentation occurs in the basins which helps to minimize the ecological effect on Hamilton Lake and the Mississippi River. As a result of Amendments 7 to GGNS Construction Permit Numbers CPPR-118 and 119, dated December 23, 1981, monitoring and capacity requirements for the sedimentation
- i 1
i basins were transferred to the GGNS NPDES Permit. Environ-mental Surveillance Program personnel elected to i 1
. . . . . - _ . - J20RPT85030606 . 2 - - _ , - . -- -..-.- -. . .._-, -,
continue runoff sample collection on a voluntary basis for an additional period of time to gather supplemental data on basin sediment removal. Runoff sample collection was discontinued on January 31, 1985. Monitoring of sedimentation basins since January 31, 1985 has been conducted according to the parameters established by the GGNS NPDES Permit. 2.3 TRANSMISSION LINE SURVEYS The four transmission lines associated with GGNS (Figure 2-2) are: o Port Gibson Substation Route o Baxter Wilson Steam Electric Station Route o Ray Braswell EHV Substation Route o Franklin EHV Substation Route. The 115 kV transmission line from Port Gibson, Mississippi, supplies construction power and emergency power to GGNS. The 500 kV Baxter Wilson and Franklin transmission lines terminate in Warren and Franklin counties respectively. The Ray Braswell line, a planned 500 kV transmission line, will connect GGNS to an existing 500 kV transmission line in Warren County. A semiannual aerial survey of these lines is conducted to observe vegetation growth and monitor erosion. When problem areas are identified, ground patrols make a closer observation. Recommendations are then made to the Mississippi Power & Light Company (MP&L) Engineering J20RPT85010606 2
J r l Department for corrective action. Problem areas are closely monitored during follow-up aerial surveys to determine the effectiveness of the corrective actions. I Techniques designed to minimize erosion are used to ; reclear and control vegetation on these transmission lines. Highway, surface water and railroad crossings are hand cut, usually leaving buffer strips adjacent to the 1 crossing. The use of heavy equipment in clearing right-of-ways is limited to piling brush and pushing brush piles. Potential erosion areas are seeded and mulched. Synthetic 1 erosion prevention material is utilized when necessary. [ The long growing season in this area provides excellent [ early root formation which also helps prevent damaging ; I erosion. ) l 2.4 CHEMICAL AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT r Liquid wastes, such as chemicals, fuels, lubricants, [ bitumens and flushing solutions, are deposited or ! discharged into tanks and/or containers for salvage or subsequent removal to appropriate offsite locations. Adequate care is taken to avoid the handling or storing of liquids in close proximity of major drainage areas to avoid ! potentially damaging spills to site streams. Construction scrap and debris are collected in i designated onsite areas for salvage, incineration or burial. Unusable combustible materials are burned on site in a burn pit equipped with an air curtain destructor. J20RPT85030606.- 2-3 ___ _ _ ._ _
Emission levels and operation of the burn pit incinerator are in accordance with Mississippi Air Quality Regulations. Emissions and odors are kept at an acceptable minimum, and control devices are maintained in good working order. Noncombustible solid wastes are buried in designated landfill areas. 2.5 LAND MANAGEMENT AND WILDLIFE Approximately 2300 acres owned by MP&L makes up the GGNS site; 94 acres are fenced in the immediate plant area, with an additional 37 acres set aside for permanent structures. The remaining acreage, which is an excellent habitat for Mississippi wildlife, is productively utilized keeping wildlife enhancement in mind. Agricultural leases with local farmers have been established at GGNS. Some lands have been leased to area farmers for grazing purposes and hay production. The farmers use every available resource to have a productive operation while meeting the GGNS objective of wildlife enhancement. Fringe areas and open fields are mowed a minimum of ; two times during each growing season to keep open areas from being overtaken by scrub vegetation. After the growing season, a series of small food plots are planted in these open fields to help sustain wildlife populations through the winter and early spring. A small fruit orchard and two gardens are also maintained on site by l l Environmental Surveillance Program personnel. t J20RPT85030606 4
Two lakes located on the site, Gin and Hamilton, are used for sport and commercial fishing. Utilization of the lakes and surrounding local lands by water dependent species (waterfowl) is seasonal, with most activity occurring during fall and winter migrations. Hunting on the site is limited to bow hunting for in season animnis, pursuant to the requirements of Mississippi hunting laws. Other hunting activities are prohibited on the GGNS site. 2.6 GROUNDWATER MONITORING A groundwater monitoring program has been established at GGNS to: o Provide data on the seasonal fluctuation of the regional groundwater table o Define the cone of depression caused by GGNS pumping operations o Monitor the level of the perched groundwater table in the Unit 1 and 2 Power Block areas. Location of Monitoring Wells Twenty-seven wells are used to monitor the regional and perched groundwater underlying GGNS:
, o Twelve wells monitor the regional groundwater levels in the site area o Fifteen wells monitor the perched groundwater levels in the Power Block areas.
Locations of monitoring wells are shown in Figures 2-3 and 2-4 and listed in Tables 2-1 and 2-2. I J20RPT85030606 5
t Regional Groundwater Wells used to monitor the regional groundwater levels j (Figure 2-3 and Table 2-1) are normally measured at least twice a month. Seasonal fluctuations in groundwater levels ! i correspond to those of the Mississippi River. Perched Groundwater GGNS Units 1 and 2 have a monitoring and dewatering system (Figure 2-4 and Table 2-2) located around the Power Block and the Standby Service Water Basins to monitor and dewater the underlying perched aquifer. Seven wells (MW-1 through MW-7) monitor the water levels in the perched aquifer and eight wells are in place to dewater the aquifer if water levels approach or exceed 109 ft Mean Sea Level (MSL). Water levels in perched aquifer wells are observed and recorded once a month. 2.7 NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No MS0029521 was amended and reissued to GGNS on June 1, 1982. The permit was issued in accordance with the provisions of the Mississippi Air and Water Pollutant Control Law (Section 49-17-1, Mississippi Code of 1972) and the regulations and standards adopted and J20RPT85030606 6
l l l l l promulgated thereunder, and authority granted to the Mississippi Pollution Control Permit Board pursuant to Section 402(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The permit as issued in June 1982 consisted of 15 outfalls, but was revised in May 1984 to add Outfall 016 and combine Outfalls 007, 008 and 009. The Permit allows GGNS to discharge wastewater in accordance with NPDES regulations into Hamilton Lake and the Mississippi River. NPDES reporting requirements are established by the State of Mississippi. Monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR) for each outfall are prepared on a quarterly basis and sent to the Mississippi Department of Natural Resources and the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission via NPDES Quarterly Reports. 2.8 THERMAL MONITORING PROGRAM Grand Gulf Nuclear Station's NPDES Permit requires that GGNS effluents and the Mississippi River mixing area be monitored to determine what effects, if any, will result from GGNS' heated discharge into the river. The NPDES Permit states: The receiving water shall not exceed a maximum-water temperature change of 2.8'C'(5.0*F) relative to the upriver temperature, outside a mixing zone not exceeding a maximum width of 60 feet from the river edge and a maximum length of 6000 feet downstream from the point of discharge, as measured at a depth of 5 feet. The maximum water temperature shall not exceed 32*C (90*F) outside the same mixing zone, except when ambient - temperatures approach or exceed this value. J20RPT85030606 7
Monitoring is conducted semiannually (once in winter and once in summer) when at least one unit is operating at a minimum of 25% power. To initiate the thermal monitoring program and obtain baseline data, the river bank was surveyed to establish and permanently mark 72 reference points 100 ft apart. Sixty-six of the reference points are located downstream of GGNS' discharge into the river, and the remaining six are located upstream of the discharge. Calibrated digital thermometers are used to obtain temperatures at a depth of 5 ft and at the surface. At each reference point, measurements are taken 100 ft from the river bank, then at 10 ft intervals until reaching the bank. This provides 20 temperature data points for each reference point. 2.9 COOLING TOWER DRIFT PROGRAM The Environmental Protection Plan requires that a study be conducted to determine the environmental effects of salt deposition from cooling tower drift. MP&L elected to conduct a quantitative and qualitative cooling tower drift study which would identify the salts deposited on vegetation in the surrounding environment and determine the quantity of each salt. Salt Deposition Station Locations Eight sampling sites are utilized to measure cooling tower drift deposition. Six of the eight sampling sites are located in areas where maximum salt deposition is predicted. These J20RPT85030606 8
areas were extrapolated from the Bechtel Salt Deposition Model developed for the GGNS Final Environmental Report. The remain-ing two sampling sites are control sites. The first is located south of Raymond, Mississippi. An additional control site was added at Port Gibson, Mississippi, in 1985 to evaluate-the [ possibility of replacing the Raymond, Mississippi, control with a closer, more accessible site. Four of the above mentioned sampling sites are equipped with replicate sampling devices. As in the 1984 Cooling Tower ] Drift Program, two of the sampling sites have triplicate sampling devices. Heavy Haul Road and Glodjo locations have duplicate sampling devices which were not established until 1985. The 1985 duplicates were established to strengthen the program's statistical trend analysis and improve the sampling , and analysis quality assurance. Location of salt deposition sites are identified in Figures 2-5 and 2-6 and listed in Table 2-3. r Fallout samples are collected on a quarterly basis i' using buckets with a known volume of deionized water. The buckets are located four to six feet above the ground, fitted ! with bird rings and covered with fine mesh screens to exclude leaves and insects. ) Sample Analysis and Collection Samples are collected quarterly and analyzed for ten constituente-
~
o Calcium o Magnesium o Sodium o Iron o Phosphate o Nitrate o Chloride o Fluoride , o Sulfate o Total dissolved solids. J20RPT85030606 9
These parameters were selected because past analyses have shown them to be prevalent in the Plant Service Water System. Salt constituents are also determined for the demineralized water used in the initial setup of the collection buckets. Rainfall data is recorded for each sampling site. . Screens are washed with deionized water, and the wash water volume is measured and deposited in the collector on 9 a quarterly basis. The volume of water in the collector is then measured, and a composite sample of the collector's contents is placed in a clean cubitainer, sealed and labeled. The date of removal, total volume in the collector, total rainfall and location of the site are 2 recorded on the appropriate data sheets. Salt Deposition Rate Calculation I Salt deposition rates (SDR) are calculated on a constituent-by-constituent basis from: o The total volume of water contained in the sampling bucket o The concentration of a constituent in this water The volume of demineralized water placed in the I o sampler initially o The concentration of the constituent in the demineralized water o The sampling area of the bucket. Therefore, for a particular constituent,
. SDR = (VTTC) -
(YD D} A - d J20RPT85030606 10
SDR = Salt Deposition Rate (mg/m ) ' where: V ' T = final sample volume V D = seeded volume of demineralized water C T = final sample constituent concentration , C D = demineralized water constituent concentration * 't , A 2
= collector area (m ).
'\ '
s 2.10 METEOROLOGICAL SYSTEM *9( , The GGNS meteorological tower, with base elevation of t l 156 ft above MSL, is approximately 5000 'ft northwest of the :' ' i GGNS Unit I reactor building, which has a finished grade 132 ft above MSL.' The location of the meteorological tower' . is shown in Figure 2-7. The area around the meteorological tower is flat and grass covered. The nearest bluffs are 362 ft to the w'est of q the tower with trees 35'ft high along the bluffs. Approxi- l mately 400uft to the east are trees 50 to 60 ft high. To ' ,. the south, the nearest trees 50 to 60 ft high are approximately 690 ft from the tower. A county road passes j the meteorological tower 400 ft to the north. The tallest structure, the GGNS Unit I natural draft cooling tower, is , 522 ft high and is situated approximately 6000 ft south-southeast of the meteorological tower. Due to its location in a relatively open area and its s proximity to GGNS, the tower site, is expected to accurately , o represent the same meteorological characteristics as thes : s ! 5 f J20RPT85030606 11 s
..-_ . = . -. . - . _ - .. _ - - - - -.
4 I i $ I ragion into which airborne material will be released from :. i GGNS. , 4 : i i The following-parameters are monitored at the 162 and l \ 33 ft levels'ef the tower: ! 5 i o Wind Direction o Change in Temperature (delta T) o Wind Speed o Dew Point l 4 o Temperature o Surface-Precipitation. l The data for the Meteorological Program is included in the ! i
! Semiannual Effluent Release Reports submitted to the U..S. j i ;
! Nuclear Regulatory Commission. -! 2.11 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS l {! l The Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) for GGNS } i permits changes in GGNS design or operation and the ! i i l performance of tests or experiments that affect the ! environment, provided they do not involve a change in the l EPP or an unreviewed environmental question. This means that changes, tests or experiments which do'not affect the j environment are not subject to the requirements of the ! t i EPP. Also, the requirements of the EPP do not relieve j i GGNS of the requirements in 10 CFR 50.59, " Changes, Tests ( i { and Experiments," which address the question of safety i ! associated with proposed changes, tests and experiments. ; i Nuclear Production personnel review changes in plant { q design or operation and the performance of tests and l r 8 l experiments for the possible effects they might have on the ! 4 j environment. When the review determines that the change, l i test or experiment may affect the environment, an ! I environmental evaluation is prepared and recorded before j. i i ! J20RPT85030606 12- [
t additional construction or operational activities associated with the change, test or experiment are begun. However, the EPP excludes changes, tests or experiments from the evaluation: o If all measurable environmental effects are. confined to on-site areas. previously disturbed duritii site preparation and plant construction, or , o If they are. required to achieve compliance with other l federal, state, or local requirements. ,' 1 Review of changes, tests and experiments at GGNS is conducted by one of three groups: o Nuclear Engineering
- o. Nuclear Operations o Nuclear Support.
Thyoriginatingorganizationperformsanapplicability determination on each proposed change, test or experiment to ascertain if the activity might affect the environment. Only those which have the potential to affect the environ-ment are required to receive environmental evaluations. .-
. the originator of a proposed change, test or experiment must cor$hlete an environmental evaluation or ,
i
'~
document that one is not required. Compicted environmental l evaluations are forwarded to the Radiological & . l
' ' /,
' Environmental Services (R&ES) Section of Nuclear upport
\
-for a concurrence review. After providing concurrence i s.
review, R&ES reports the resultg.of environmental / 19 , 1 evaluations to the NRC in the GGNS Annual Environmental Operating Report. ,,
= r j' Y J20RPT85030606 "2-13
TABLE 2-1 REGIONAL GROUNDWATER WELL LOCATIONS IN FIGURE 2-3 LEGEND WELL NUMBER SECTOR LOCATION DESCRIPTION 1 P5, OWS B NE Laydown Area - Unit 2 Bluff behind Unit 2 2 OW209A, P209 D(E) Cocling Tower 3 OW202 E Bluff north of Switchyard 4 OW10 A West end Met Tower field County Road - Adjacent to 5 OW4, OW4A, P4 R Stream A West Laydown Area - 6 OW29A Q Unit 2 Field - Northside Haul 7 OW69A P Road Unit 1 Cooling Tower 8 OW7 N Across the south Plant Access Road and east of Basin B J20RPT85030606 14
TABLE 2-2 PERCHED GROUNDWATER WELL LOCATIONS IN FIGURE 2-4 WELL NO. UNIT NO. LOCATION DESCRIPTION MW1 2 North end Unit 2 Turbine Bldg. MW2 2 Northwest corner Unit 2 Auxiliary Bldg. MW3 1 Northeast of SSW B (between fences) { MW4 1 Southwest side SSW A MW5 2 Northeast MP&L Maintenance Shop r MW6 1 North of Condensate Storage Tank MW7 2 East of Unit 2 Turbine Bldg. DW1 2 East of Unit 2 Turbine Bldg. DW2 2 Corner Auxiliary Bldg. - Turbine Bldg. Unit 2 DW3 2 Northwest corner Unit 2 Auxiliary Bldg. , by electric panels : DW4 2 Southwest corner of Unit 2 Auxiliary Bldg. DW5 1 Between SSW A and SSW B DW6 1 In front of Diesel Generator Bldg. (under man-hole) DW7 1 Corner Unit I Turbine Bldg. - Auxiliary Bldg. DW8 1 Behind Radwaste Bldg. - Unit 1 J20RPT85030606 15
TABLE 2-3 SALT DEPOSITION STATION LOCATIONS IN FIGURE 2-5 AND 2-6 LEGEND ID NO. SECTOR DESCRIPTION 1 SDS 1, lA P Heavy Haul Road - adjacent to Basin B 2 SDS 2, 2A, 2B A Fenced storage area by Met. Tower 3 SDS 3 C Catwalk on truck bypass road i 4 SDS 4 E Maggie Jackson residence - Waterloo Road 5 SDS 5, 5A, 5B J Old MP&L Training Center - Waterloo Road 6 SDS 6, 6A L Glodjo Residence - Waterloo Road 7 SDS 7 D Smith Residence - Raymond, MS (control) , 9 SDS 9 G City Barn-Port Gibson, MS (control) Note: Location number 8 is assigned to a deionized water control , sample J20RPT85030606 --2-16
. - - - - -- . . - . - . - - . - , - - . - . - - - . - ~
L 2: Ig . m 4 2 l~
'T
~
m e
?f([4i$f 5
{ ?l
- .- l hkkI ff j P8QQanq{, $
. s u a
. ,; ':g 44?W ex
'h. . . a f
- g. ,
me d % ,5l
'.8 y;;
f .. 4 s pyd y L. g y [ Q hv g ::.,.. i ; e J's $ ,f . ' _U r. , % kW l w .,fr . '". .
?;. .
.,% ,1+m s..- - -_4 ,y epm ie '
3 q g ._ , .
'si
~
{' j.y4 yO ah.{ : .,.g ; m} $ f ' *$g >> ".,]:
'[4 h
' ~
h.
. 31 s :g> g
.(1 =~
+* . ,'.>y',)
a y v
,a *i[:
a a*
, s
, . ~ ~ .x - .
_.Q w
.t.
.O \.- . ..-Qp ~
7 .!. ! hW ~
%2_, '
'- (
.:2 ~ ,_
~'
C ,
. 7%>-l O fs-Q V Mtjqi
. / .,. ,:.' j . - --+ - b . ___ - \
? .
.. y .. 5 -- n . ).
./v ,
,; / .
=
, , ... -q',b -- " ?.'* ~ .\ Y - -- ' ' <-(' ,
i
- i l' Y s.s. ._ _ . .( , -
4
,.,,e %,, . s
{~.-....,.x..__.,y.
. .. x.. ~.A g., .a j -s y .g E"~\ ** =., , l k.pg,,
L l '"<'ssissi, ,, -y qg Q
f [ DrMr
-N- j i
AWowl Rvn/ l g ( h t
# \
1 e',..*F n., I 7
~
m, % l fower , k jo W ' ""'*" vidassuno J I e :ksitn d ' f t h , Yacasca ev , \
,,.. - a e..,<. y .,
;",*,';J:nfr 900 MV NEWELLTON I 1194V LipsE j CRYSTAL We MNSER I ** "
p,,f Turl SAINT JOSEPHe [ MAZLEMUR5T M# $ 9
*gt %
WATE RPR00,7 9 % / \\- (, .. m . 7 FERRIOAg Sm00EMAvin F$dd RTOGE Est
***** '"c"'s "' % turyta q w y L ~a~
< 1 1 LOUISIANA .
AtmoeMb b M/mno! MISSI IPPI /sn/ , y O_m.4e )eMM MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION j UNITS 1 & 2 sounce: on e .n = t - 0** FIGURE 2-2
% % m . nom I
TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTES 2-18
. -l' Df g e,
.- R
-y 'k E TS 3
AN WO e
/ - DI .
Ns -m NT 2 _ UA a
- E R
U OC RO GL
~ 4 _ G I LL s/, ._ F AL .
. NE .
OW __ _ I G E R . f ,_
,i a ,?
R, m . 9 - 3 _N
. 'k _
... T
- + '
\ ._
2c h.
~ /* 'l \
( 6 . L4* g
^
- y'* _ r
=K' .
a ,
- 9
. , 1 _
.- 1% /y - 2 m
m s y
.- " ~ %' N _
- g .
e L. .
/ - _
jw,.
. Nm -
N,N
/. .
}
k- -
~ .
2
- "I "us
= m -
=
l Ts
- _ +
I i i
- . ; : i
PLANT NN DW-1 l l ,e e [I f , l y eDw-8 7 0 MW-1 DW-7 g DW-2
.e 2 i I MW-6 g g MW-2 DW-3 N mow-4 .
1
~
MW-3 DW-5 eMW-5
= . ,
\ 1
~
m MW-4 O 200 400 600 SCALE IN FEET MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FIGURE 2-4 LOCATION OF CONSTRUCTION l I DEWATERING AND OBSERVATION ' HED)
- 2-20
4
,p.. **
y' \' g E g I. 9C"
~u N
1
)W ^
gh, r < ,N u
. co - i
,. \
- ,y ,
5 ...... .. e i.t
, \ ,, t J % p 1. \ ..
.. m m.*y
- y -
., g '
\(
k..p %,.- ? .- r W, - e-
~
~ .
a
\
i s
/
A ( -, i i,
/
\s li ;j il t
\i i
i N& { 7
\$
*e
\1 8
\ ) -
\'
t
=(
P g iI
. l l
I e 8 I t ,
. AMP o
$ l .< MafAvnel '
WEsf CARROLL ,/ 8 s I, yfri,
/irre/ TaZH L
g EA
- 49. .
m
== *9 r -40 -"
5 gggggg l q i. ) p __ . _ .3 , i r e her - l onm i l f
.? g # f
--]
g _ T LlWLAM f Ant 30N T
~ ,
20 - pg gg 1 y RA RaNalN l (' l \ b - gh 0 O r 9 g l j j l l cate=tLL r*
) rti n WELLTON j , y ._ __ j 3
. _ - - - - i Lis0 Rut , , , , ,, , , , i l it usas g k, 7 *}( \
d r ani xstew. . p,
' ] r
{ siersesi f j
- l caTAu uta i T**Pa . 3g, ,, ->
~,
- -- w q_
t, vr s ;
,, e ERR j i u < niocacR qis &
,, gs. , , 's m9 c to a
. mic az
..-f y L88 g
e, acaus g- r l t l
; .e
- s. ,
I [5'- aunt f LOUISIANA s. ( ,
- ocoWS"f IPPI 8 m/mun,/
/ives/
g l MISSI . 0--- 6 M M M
**** t I
t MISSIS $1PPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ; GR AND GULF NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1 & 2 SOURCa: Omnimi engpury sep . Lamisens (1970) I omnes higp=., mes. maniew s (istil FIGURE 2-6 1 SALT DEPOSITION CONTROL LOCATION , i 2-22 . j i
s5 iiI,j[%'\ 6
\
y \ M M t \' it i 3
'T
~ 8g-H
>4 g
i-
. P4 g
' ' N \ \
7 h
.w:,j Y. .
jfT) t .
\
t _= e
- J 1 i
,/..... ..
s ,;g % ~
-g a g . _ _. ,
y,, 1 -. 3 1 i
..... *~ %,\.
i
\ \ -
e .. s 1'- - p 1 A
~
f
\
e '., '~ n
+
N q r ) Y 4 '.
\
N. g. 3
\
f / t {' , Ik
'Y ,
8
!g , 3,>.
K 1
. ! i *t ,
~
11
-e, y - - -
e e+w-e- -w-e---- y g-g-
- w--,,7,
t SECTION 3.0 OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSION 1 I l
- u
3.1 SMOKE CONTROL Environmental Surveillance Program personnel, who were certified by the Mississippi Department of Natural Resources to evaluate visible emissions, conducted daily inspections of the burn pit in 1985. During the year, four opacity violations were noted. Timely corrections were made on each occasion. No other smoke control problems were identified during 1985. Based on 1985 monitoring, the operation and construction of GGNS have contributed insignificant smoke emissions to the environment surrounding GGNS. 3.2 EROSION CONTROL Stabilization and revegetation of the majority of disturbed areas on the GGNS site have been accomplished. The only disturbed areas remaining which have not been completely stabilized are the laydown and Unit 2 construc-tion areas. Major construction areas associated with l l Unit 1 have been properly stabilized. ; Monthly grab samples are collected from the outfalls 1 of Sediment Basins A & B for total suspended solids (TSS ) analysis. Samples are collected at times considered to be representative of the entire month and average runoff conditions. Normally, samples are not collected if prevail-ing meteorological conditions (such as heavy rain) could skew analysis results. Analysis results are presented in Table 3-1. l 1 i
Results from 1985 samples are consistent with TSS results from previous operational years. The annual average TSS values for both basins are similar. This indicates that overall the basins are operating at a similar efficiency. 3.3 TRANSMISSION LINE SURVEYS (1985) The semiannual aerial surveys of the GGNS transmission lines identified no major problem areas during 1985. Minor erosion was identified during 1985 surveys, but no remedial action was necessary. Overall, GGNS transmission lines have well established vegetation. A detailed summary of the semiannual surveys is provided as Appendix I. Stabilization of soil and vegetation in GGNS transmission i line right-of-ways has progressed well, and sufficient ground cover is now available to preclude future serious erosion problems. Past and present semiannual transmission line surveys have established the following: o Construction practices were effective in minimizing environmental impact o Erosion and vehicular damage caused by hunting and logging encroachment over the years has been minimal and caused no lasting problems o Past remedial action required to control erosion has been effective. ; 3.4 CHEMICAL AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 1 Solid Waste Solid waste generated at GGNS during 1985 did not present any unanticipated problems or adversely affect the environment. Office waste, rubble and debris were incinerated or buried on site without incident. Solid _ . , _ _ . _ _ __ _ _ _ J20RPT85030606. _3-2 _ _ . . _ ,
waste activities at GGNS during 1985 were in compliance with Mississippi Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Pollution Control, " Nonhazardous Waste Management Regula-tions" issued September 1984. . Chemical and Liquid Waste i GGNS did not incur any serious problems or incidents with chemical and liquid waste control in 1985. Chemicals , of a nonhazardous nature (resins, cement slurry, General Electric RTV vulcanizing silicone rubber, Tech-Sil non-leaded sealants, charcoal and filters) were successfully P disposed of on site. Chemicals which were suitable for reuse were recycled through local contractors and nonprofit organizations. Nonhazardous liquid wastes (borated water, , chiller water, cooling water) were disposed of in the GGNS Resin Pond or discharged through National Pollutant Dis-charge Elimination System outfalls and reported as appro-priate. Hazardous Waste The Mississippi Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) inspected the Hazardous Waste Storage Area and related activities on March 13, 1985. The purpose of the inspec- l tion was to confirm regulatory compliance with the GGNS Hazardous Waste Management Permit. No items of non-compliance were identified. Hazardous waste generated at GGNS during 1985 did not l present any unanticipated problems or result in any non-compliances of the Hazardous Waste Management Permit. 1 J20RPT85030606 3
Four shipments of hazardous waste occurred during 1985 as : follows:
- 1) Sixty-seven drums of hazardous waste were shipped on l July 29, 1985, consisting of 11 drums of Rydlyme, 1 l drum of Rydlyme spill cleanup material and 55 drums of !
sulfuric acid spill cleanup material. !
- 2) Thirty-one drums of hazardous waste were shipped on !
August 1, 1985, consisting of 15 drums of sulfuric ' acid spill cleanup material and 16 drums of Leaded Tech-Sil. ; l
- 3) Thirty drums of hazardous waste were shipped on August 26, 1985 consisting of 4 drums of Rydlyme, 7 30-gallon drums of Tech-Sil Leaded Elastomer and ,
19 55-gallon drums of Tech-Sil Leaded Elastomer.
- 4) Fourteen drums of hazardous waste were shipped on December 13, 1985 consisting of. ;
i 1 55-gallon drum of Oil Laboratory Waste 2 55-gallon drums of Ameron 71 Resin (Lab Pack) 3 55-gallon drums of Micrographic Waste 5 55-gallon drums of Amercoat 12 3 55-gallon drums of Amercoat 72 : These shipments were disposed of at chemical waste t Management's permitted repository in Emelle, Alabama. Four spills involving sulfuric acid (H 2 SO4) occurred at GGNS in 1985. The spills were reported by telephone to the National Response Center and the Mississippi Department of Natural Resources. Follow-up written reports (Appendix II) were sent to MDNR and the Environmental Protection Agency. The four spills are summarized below: Date Material Qty. No. of Report No. (gal) Spills 3/2/85 H2SO 4 300 1 APO-85/0240 4/13/85 H2SO 4 50 1 APO-85/0291 4/23/85 H2SO 4 50 2 APO-85/0295 Pickle Liquor J20RPT85030606 4 !
N I I 1 i
!t The spills were neutralized with sodium bicarbonate or
. lime. Most of the neutralized residue was disposed of by onsite burials however, a small amount from the April 23 spill , was shipped to a permitted repository because it exceeded the { EP Toxicity concentration for lead. .
- The sulfuric acid spills occurred at the temporary f sulfuric acid storage tank adjacent to the Unit 1 Cooling Tower. Lack of secondary containment around the tank and/or j operator error involving valve alignment were' responsible for the occurrence of these spills. The tank piping has been i
< improved and a concrete secondary containment structure j provided. Future spills of this type are not anticipated, and no j lasting environmental impact was observed as a result of these ! l spills. ! i Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) ! , 1 No known exposure or offsite release of PCBs occurred in ! 1985. Two drums of PCB contaminated capacitors and cleanup j materials were transferred to MP&L's Mayes Street Warehouse on i December 17, 1985. Disposition was planned to occur at ENSCO - . Company's permitted incinerator at El Dorado, Arkansas. These-materials were the result of a circulating water pump burnout. The only known transformer at GGNS containing concentrated. PCBs was removed in 1985. The transformer was also sent to the ENSCO Arkansas facility. 3.5 LAND MANAGEMENT AND WILDLIFE One endangered species, the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), was observed in Sediment Basin B i J20RPT85030606 5
during 1985. Alligators have been known to inhabit both Hamilton and Gin Lakes and their tributaries. During the 1985 bow hunting season (October 1985 through January 1986) 24 deer were killed. There were 106.0 hunting hours per deer killed for a hunter success ratio of 3.8% for the season. A water treatment chemical discharge in November 1985 caused a fish kill in Sediment Basin B. A detailed discussion of the fish kill is provided in Section 4.3. A full recovery of the fish population in Sediment Basin B is expected with no lasting environmental impact. Based on field observations by Environmental Surveillance Program personnel and excluding the acute effects of the fish kill, the 1985 operation of GGNS had no apparent ecological effect on the GGNS wildlife population. 3.6 GROUNDWATER Regional Groundwater Regional groundwater monitoring data is presented in Table 3-2. Water levels occurred at expected elevations. Fluctuations in well water elevations were attributed to flooding of the Mississippi River. The 1985 data was r consistent with preoperational and previous operational data. Perched Aquifer Perched groundwater data is presented in Table 3-3. A hydrograph for each perched aquifer well is provided in Appendix II. J20RPT85030606 6
Groundwater elevations of 109.1 and 111.3 ft Mean Sea Level (MSL) occurred in Dewatering Well-8 (DW-8) on February 28 and November 25, 1985, respectively. These levels exceeded the GGNS design basis elevation of 109.0 ft MSL by 0.1 and 2.3 ft, respectively. Investigation of the problems determined that a clogged well screen caused the February excursion and faulty conductivity probe controllers caused the November excursion. Repairs were made in both instances with well operability returning to normal on March 4, 1985 and January 7, 1986. Detailed descriptions of these occurrences were submit-ted to the NRC, via AECM-85/0088 and AECM-86/0002. 3.7 NPDES The 1985 monitoring results for all permitted outfalls were reported in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) quarterly reports. The upriver temperature data required by the permit was also included in each report. The Mississippi Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission received copies of these reports. The Chlorine Minimization Report required by Part 1, Section B, of the NPDES Permit covering the period January 1984 through March 1985 was included in the first quarter NPDES Report (APO-85/0290). Twelve additions, totalling 1325 gallons, of 10% sodium hypochlorite were used to chlorinate the Circulating Water System (CWS) from January 1 through August 29, 1984. The CWS was secured during each addition until J20 RET 85030606 7
chlorine levels were less than detectable, thus preventing any chlorine discharges. Several items noted during 1985 and included in the NPDES quarterly reports are summarized in the following, o During 1984 and the first quarter of 1985, flow for Outfall 015 was inadvertently miscalculated using a 45 degree V-notch weir conversion table as opposed to the correct 90 degree V-notch weir conversion table. Calculations are now based on 90 degree V-notch conversion table. Corrected calculations for 1984 and 1985 data were provided in internal memorandum NSIM-85/0391. o The temperature recorder for Outfall 001 was inoperative a total of 455.5 hr during 1985. The reasons for the inoperative periods are outline below. Corrective Date Duration Cause Action 2/8 120 hr Chart drive Replaced motor failure 5/10 72 hr Equipment N/A problem 5/17 8.5 hr Breaker trip Reset 6/20 24 hr Chart drive Reconnected unplugged 7/26 144 hr Faulty plug Replaced 9/27 63 hr Chart paper Replaced depleted 12/17 24 hr Malfunction, chart Repaired drive motor o Nine routine discharges of diesel generator cooling water were recorded during the year. The following describes the discharges: Date Quantity Source 1/10, 2/26, 3/11 1250 gal Division I 11/7 300 gal Division I 2/18, 3/4 1200 gal Division II 4/26 3750 gal Division II 2/26 1250 gal Division II Nitrite concentrations in the diesel generator cooling water ranged from 440-800 ppm with an average nitrite concentration of 631 ppm. Nitrite concentrations at the effluent of Outfall 014 ranged from 0-0.2 ppm with an average effluent concentration of 0.1 ppm. J20RPT85030606 8
i The chart below describes non-routine discharges thru a 5 i o permitted outfall. These discharges were necessary for : k maintenance' operations. All the water was discharged i through the storm drainage system and was within NPDES parameters. ; Date Source Gallons 1 3/5 Circulation Water Basin- 11.0 E6 ; 3/22 Circulating Water System 1.0 E4 ; Pump Pit . 6/9 Cooling Tower Basin 1.0 E4 10/19 SSW Piping (Hydroflush) 2.5 E3 : 10/21 Fuel Pool Cooling Heat ; 1 Exchanger (Hydroflush) 1.2 E3 : 10/26 Circulating Water Basin 7.3 E5 l 10/28 Water Box Drain Pumps. 7.3 E5 ! 10/30 Standby Service Water 1.4 E6 l
- Basin B [
1 o Operations to remove rainwater from a construction ditch + on April 30 resulted in the discharge of total suspended i solids (TSS) from Outfall 007 in excess of the daily ! i maximum limit (100 mg/1). . Total suspended solids analysis ;
; revealed a concentration of 339.1 mg/l during pumping !
activities. The concentration returned to normal levels (0.5 mg/1) when pumping activities were discontinued. l Part III, Section A. h. of the NPDES Permit has provisions : for this type of discharge. i o On June 20 foam was observed discharging from Outfall ' 007. Investigation indicated an undetermined amount of l soap had been washed into the storm drain and discharged thru Outfall 007 to Sediment Basin B. The foam was con-tained by the first boom at the head of the basin. No foam' ' was discharged from the basin. Analysis of samples col-lected at the effluent of Outfall 007 on_ June 20 indicated an oil & grease concentration of 175.4 mg/1. June 21 samples had an oil & grease concentration of 15.3 mg/1. The exact source of this problem could not be determined, i but maintenance activities were suspected. Maintenance personnel were cautioned about the consequences of such a discharge and requested to contact Environmental Surveil-lance Program personnel for disposal guidelines in the future. o The August Total Suspended Solids (TSS) analysis result of 56.1 mg/1.for-Outfall 015 exceeded the maximum daily limit of 45 mg/1. Although this parameter is'only required quarterly, for trending purposes it was being performed monthly. The 3rd quarter TSS average was 22 mg/1. This problem was caused by items identified in the July 16, 1985 inspection by the Department.of Natural Resources representative, Mr. Bill Davis. A request for the modifications pointed out tar Mr. Davis was made via PMI-85/8688. __ ___ _ _ _ _ J20RPT8 5 0 3 0 6 0 6 ,-__3-9, _ _. _ _ , _ __ , _ . . _ _
i ( I 4 i On October 30 the Total Suspended Solids concentration for o l Outfall 007 exceeded the maximum daily. limit allowed by : the NPDES permit. The 114.7 mg/l concentration was due to , hydrolasing. operations in the condenser. This problem j l was corrected by redirecting the flow to Outfall 006. j o A fish kill was observed on November 4 in Sediment Basin B i as a result of an inadvertent discharge of Betz Powerline 3641 via Outfall 007. A detailed discussion of the incident is described in letter APO-85/1248 to the MDNR j (See Section 4.3). i 3.8 THERMA 1, MONITORING Thermal monitoring was conducted June 12, 1985 by ; 1 , Environmental Surveillance Program personnel. All 72 points were monitored. The results were organized and plotted so i that temperature changes could be noted at specific distances j . e from the river bank. ! I In addition to the temperature, the following parameters l were also monitored: l
?
- l. o River stage and flow at Vicksburg o Plant power percentage ,
o Average ambient temperature : o Average Outfall 001 temperature I o Average discharge flow to the river ; . o Average cooling tower blowdown. l The only significant thermal plume detected was prior to 1 l entering the mixing zone. A transect of the barge slip was performed to determine the extent of the plume.- The plume extended 70 ft out from the mouth of the barge slip and curved upstream for 60 ft (due to eddy currents) before dissipating. However, the temperature of receiving water did not increase more than 0.3 *C.
, Measurements to confirm thermal plume location were performed on July 15. Approximately the same results were obtained as on June.12. Thermal monitoring for 1985 indicates l
J20RPT85030606 10 l
the Mississippi River supplies enough volume to completely dissipate the heated effluent generated within 70 ft of the discharge point. Winter thermal monitoring was planned for either November or . December 1985. Because of high water levels for the Mississippi River and a maintenance outage, the monitoring ' could not be performed in either month. Winter thermal 1 monitoring was accomplished on February 5, 1986 in order to fulfill the semiannual requirement.
- 3.9 COOLING TOWER DRIFT I During 1985, cumulative salt deposition samples were collected for four quarterly periods. Replicate samples were taken at four locations (stations 1, 2, 5 and 6) as '
described in Section 2.9. Table 3-5 gives the calculated salt deposition rates (SDR) for the eight monitoring sites in the GGNS Cooling l Tower Drift Program. These SDRs form the bases for the statistical analysis which follows. Rainfall data : collected.at each sarpling site is provided as Table 3-6. The replicates at stations 1 and 6 and control-station 9 were not started until the third quarter of 1935. Since data from these stations covers only two quarterly periods, it was not included in the statistical' analysis. l Statistical Development 1 i f Presently, the data base is not very extensive (on a i . - year to year basis) and doubt can be cast on the validity of ! some of the data. The latter is especially true for l f l J20RPT85030606 11 !
phosphate SDRs for the second and third sampling period, as can be seen by examining the phosphate rates in Table 3-5. Nevertheless, data analysis is possible to obtain quantitative estimates of the precision of the data and the relative importance of the various factors which can potentially influence salt deposition rates. The former can be quantified by estimating confidence limits for the various data; the latter by statistically analyzing the data by Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The present statistical 1 analysis uses a two-factor ANOVA which involves calculating F-factors and conducting significance tests for the major potential influences (period, location and the interaction of the two). Statistical Model The basic statistical model selected for the analysis is as follows: D ijk
- Y
- i*bj + PLi$ + e k(ij) where D ijk = basic SDR (Salt Deposition Rate) data p = mean SDR Pg = contribution due to sampling period L. = contribution due to sampling location ;
3 PL = contribution due to sampling period and f i$ i location interactions
. i e k(ij)
= err r due to sampling, analytical techniques and other, unaccounted for, factors.
I f i J20RPT85030606 12
Interactions and " experimental" error can be separated in a multiple-factors experiment only if multiple observations are taken at various combinations of sampling periods and sampler locations. Determining confidence limits for the basic SDR data depends on the estimate of
" experimental" error for the model; this estimate, in turn, depends on the availability of replicate samples.
Since the latter were obtained over the entire year only for salt deposition station (SDS) locations 2 and 5, this statistical analysis will consider only these two locations. Also, the " wet" (2, 2A, 5 and 5A) and " dry" (2B and 5B) sampler results will be pooled in the model as providing comparable estimates. For simplicity's sake a complete balanced block design will be considered; that is, three replicate SDRs for each combination of periods (four) and locations (two) for a total of 24 SDR data points for each constituent. The actual data block is incomplete since some SDR data are either not available or are obviously biased. Pseudo data points have been estimated based on available data for the same sampler to complete the data block by minimization of the error sum-of-squares for the model. This is generally a good approximation for a data block with only a small number of missing data points. Table 3-7, giving the SDR data, includes these pseudo data points. AnalysisJof Variance (ANOVA) Calculation number CC-N1000-86015 was performed for this analysis. Basically, one calculates the sum-of-squares for J20RPT85030606 3-13 ,
each of the factors of interest (period, location, period-location interaction, and error). Then F-factors for period, location and period-location interaction relative to basic error are determined as well as an estimate of the confidence limits for the average SDR for any given period and location. For the purposes of this analysis, 95% confidence limits and 95% significance critical F-factors have been ! considered. Using standard student -t and F distribution tables, other levels of significance are readily determinable, if required. Table 3-8 summarizes the results of this analysis. As noted earlier, it is necessary to use replicate SDRs to separate " experimental error" terror between the replicates) from interaction influences. The use of composition in ANOVA instead of SDRs may aid in this process as well as provide additional information regarding potential sources of the salt. Composition for an individual parameter (e.g. for sodium, of location 2, period 1, and replicate 1) is determined by dividing the value of the salt deposition rate for the parameter by the sum of the corresponding values for all other constituents other than total dissolved solids. A two-factor ANOVA with 3 replicates is then conducted for 2 locations (2 and 5) and 4 periods. Table 3-9 provides a summary of the ANOVA based on composition. J20RPT85030606 14
's t
Results of the ANOVA (Table 3-8) for sampler locations 2 and 5 (with replicate samples) show interaction of sampling period and location on some of the SDRs. As noted earlier, multiple observations are required to separate interaction and " experimental" error. Even when multiple observations are not available, ANOVA analysis can ( still be performed to evaluate the main effect of an individual 4 factor. Therefore, the two-factor ANOVA (without replicates) can be performed for the other sampling locations (other than 2 and 5) to evaluate the effect of location and period. Table 3-10 shows salt deposition data (five locations, four periods) for the ANOVA analyses without interaction. This ANOVA calculation was also performed in calculation number CC-N1000-86015. Table 3-11 summarizes the results. ' To analyze impacts of environmental factors such as s rainfall, wind speed, prevailing wind direction and resultant wind direction, regression analyses may be , performed as follows: (1) Cumulative rainfall for the period versus the salt deposition rate for that period (for all salt deposition rates for sampler locations 2 and 5) (2) Average wind speed for the period versus the salt deposition rate for that period (as above) (3) Prevailing wind direction for the period versus the salt deposition rates for that period (as above) (4) Resultant wind direction for the period versus the salt deposition rate for that period (as above).
)
i I l J20RPT85030606 15
For each of the four sampling periods, data for rainfall j and the frequency distributions for wind speed and direction have been obtained by reduction of GGNS weather , data. Table 3-12 summarizes these four environmental factors. Data points for a regression analysis on a SDR parameter consist of data pairs as folicws - an environmental factor for a period and corresponding SDR value of the parameter for the period. The SDR data from ; sampler locations 2 and 5 were used for the regression r analyses. Table 3-13 gives the correlation coefficients (for each SDR parameter with each environmental factor) as obtained from the regression analyses. Conclusions (1) The data for phosphates for location SDS 5 for the second and third quarter are suspect because of analytical error. (2) The results of ANOVA (Table 3-8) based on salt deposition rates indicate the following: i o Sampling period has significant influence on all SDR parameters except magnesium and phosphate ! o Sampling location has significant influence on all SDR parameters. o Interaction of sampling period and locations has significant influence on all SDR parameters except phosphate. (3) If sources of the deposited salt were the same and variations in SDR were only due to sampler location, period, and their mutual interaction, then the composition of SDR samples for different periods and locations would be similar to each other and ANOVA based on composition would be expected to show no ~ dependence on the three factors. However, no clear trend is evident in this ANOVA analysis. Therefore, there are other salt sources in addition to the cooling tower or other factors affecting the deposition greatly (Table 3-9). J20RPT85030606 16
/ -
(4) ANOVA results (Table 3-11), assuming no interaction between period and location and without samples, show similar trends for the influence of sampling location on SDR but show no clear trends for sampling period. (5) Results of linear regression analyses (Table 3-13) indicate /the following: . o Correlation coefficients for nidrate alone show significant linear correlation with average wind speed but shows little significant correlation coefficients for prevailing and resultant wind directions during the sampling periods. Future Considerations - - (1) Although it is evident from the 95% confidence ,, intervals that quality control,has generally been tightened up, results of 0.00 should be avoided. The result should be reported at'the detection limit of the method. _ (2) To obtain/ better quantification"of random
,Aes may sampling experimental errors, replicate samp be obtained at additional locaticas and analyzed using~ exactly the same ' analytical methods.
(3) Based on SDR data from the past three years, the sampling program could be re-evaluated to make the program more e.ffective'. It may be possible to reduce the" number of sampling locations. 3.10 METEOROLOGICAL DATA Meteorological data for the 1985 reporting period was included in the Semianqual Effluent Release Reports submitted via AECM-85/0274 and AECM-86/0057 to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on August 30, 1985 and February 26, 1986,,respectively. Data contained in these reports is summarized in the following eables: o Joint Frequency Distribution, 50 Meter Level ,
~ < (Table 3-14)
/ t i
o Joint Freque,ncy Distribution, 10 Meter Level (Table 3-15)' . o Percent Bad" Data Report (Table 3-16). I e e i
'y J20RPT85030606 17
3.11 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS During 1985, no unreviewed environmental questions ! were found, and no changes were made to the EPP. Only 7 environmental evaluations were recorded in 1985. The reduction from 53 to 7 in 1985 reflects improved management and awareness of evaluation requirements by the originating sections and departments. Three training sessions on environmental evaluations were conducted for the GGNS Plant Staff in 1985. This 5 helped reduce the number of evaluations that were being conducted at the option of the originator. Of the 7 conducted in 1985, some could have been handled more appropriately with an applicability determination. Only one, PSO-84-121, was actually applicable to the environmental evaluation requirement. A completed copy of each 1985 environmental evaluation : recorded by R&ES is included in Appendix III. An analysis, interpretation and evaluation of the environmental impact of each change, test or experiment is made in each environmental evaluation. Table 3-17 summarizes each evaluated item. J20RPT85030606 18
TABLE 3-1 I 1985 TSS ANALYSIS RESULTS SEDH'INTATION BASINS A & B Collection Sedimentation Basin A Sedimentation Basin B Date (Outfall 013) (Outfall 014) 4 01-28-85 26.0 67.0 02-21-85 36.0 26.0 03-07-85 24.9 36.3 04-29-85 35.0 74.0 05-31-85 12.0 12.8 06-24-85 63.8 53.2 07-16-85 33.8 7.7 08-26-85 111.3 28.0 09-18-85 35.0 40.0 10-08-85 132.9 46.7 11-21-85 36.6 6.8 12-11-85 16.2 211.0 Yearly Average 47.0 50.8 1-Analysis results expressed as ng/1. J20RPT85030606 19
TABIE 3-2 1985 REGIONAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING DATA 2 3 Well No. Year Formation Min (Month) Max (Month) Average I I I OW4 1985 A l 69.0 NOV l 75.2 APR l 70.9 I JUL l l l l 1 OW4A 1985 A l 67.7 JUL l 73.5 APR 'l 70.3 I l l OW29A 1985 T l 63.7 JUL l 71.5 APR l 67.0 l l l OW209A 1985 T l 86.4 MAY l 90.8 APR l 89.9 l 1 l PS 1985 C l 72.0 APR l 76.4 DEC l 74.4 l l l OW7 1985 T l 70.6 JUL l 75.6 MAR l 73.3 l l l P4 1985 C l 59.6 OCT l 65.7 APR l 62.1 l l l OW69A 1985 A l 64.2 AUG l 70.3 MAR l 66.8 l JUL l l l l l OW202 1985 T l 75.1 JUL l 79.3 DEC l 77.4 1 I l OWS 1985 T l 71.4 AUG l 75.8 MAR l 73.7 l l l OW10 1985 C l 105.8 OCT l 140.3 MAR l 113.4 l l l P209 1985 C l DRY DEC l DRY - l DRY l JM l l I A = Alluvium; C = Catahoula; T = Terrace Deposits 2 Water Level Elevation (Feet Above MSL) 3 Average Elevation for Non-Dry Readings (Feet Above MSL) J20RPT85030606 20
.=.
TABLE 3-3 9 I 1985 PERCHED GROUNDWATER MONITORING DATA MONITORING WELL-WATER LEVEL DEWATERING WELL-WATER LEVEL Menth Date MW1 MW2 MW3 MW4 MW5 MW6 MW7 DW1 DW2 DW3 DW4 DW5 DW6 DW7 DW8 I I .. JAN 01-30-85 l 99.1 96.2 100.9 103.2 102.1 104.6 90.2 1 90.1 100.6 96.1 -98.9 101.4 105.4 93.7 107.0 l I FEB 02-28-85 l 99.5 99.6 102.3 102.7 102.3 104.9 88.8 1 88.8 100.6 99.8 99.9 102.0 105.2 97.6 *109.1 I I , MAR 03-15-85 l 98.5 97.7 101.1 103.8 101.8 105.0 89.3 l 89.3 96.5 97.9 97.4 101.5 104.9 94.6 108.0 l I APR 04-24-85 l 98.2 94.2 100.9 103.1 98.2 104.7 86.5 I 86.3 99.7 97.7 94.2 101.0 105.9 93.7 106.2 l l MAY 05-30-85 l 98.2 96.4 96.0 87.4 101.7 101.5 87.4 I 86.6 96.4 96.0 97.8 97.3 105.7 93.7 101.7 I l JUN 06-21-85 l 98.0 96.2 100.3 102.6 97.7 104.0 86.2 l 86.2 99.5 97.7 97.0 100.6 100.7 93.6 107.9 I I JUL 07-31-85 l 97.9 96.4 101.4 98.4 101.1 103.8 85.6 I 82.4 96.0 97.8 94.0 97.1 100.5 89.3 107.8 I I
- AUG 08-27-85 l 98.2 97.1 105.4 98.8 101.3 103.8 87.9 l 88.0 99.7 97.6 98.0 101.1 100.7 94.7 107.6 I I SEP 09-13-85 l 98.2 96.4 100.6 103.3 101.5 103.8 88.7 l 88.6 99.8 98.0 97.7 101.1 104.1 95.2 107.4 I I OCT 10-25-85 l 98.4 96.5 101.3 104.3 101.9 104.2 90.1 l 90.1 100.0 97.8 97.7 101.6 105.1 95.8 107.9 I I NOV 11-25-85 l 98.5 96.5 101.5 104.1 102.4 104.9 88.6 I 88.3 100.1 98.1 97.8 101.9 105.5 106.6 *111.3 I I DEC 12-20-85.1 98.7 96.5 101.7 104.4 102.2 105.7 85.8 I 85.9 100.2 98.2 97.6 101.9 105.9 106.6 107.1 i
I W2ter Level Mean Sea Level (M. S. L.) Design Criteria of 109.0' M. S. L. exceeded in February and November 1985. Reported via AECM-85/0088 and AECM-86/0002. I t J20RPT85030606 T-21 b
TABLE 3-4 1985 PRECIPITATION MEASUREMENT GRAND GUIS NUCLEAR STATION I OBSERVED AT SITE 1985 MONTH INCHES JANUARY 3.20
. FEBRUARY 8.54 MARCH 4.33 i
APRIL 2.28 MAY 2.21 JUNE 4.59 JULY 4.10 AUGUST 6.16 SEPTEMBER 7.10 OCTOBER 10.19 NOVEMBER 3.41 DECEMBER 3.95 TOTAL 60.06 1 Rainfall measured adjacent to the GGNS Meteorological System J20RPT85030606 22
TABLE 3-5
. Salt Deposition Data l
SODIUM (mq/m sq.) PERIOD ENDING 4-1-85 7-1-85 10-1-85 12-31-85 i sdsla (1) (1) 1454.35 855.56 sds2 208.65 270.41 196.00 257.52 sds2a 195.56 380.95 186.75 231.59 sds2b 194.05 361.54 191.62 122.70 sdc3 170.48 582.38 834.68 173.81 sds4 143.41 269.08 885.33 251.43 sds5 1365.40 1184.29 1867.02 1722.86 sds5a 1405.40 1160.95 1738.70 2269.86 sds5b 1408.89 1107.43 1889.76 2270.76
- sds6 505.56 215.05 829.68 373.81 sds6a (1) (1) 926.49 300.38 .
sds7 215.56 172.89 203.46 179.84 sds9 (3) (3) 220.79 338.90 CALCIUM (mg/m sq.)
._____.____________.________________.______ i ENDING 4-1-85 7-1-85 10-1-85 12-31-85 .
sds1 767.46 (2) 2767.49 1941.67 ; sdsla (1) (1) 2171.87 2061.4 i sds2 159.79 273.44 86.03 162.79 sds2a 150.79 365.24 84.60 185.24 ' sdc2b 187.70 374.16 86.08 (4) sds3 237.00 810.63 572.46 177.22 cds4 140.79 518.86 454.19 201.11 sds5 2664.13 3615.24 2766.98 3275.87 sds5a 2991.43 3778.95 2745.94 4077.73 ! sds5b 2879.05 3366.92 2792.62 4390.10 nds6 87.46 471.87 359.65 332.38 sds6a (1) (1) 315.02 314.60 sds7 223.02 268.86 19.65 118.83 - nds9 (3) (3) 43.17 175.52 1 8 (1) Duplicate - Monitoring did not begin until 7-1-85. (2) Sample lost in field. (3) Duplicate control, different location - non-itoring did not begin until 7-1-85. [ (4) Analytical error. * ' 3-23 i f 1
TABLE 3-5 (cont'd) Salt Deposition Data (cont.) CHLORIDES (mg/m sq.) W66---------------~-'--------------------------- ENDING 4-1-85 7-1-85 10-1-85 12-31-85 _ g ________g_ _ __ _ g ____ggg g____gg7_g,_ sdsla (1) (1) 1425.00 697.30 sds2 448.22 147.14 236.19 376.73 sds2a 408.41 184.13 226,32 326.03 sds2b 362.62 153.81 225.65 (4) sds3 301.65 445.24 339.60 138.73 sds4 321.03 230.79 399.52 254.60 sds5 1637.78 1222.22 1544.51 1738.57 sds5a 1667.78 1298.41 1492.06 1825.56 sds5b 1788.41 1322.70 1462.38 1710.51 sds6 695.08 207.30 364.84 381.56 sds6a (1) (1) 353.65 342.76 sds7 499.52 153.02 220.'95 230.95 sds9 (3) (3) 270.48 301.97
~
FLOURIDES (mq/m sq.) PERIOD ENDING 4-1-85 7-1-85 10-1-85 12-31-95 sds1 3.33 (2) 26.98 7.14 sdsla (1) (1) 18.46 3.62 sds2 0.00 3.60 5.84 3.68 sds2a 0.00 4.13 2.71 3.65 sds2b O.00 3.79 2.81 2.14 sdn3 0.00 5.11 2.78 1.83 sds4 0.00 4.54 2.51 3.65 sds5 13.65 14.70 10.35 7.94 i sds5a 14.60 14.70 13.10 0.03 I sds5b 16.67 15.52 14.52 8.03 sds6 0.00 4.54 2.68 3.95 sds6a (1) (1) 2.71 4.00 sds7 0.00 3.46 2.57 3.14 sds9 (3) (3) 3.81 3.70
\
(1) Deplicate - Monitoring did not begin until l 7-1-85. l (2) Sample lost in field.
, (3) Duplicate control, different location - Mon-itoring did not begin until 7-1-85.
(4) Analytical error. 3-24 i _ . _ _m. . ,.__, . -._,
TABLE 3-5 (cont'd) Salt Deposition Data (Cont'd) MAGNESIUM (mo/m sq.) ENDING 4-1-85 7-1-85 10-1-85 12-31-85 sdsla (1) (1) 779.18 388.76 sds2 53.14 71.94 73.27 35.05 sds2a 52.38 84.92 75.16 34.76 sds2b 57.94 74.94 67.79 17.94 sds3 94.38 249.42 147.94 61.19 sds4 46.19 143.68 216.92 54.60 sds5 708.57 884.44 911.37 857.46 sds5a 878.89 936.35 898.02 1197.16 sds5b 919.37 874.44 862.86 1162.57 sds6 135.71 111.97 (4) 88.71 sds6a (1) (1) 153.98 89.71 sds7 50.16 52.29 42.70 23.27 sds9 (3) (3) 65.40 39.21 ) IRON (mg/m sq.) ENDING 4-1-85 7-1-85 10-1-85 12-31-85 sdsla (1) (1) 262.67 242.22 sds2 88.63 83.62 72.03 130.67 sds2a 177.30 (4) 76.57 46.03 sds2b 245.00 81.89 143.79 54.21 sds3 152.86 121.13 103.49 67.38 sds4 106659 86.13 199.52 129.37 sds5 451.90 214.95 368.16 1023.17 sds5a 775.24 293.90 241.75 784.89 sds5b 614.44 377.68 230.08 794.73 ' I sds6 193.97 120.19 1110.49 116.11 sds6a (1) (1) 1213.48 152.32 sds7 107.30 88.63 190.16 174.29 sds9 (3) (3) 225.24 227.70
, (1) Duplicate - Monitoring did not begin until 7-1-85.
(2) Sample lost in field. ; (3) Duplicate control, different location - Mon-
]
itoring did not begin until 7-1-85. ; (4) Analytical error. j I l 3-25
TABLE 3-5 (cont'd) Salt Deposition Data (Cont'd) PHOSPHATES (mg/m sq.) PERIOD ENDING 4-1-85 7-1-85 10-1-85 12-31-05
-_-_-_- g g_-_-_ g __-- g g --__g g_ ,
sdsla (1) (1) 40.86 33.84 , sds2 16.90 12.52 19.49 18.41 ' sdsCa 16.67 20.16 13.10 18.25 sds2b 16.27 14.54 14.05 10.71 sds3 29.51 156.83 13.41 13.41 sds4 13.10 10.48 12.06 18.25 sds5 51.19 (4) (4) 68.57 sds5a 87.62 (4) (4) 56.86 ' sds5b 60.00 (4) (4) 64.73 sds6 20.00 17.52 18.94 24.03 . sds6a (1) (1) 16.13 24.32 sds7 62.22 12.00 21.05 19.17 L sds9 (3) (3) 26.83 26.52 : NITRATES (mg/m sq.) ! ENDING 4-1-85 7-1-85 10-1-85 12-31-85
--------------------------------------------- i sds1 127.62 (2) 66.67 17.06 sdsla (1) (1) 25.24 81.08 sds2 180.24 112.62 29.21 (4) sds2a 170.95 (4) 28.73 77.78 sds2b 176.51 82.21 28.89 52.14 sds3 16.98 10.62 13.89 49.84 sds4 122.62 24.03 26.67 81.75 '
sds5 (4) 2.16 11.75 19.05 sds5a 100.16 4.92 35.97 19.29 J sds5b 107.62 13.68 13.89 (4) sds6 50.95 6.41 34.41 88.08 sds6a (1) (1) 83.30 102.03 sds7 105.40 47.78 85.08 98.76 sds9 (3) (3) 60.32 46.60 [ (1) Duplicate - Monitoring did not begin until 7-1-85. (2) Sample lost in field. (3) Duplicate control, different location - Mon-itoring did not begin until 7-1-85. (4) Analytical error. i 3-26 i
TABLE 3-5 (cont'd) Salt Deposition Data (Cont'd) SULFATES (mg/m sq.) ENDING 4-1-85 7-1-85 10-1-85 12-31-85 sds1 1149.21 (2) 8422.29 2126.98 sdsla (1) (1) 7805.37 4153.17 sds2 557.06 434.90 1044.76 477.11 sds2a 532.54 527.62 964.43 389.52 sds2b 725.63 565.22 838.95 254.29 sds3 307.90 2129.05 1242.22 1021.11 sds4 418.25 941.49 1619.84 433.17 sds5 5517.54 8806.29 (4) 7543.02 sds5a 5621.43 9709.05 9031.29 7330.16 uds5b 5610.00 9305.37 7222.46 7680.22 sds6 1345.87 916.83 1397.98 820.70 sds6a (1) (1) (4) 696.67 sds7 314.76 355.46 767.21 723.14 sds9 (3) (3) 755.24 1262.33 t TDS (mg/m sq.) ENDING 4-1-85 7-1-85 10-1-85 12-31-85 sds1 20555.56 (2) 21819.05 6916.67 sdsla (1) (1) 19692.06 7712.70 sds2 20536.51 1738.89 2458.73 1442.86 sds2a 16722.22 2349.21 1508.73 2619.05 sds2b 17019.84 2092.06 1934.92 3007.94 sds3 1853.97 6376.19 3710.32 1785.71 sds4 448.41 2798.41 4503.17 1230.16 sds5 19690.48 20349.21 15707.94 27706.35 , sds5a (4) 22549.21 16473.02 28030.16 sds5b 23436.51 19804.44 13805.56 24357.14 i sds6 4222.22 1741.27 141.27 7115.08 sds6a (1) (1) 144.44 6982.54 sds7 2555.56 825.40 130.16 3449.21 sds9 (3) (3) 253.97 4461.90 t (1) Duplicate - Monitoring did not begin until ' 7-1-85. (2) Sample lost in field. (3) Duplicate control, different location - Non- ! itoring did not begin until 7-1-85. ; (4) Analytical error. 3-27 i l l
l TABLE 3-6 1985 SALT DEPOSITION RAINFALL DATA , SDS fl 04-01-85 17.55
.04-01-85 16.65 SDS #2 16.40 i SDS #3 04-01-85 04-01-85 17.30 SDS #4 17.40 SDS #5 04-01-85 SDS #6 04-01-85 18.10 SDS #7 04-01-85 ,
i
~
SDS fl 07-01-85 9.85 > SDS #2 07-01-85 9.85 ,
! SDS #3 07-01-85 8.55 ;
i SDS #4 07-01-85 9.15 ;
~
SDS #5 07-01-85 9.75 ; SDS #6 07-01-85 9.95 i SDS #7 07-01-85 10.25 l SDS #1 10-01-85 11.95 SDS #2 10-01-85 16.55 SDS #3 10-01-85 8.55** i SDS #4 10-01-85 10.45 ' i SDS #5 10-01-85 11.10 , SDS #6 10-01-85 12.20 I SDS #7 10-01-85 8.75 ! SDS #9 10-01-85 14.90 . P 12-31-85 17.00 I SDS fl 17.10 SDS #2 12-31-85 SDS #3 12-31-85 16.50 SDS #4 12-31-85 18.20 SDS #5 31-85 16.50 SDS #6 12-31-85 17.80 i SDS #7 12-31-85 18.85 SDS #9 12-31-85 16.15 , l
- I No rainfall data available from SDS #7 ,
i Leaf was blocking gauge opening during one rainfall. r I J20RPT85030606 28
e TABLE 3-7 SALT DEPOSITION DATA - REPLICATE SAMPLES Sodium Calcium Chlorides ag/m2 / Period ' 2 mg/m / Period ag/m2 / Period P2riod Sampler #2 Sampler #5 Sampler #2 Sampler #5 Sampler #2 Sampler #5 Ending 208.65 1365.40 159.79 2664.13 448.22 1637.78 195.56 1405.40 150.79 2991.43 408.41 1667.78 4/1/85 2879.05 362.62 1788.41 194.05 1408.89 187.70 270.41 1184.29 273.44 3615.24 147.14 1222.22 380.95 1160.95 365.24 3778.95 184.13 1298.41 7/1/85 3366.92 153.81 1322.70 361.54 1107.43 374.16 3 196.00 1867.02 86.03 2766.98 236.19 1544.51 186.75 1738.70 84.60 2745.94 226.32 1492.06
- 10/1/85 225.65 1462.38 191.62 1889.76 86.08 2792.62 i
257.52 1722.86 162.79 3275.87 376.73 1738.57 231.59 2268.86 185.24 4077.73 326.03 1825.56 12/31/85 351.38 1710.51 122.70 2270.76 174.02 4390.10 4 i 1 t 3-29
-- . , - . , , , - . - -- - ,- - - - - ,n.-- , , w w ,-w ,a.- --. . - , . - - - . . , , , , , - , - - , ,,.,, .,.e--
TABLE 3-7 (continued) SALT DEPOSITION DATA - REPLICATE SAMPLES Fluorides Magnesium Iron 2 ag/m / Period ag/m2 / Period ag/m*/ Period P2riod Ending Sampler #2 Sampler #5 Sampler #2 Sampler #5 Sampler #2 Sampler #5 0.00 13.65 53.14 708.57 88.63 451.90 0.00 14.60 52.38 878.89 171.30 775.24 4/1/85 614.44 0.00 16.67 57.94 919.37 245.00 3.60 14.70 71.94 884.44 83.62 214.95 4.13 14.70 84.92 936.35 82.76 293.90 7/1/85 377.68 3.79 15.52 74.94 874.44 81.89 5.84 10.35 73.27 911.37 72.03 368.16 2.71 13.10 75.16 898.02 76.57 241.75 10/1/85 2.81 14.52 67.79 862.86 143.79 230.08 3.68 7.94 35.05 857.46 130.67 1023.17 12/31/85 3.65 8.03 34.76 1197.16 46.03 784.89 2.14 8.03 17.94 1162.57 54.21 794.73 3-30
e TABLE 3-7 (continued) SALT DEPOSITION DATA - REPLICATE SAMPLES Phosphates Nitrates Sulfates 2 ag/m / Period ag/m / Period ag/m2 / Period Pariod Sampler #2 Sampler #5 Ending Sampler #2 Sampler #5 Sampler #2 Sampler #5 16.90 51.19 180.24 103.89 557.06 5517.54 16.67 87.62 170.95 100.16 532.54 5621.43 4/1/85 725.63 5610.00 16.27 60.00 176.51 107.62 i 12.52 64.83 112.62 2.16 434.90 8806.29 20.16 64.83 97.42 4.92 527.62 9709.05 7/1/85 565.22 9305.37 14.54 64.83 82.21 13.68 19.49 64.83 29.21 11.75 1044.76 8126.88 13.10 64.83 28.73 35.97 964.47 9031.29 10/1/85 838.95 7222.46 14.05 64.83 28.89 13.89 18.41 68.57 64.96 19.05 477.11 7543.02 18.25 56.86 77.78 19.29 389.52 7330.16 r 12/31/85 7680.22 ^ 10.71 64.73 52.14 19.17 254.29 a l i 3-31
*---.-m- -r- - , . .. , ,. , , , , , _ _ _ , _ __
TABLE 3-7 (continued) l l SALT DEPOSITION DATA - REPLICATE SAMPLES l TDS l mg/m2 / Period Period Ending Sampler #2 Sampler #5 20536.51 19690.48 4/1/85 16722.22 21563.50 17019.84 23436.51 1738.89 N 20349.21 7/1/85 2349.21 22549.21 ( 2090.06 19804.44 2458.73 15707.94 10/1/85 1508.73 16473.02 1934.92 13805.56 l 1442.86 27706.35 12/31/85 2619.05 28030.16 3007.94 24357.14 l l i t I 3-32 i
9 TABLE 3-8
SUMMARY
OF ANOVA (BASED ON SALT DEPOSITION RATES) Average 95% Confidence F-Factors Deposition Interval For Period For Location For Interaction Parameter ag/m2 / Period ag/m2/ Period Calc (2) Crit (3) Cale (2) Crit (3) Calc (2) Crit (3)
- 1. Sodium 924.49 1 148.13 14.40 3.24 783.23 4.49 23.12 3.24
- 2. Calcium 1734.78 275.46 11.64 3.24 1129.57 4.49 7.73 3.24 4
- 3. Chlorides 923.23 1 56.97 72.11 3.24 4480.46 4.49 9.66 3.24
- 4. Fluorides 7.67 1 1.44 11.12 3.24 427.85 4.49 19.38 3.24
- 5. Magnesium 491.28 1 96.14 1.88 3.24 729.33 4.49 3.47 3.24
- 6. Iron 310.56 111.80 14.96 3.24 119.34 4.49 14.18 3.24
- 7. Phosphates 40.38 i 9.12 0.06 3.24 258.62 4.49 0.02 3.24
- 8. Nitrates 64.72 i 11.01 195.76 3.24 217.63 4.49 23.50 3.24
- 9. Sulfates 4117.32 1 452.98 27.06 3.24 2156.31 4.49 26.48 3.24 I 10. TDS 13621.02 1 1790.91 64.14 3.24 630.88 4.49 55.50 3.24 j
i , NOTES
- 1. For all samples (4 periods, 2 locations, 3 replicates)
- 2. Calculated F-Factor (Relative to mean square for error) 4 3. 95% critical F-Factor 3-33 i
1
i TABLE 3-9
SUMMARY
OF ANOVA (BASED ON COMPOSITION) F-Factors For Period For Location For Interaction F1 F2 F-Crit F1 F2 F-Crit F1 F2 F-Crit Parameter Sodium 14.40 6.33 3.24 783.23 54.23 4.49 23.12 30.36 3.24 1. 11.60 44.39 3.24 1129.57 198.68 4.49 7.73 19.81 3.24
- 2. Calcium Chlorides 72.11 25.26 3.24 4480.46 76.22 4.49 9.66 12.78 3.24 3.
11.12 10.75 3.24 427.85 38.24 4.49 19.38 21.77 3.24
- 4. Fluorides 1.88 5.58 3.24 729.33 177.95 4.49 3.47 19.55 3.24
- 5. Magnesium 14.96 4.00 3.24 119.34 15.97 4.49 14.18 1.19 3.24
- 6. Iron Phosphates 0.06 1.21 3.24 258.62 145.12 4.49 0.02 3.38 3.24 7.
195.76 38.39 3.24 217.63 344.57 4.49 23.50 27.77 3.24
- 8. Nitrates 27.06 60.05 3.24 2156.31 107.14 4.49 26.48 31.97 3.24
- 9. Sulfates Notm
- 1. F1 is the F-factor for ANOVA based on salt deposition rates
- 2. F2 is the F-factor for ANOVA based on composition
- 3. F-Crit is 95% critical F-factor 3-34
TABLE 3-10 SALT DEPOSITION DATA (SINGLE SAMPLE) Sodium Deposition Rate (ag/m2/ Period) Pariod Ending SDS #1 SDS #3 SDS #4 SDS #6 SDS #7 4/1/85 348.89 170.48 143.41 505.56 215.56 7/1/85 1023.46 582.38 269.08 215.05 172.89 10/1/85 1851.65 834.68 885.33 829.68 203.46 12/31/85 869.84 173.81 251.43 373.81 179.84 Calcium Deposition Rate (ag/m 2/ Period) 4/1/85 767.46 237.00 140.79 ' 87.46 223.02 7/1/85 1825.54 810.63 518.89 471.87 268.86 10/1/85 2767.49 572.46 454.19 359.65 19.65 12/31/85 1941.67 177.22 201.11 332.38 118.83 Chlorides Deposition Rate (ag/m*/ Period) 4/1/85 .598.41 301.65 321.03 695.08 499.52 7/1/85 861.98 445.24 230.79 207.30 153.02 ' 10/1/85 1450.48 339.60 399.52 364.84 220.95 12/31/85 537.06 138.73 254.60 381.56 230.95 ! 3-35
. - - - - - - . - - - - - . - . ~ , . - . , - . . - . - - - - - .-
1 TABLE 3-10 (continued) l SALT DEPOSITION DATA (Single Sample) FLUORIDES DEPOSITION RATE (ag/m*/ Period) P2riod SDS #6 SDS #7 Ending SDS #1 SDS #3 SDS #4 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4/1/85 4.54 3.46 7/1/85 12.48 5.11 4.54 26.98 2.78 2.51 2.68 2.57 10/1/85 3.14 7.14 1.83 3.65 3.95 5 12/31/85 MAGNESIUM DEPOSITION RATE (ag/m*/ Period) 265.71 94.38 46.19 135.71 50.16 4/1/85 111.97 52.29 7/1/85 550.46 249.42 143.68 957.65 147.94 216.92 153.98 42.70 10/1/85 88.71 23.27 12/31/85 428.02 61.19 54.60 IRON DEPOSITION RATE (ag/m*/ Period) 170.63 152.86 106.59 193.97 107.30 4/1/85 120.19 88.63 7/1/85 273.14 121.13 86.13 544.10 103.49 199.52 1110.49 190.16 10/1/85 116.11 174.29 12/31/85 104.68 67.38 129.37 3-36
'w- --_mm_y- -.m .m- -+ wr-w-w- w-sw y + -ew y +% -' -e+' -&w - r-- e--e-
_ _ . . . - . ._ . . . ._. - ._ - ... . - . _ . - -. _ _ - _= . - _. - -- 9 TABLE 3-10 (continued) SALT DEPOSITION DATA (SINGLE SAMPLE) 2 PHOSPHATES DEPOSITION RATE (ag/m / Period) l Pariod SDS #7 i SDS #1 SDS #3 SDS #4 SDS #6 Ending 20.00 29.51 13.10 20.00 62.22
.4/1/85 17.52 12.00 7/1/85 26.56 156.83 10.48 38.89 13.41 12.06 18.94 21.05 10/1/85 24.03 19.17 12/31/85 20.79 13.41 18.25 2
1 NITRATES DEPOSITION RATE (ag/m / Period) 1 127.62 16.98 122.62 50.95 105.40 4/1/85 24.03 6.41 47.78 7/1/85 70.45 10.62 66.67 13.89 26.67 34.41 85.08 10/1/85 88.08 98.76 17.06 49.84 81.75 12/31/85 2 SULFATES DEPOSITION RATE (ag/m / Period) 1149.21 307.90 418.25 1345.87 314.76 j 4/1/85 916.83 355.46 7/1/85 3899.49 2129.05 941.49 1242.22 1619.84 1397.98 767.21 10/1/85 8422.29 1021.11 433.17 820.70 723.14 t 12/31/85 2126.98 3-37 T'- a vi wm, - n - a 97 -
,ww--- -
w e w -"er++ -. -+-r- w w - - - - " - -'---e- r
9 TABLE 3-10 (continued) SALT DEPOSITION DATA (SINGLE SAMPLE) TDS DEPOSITION RATE (ag/m*/ Period) Pariod SDS #7 Endirg SDS #1 SDS #3 SDS #4 SDS #6 20555.56 1853.97 448.41 4222.22 2555.56 4/1/85 1741.27 825.40 7/1/85 16430.43 6376.19 2798.41 21819.05 3710.32 4503.17 141.27 130.16 10/1/85 3449.21 12/31/85 6916.67 1785.71 1230.16 7115.08 3-38
i 1 e TABLE 3-11
SUMMARY
OF ANOVA (NO INTERACTION BETWEEN PERIOD AND LOCATION) Average 95% Confidence F-Factors Deposition Rate Interval For Period For Location. Parameter ag/m8 / Period ag/m2 / Period Calc (2) Crit (3) Calc (2) Crit (3)
- 1. Sodium 505.01 1 281.11 6.16 3.49 5.78 3.26
- 2. Calcium 614.83 396.03 2.32 3.49 14.19 3.26 ,
- 3. Chlorides 431.62 1 244.38 1.18 3.49 4.82 3.26 t
- 4. Fluorides 4.53 1 4.83 2.24 3.49 4.03 3.26 l
193.75 137.92 2.34 3.49 10.27 3.26 l S. Ma8nesium
- 6. Iron 208.01 2 223.90 2.60 3.49 1.32 3.26 i
l
- 7. Phosphates 28.41 i 37.56 0.57 3.49 0.77 3.26 8 Nitrates 57.25 1 33.23 2.93 3.49 2.45 3.26
- 9. Sulfates 1517.65 !1501.38 2.01 3.49 3.87 3.26
- 10. TDS 5430.41 i4251.32 0.27 3.49 10.07 3.26 NOTES l 1. For all samples '(5 locations, 4 periods) l 2. Calculated F-factors (relative to mean square for errors) ;
l 3. 95% critical F-factors ' 3-39
TABLE 3-12 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS RAINFALL. AVERAGE PREVAILIg PERIOD IN./ PERIOD WIND SPEED WIND DIV RESgTANTWIND SDS #2 SDS #5 M/SEC DEGREES DIV # DEGREES ENGING 16.65 17.40 3.86 112.5 150.14 04/01/85 9.85 9.75 2.67 180.0 161.60 07/01/85 16.55 11.10 2.59 112.5 102.80 11/01/85 17.10 16.50 3.12 112.5 91.73 12/31/82 NOTE:
- 1. Degrees from North = 0 in clockwise direction.
3-40
TABLE 3-13
SUMMARY
OF REGRESSION ANALYSES CORRELATION COEFFICIENT BASED ON AVERAGE WIND PREVEALING RESULTING 4
- PARAMETER RAINFALL SPEED WIND DIRECTION WIND DIRECTION
=
- 1. Sodium -0.14 -0.04 -0.14 -0.21
- 2. ccicium -0.22 -0.03 0.08 -0.00
- 3. Chlorides -0.01 0.16 -0.18 -0.09
- 4. Fluorides -0.03 -0.11 0.18 -0.16
- 5. Magnesium -0.19 -0.03 -0.00 -0.06
- 6. Iron 0.26 0.32 -0.25 -0.16 i
- 7. Phosphates -0.20 0.02 -0.00 0.02
- 8. Nitrates 0.33 0.75 -0.13 0.47
- 9. Sulfates -0.36 -0.18 0.12 -0.00
- 10. TDS 0.08 0.43 -0.13 0.14 t
3-41 1 _ _ _ . - _ _ . . . _ _ , . . ~ . . .. . . _ _ .
i ] TABLE 3-14 j 1985 JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION 4 (50 Meter Level) 1 i STABILITY CLASS A - G
! PERIOD OF RECORD: 1/1/85 000 Hours 1/1/86 000 Hours I WIND SPEED (m/sec) 18 AVG 1
0-2 J-5 6 - 11 9-11 17-14 15-17 AND UP TOTAL SPEED W 2.8 3.7 4 .0 ,0 .n 0 6.9 2 Wife 3.3 2.2 .2 .0 0 .0 0 5.7 .2 1 NC 2.7 2.3 .4 .0 ,0 0 .0 5.4 2
- E*fE 2.6 1.7 .0 .0 ,0
, 0 0 4.3 .1 DE 2.2 3.5
.1 .0 ., 0 0 .0 5.9 2 i I CSE 3.2 6.7 7 .0 ,0 0 .0 10.6 4 R SE 2.9 5.3 8 .0 ,0 0 ,
0 9.0 3 W E SSE 2.9 3.6 .6 .1 ,0 0 .0 7.1 3 1C3 3.0 3.7 5 .0 ,0 0 0 7.2 3 N T 55# 3.1 2.7 .3 .0 0 0 .0 6.1 2 U 1 SW 3.7 2.4 .3 .0 ,0
, 0 .0 6.3 2 0 'f54 3.3 1.1 .1 .0 ,0 0 0 4.5 .1
- N3 3.1 9 .1 .0 ,o 0 0 4.2 .1 j 41W 2.5 1.1 .1 .0 ,0 0 .0 3.9 .1 j N4 3.0 2.2 .1 .0 ,0 0 0 5.3 .1 j N'tw 2.8 3.6 .4 .0 .0 0 0 6.7 .2 CALM 2.s . 1.0 1 --- - ------------- ---- -------------- ----------------------------
j TUTAL 47.4 4o.6 5.3 3 .n .0 .n 100ge 2 l l 362. Mf1HR;; 0F BAU, ON HI551NG DATA pH 4.1 PERCEdf FOR 9760 NOURS ) i 3-42
l I
, i
( . ( l i l 1 l
. \ l l
. e 0 :n3 4
> tal E 4 L ** ** ** ** ** O e4 e4 N e4 se C O ** e4 ** 3 me e o e e e e o e o e e e o e e 9 e* O O e E B
a e O 4 e i s e to 8 > O O e e e O e O e N e mtrt e e se m e I e to e e e e e e o e e o e o e o e o e0O , se e art e trl art m en art e w in m N m e e e I e
- s. .
en t O .* E s dL 8O O O 3 g ee gn. E e e i o owSOOOOOOSOOOSOCOOO 8 ' De 2 e e e e ee e e e e e e o e o e 8O 2 8 4 8 o laa 8 U g 5 E e W 9 W
% *e
- I a.
Z - 0OOOOO00000000OOO 8 C % en o e e e o e o e e o e o e o e o 8@ == ' ~ " we e 3 e
<=
8 e 9
~
cg
^
u v \ f an g
.-e -
m $ o %
$ 80000000000000000 f4 4 4 '4 4 sss4 g sss4 s4 e etC 8 E C
l m c ce z w E e4 .8 *
>- 0 a - a 4 -
v C G g pe m e I C g g w a 5m u
- tiE - e so J, l w 03 OOOC0000000000OOO 9 .h a CT M en > e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e l O O co w @ g e == ,
x b sE O E e M H - % 3 0 M Z w a e 8 em ON 900000 E / g" ,- 9 O O. Oe Oe O. OeOewe ee - O e O e e e e e e e e 8. c.
. . 3 ,
m 4 .. O O ' cc O s r% ! m in E g < l
- an o in 3,. <
$U og mt m e Li.ee- .- N . e w ome@ e e.W. .O.Ne m e ve 0. 3
- - e. - , . In.
$0 l -
38 N n
=
O-4 BC e n o- a c e m a N e-eDe... . O O e o e e o e m e s e e m ,e ,ee n ,o o e m eN ememoe ee ee . E% O ug i
. . =
iO i 0O e I e 0 arl E I .3 est
.a3 lal la3 4 3 3 3 3.38 4 T L3 ? arl M to M 'ft to 212 a I te 1 3 2 m t.3 In3 8.: to W to 64 to 3 1 3 2 2 U 8 C 8 De i
2 M E W U Ge M 3 2 0 0 3 M Et 2 0 E
, _ - - _ _ , .,__,...n.,_.-__, . .
,c.,._, . . , . . e._..,_,---....-,. .
TABLE 3-16 1985 PERCENT BAD DATA REPORT PLRrE9T PAD DATA ItEPURT REPORY COVElt$ 9769HJUas lludRS Pt.RCENT 50H utRP.CTION 18. 1.12 SUH WIND SPEED 139. 1.59 10H UIRECTiliti 100. 1.14 10M WitiD SPFED 1J6. 1.55 TEMPERATUNE 128. 1.46 DIW PUINT 1327. 15.15 DELTA T 238. 2.72 PitECIP11 ATInts 21g3. 24.92 i 4 l l l I 3-44
~ --
~'
P t
. TABLE 3-17 1985 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
SUMMARY
Identifying Ntrber Subject FSAR Qi 3130 This change revised FSAR Section 3.8.4.2 to make it adequately address the requirements for allowable weld undercut as it applies to materials less than 3/16 inch thick. FSAR CN 3224 1his change pac.kage updated Q&R 423.45 and FSAR Sections 14.2.12.3.14 and 29 to reflect minor site changes and those recormended by GE concerning thermal expansion. FEAR CN 3239 FSAR Figure 5.4-11 was revised to sh w valve E51F004 as normally open and E51F005 as normally closed. EEAR CN 3181 This change revised FSAR Sections 5.2.2.4.1 and 7.3.1.1.4.2 to show the ADS pnuematic systen is capable of prwiding 2 ADS actuations for each associated valve and then hold the valve
- open for 5 days.
FSAR CN 3265 FSAR Section 8.2 was revised to show the operating condition of the switchyard AC power system. ' FSAR CN 3272 FSAR Section 9.4 was revised to show the installation of self-contained air conditioning units in the Ccmputer Rocan. , PSO-84-121 This ternporary alteration jumpered cooling tower blovfown flow switch IN71-FSL-K600 and also changed the setpoint of effluent line flow switch SG17-FS-K23B ,from 35 GPM to 90 GPM. .- L . t a l v f' e
%a J20RPT85030606 45
- SECTION 4.0 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS J20RPT85030606 1
4.1 EPP CHANGES There were no changes or requests for changes to the
, y GGNS Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) during 1985.
Also, there are no license amendments, either pending or planned, which would change the EPP. In 1985, the EPP was implemented as written. 4.2 EPP NON-COMPLIANCES There were no EPP non-compliances during 1985. Sampling and surveillance activities were successfully conducted according to the EPP schedule. The required monitoring program was conducted without a reportable deviation. 4.3 NON-ROUTINE REPORTS One unusual or important event occurred during 1985. This event involved the release of a water treatment chemical biocide to onsite Sediment Basin B. The discharge occurred intermittently over the period October 31 to November 3, 1985. It resulted in a fish kill which was first observed at approximately 9:30 a.m. on November 4, 1985 in onsite Sediment Basin B. A summary report of this event was provided to the Mississippi Department of Natural Resources and the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission via APO-85/1248 dated November 27, 1985. A copy of this report is provided as Appendix V. J20RPT85030606 1
4.4 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNREVIEWED ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES There were no potentially significant unreviewed environmental issues encounted in 1985. Changes in station design and operation, tests and experiments did not result in an unreviewed environmental question. Changes, tests and experiments were made in accordance with the EPP, Paragraph 3.1, Plant Design and Operation. A discussion of how the EPP, Paragraph 3.1, is implemented by GGNS is provided in the AEOR, Paragraph 2.11. Activities at GGNS during 1985 which were related to the EPP, Paragraph 3.1, are discussed in the AEOR, Section 3.11. Completed 1985 environmental evaluations are included as AEOR, Appendix III. 9 J20RPT85030606 2
APPENDIX I SEMIANNUAL TRANSMISSION LINE SURVEYS 1-1
MEM0 T0: Mr. T. A. Dallas FROM: Mr. C. L. Tyrone t
SUBJECT:
Aerial Survey of Transmission Lines Associated with Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS) FILE: 0290/15320 PMI-85/7642 The Semiannual Aerial Surveys of the lines outlined below were conducted on July 24, 1985: e 500 KV Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS) to Baxter-Wilson e 500 KV GGNS to Franklin Substation e Proposed 500 KV Ray Braswell Line e 115 KV GGNS to Port Gibson Transmission Lines. The results of these surveys are shown as Attachments I, II, III, and IV respectively. Corrective Actions taken to mitigate the erosion problems identified in Attachment I, Item 4 should be reported to Mr. G. O. Smith. If you have any questions concerning the results of these surveys, please contact Mr. G. O. Smith at Extension 2672. CL CLT:aly 8/16/85 Attachment cc: Mr. J. B. Richard (w/o) Mr. O. D. Kingsley, Jr. (w/o) Mr. L. F. Dale (w/o) Mr. J. E. Cross (w/o) Mr. T. H. Cloninger (w/o) Dr. L. R. McKay (w/o) Mr. G. O. Smith (w/a) Mr. G. W. Guider (w/a) Mr. J. D. Barlow (w/a) Ms. R. R. Jackson (w/a) Ms. G. R. Whitney (w/a) Mr. F. M. Lehmann (w/a) File (NS) (w/a) File (Central) (w/a) [ 5 3 J20PMI85073002 _ __ .
ATTACHMENT I to PMI-85/7642 Page 1 Semiannual Aerial Survey The semiannual aerial survey of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS) to Baxter-Wilson 500 KV Transmission Line was conducted on July 24, 1985 by Jim Newman, John Bankston and Warren Guider. The purpose of the aerial survey was to identify erosion areas along the transmissior line corridor which may require remedial action.
- 1. GGNS to Anderson Tully Natural revegetation has eliminated erosion in this area. Tower sites in this area are stable. No problem areas were observed.
- 2. Anderson-Tully to Warner Tully Road Natural revegetation is excellent in this area. A close observation should be made of Tower #24 for possible erosion. No other problem areas were observed.
- 3. Warner Tully Road to Big Black Fast growing tree species in the Big Black River bottoms appeared to be under control. There were no problem areas observed.
- 4. Big Black River to Yokena Erosion was very evident at Tower #52. There appeared to be considerable erosion on the south slope near the tower footing.
A visual examination of the area should be made by a foot patrol to determine the extent of the erosion.
- 5. Yokena to Baxter-Wilson Steam Electric St_ation (BWSES)
Natural re-vegetation excellent in this area. No problems were encountered. , l The Baxter-Wilson Transmission Line is in excellent condition. Another survey is recommended for the Fall of 1985. J20PMI85073002
ATTACHMENT II to PMI-85/7642 Page 1 Semiannual Aerial Survey l NThe Semiannual Aerial Survey of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station to Franklin Substation 500 KV Transmission Line was conducted on July 24, 1985 by Jim Newman, John Bankston and Warren Guider. The purpose of the survey was to identify erosion areas along the - transmission line corridor which may require remedial action.
- 1. GGNS to Windsor Road Natural revegetation is excellent in this area. No problems were observed.
- 2. Windsor Road to U. S. Highway 61 ;
No remedial action is needed at this time on other portions of the line in this area. l
- 3. U. S. Highway 61 to U. S. Highway 28 Minor erosion was evident at Towers #14 and #115 from a logging operation. Minor erosion was still evident near Tower #126 and ,
between Towers #129-130. The erosion could be attributed to a recent logging operation. The angle at Towers #192-193 has been previously reported. No remedial action is needed at this time.
- 4. U. S. Highway 28 to Franklin Substation ;
(including Homochitto Forest) ; Minor erosion was observed at Tower #202. No remedial action is . needed at this time. ' The Franklin Line is in good condition. Another survey is recommended for the Fall of 1985. ! l 1 I I l l l t _ _ J20PMI85073002,__ l
ATTACHMENT III to PMI-85/7642 Page 1 Semiannual Aerial Survey The Semiannual Aerial Survey of the proposed 500 KV Ray Braswell Transmission Line from Grand Gulf Nuclear Station to the tie-in on the existing Ray Braswell Line was conducted on July 24, 1985, by Jim Newman, John Bankston and Warren Guider. The results of the survey are as follows:
- 1. The strip of land cleared adjacent to the north bank of the Big Black River has completely revegetated with willow, cottonwood and sycamore. The adjoining property owner is draining low-lying areas with an extensive drainage system which is traversing the MP&L right-of-way. No problems were observed in this area.
- 2. The cleared area near Fisher Ferry Road has revegetated well and no erosion is evident.
- 3. The small strip of land cleared adjacent to the South Park Elementary School has completely revegetated. Some type of ATV road was observed traversing this tract of land. No problems were observed in this area.
No erosion was observed on this line. Another survey is recommended for the Fall of 1985. O J20PMI85073002 . .. __ , _ _ . _
ATTACHMENT IV to PMI-85/7642 Page 1 Semiannual Aerial Survey The Semiannual Aerial Survey of the 115 KV Transmission Line from Grand Gulf Nuclear Station to the Port Gibson Substation was conducted on July 24, 1985, by Jim Newman, John Bankston and Warren Guider. The results of the survey are as follows:
- 1. Port Gibson to Highway 61 Crossing Natural revegetation is excellent in this area. No problem areas were observed.
- 2. Highway 61 to Angle at Structure #13 Natural vegetation is excellent in this area. No problems were observed.
- 3. Structure #13 to Bayou Pierre No erosion was observed in this area. Willow trees in the three cypress brakes will need cutting in the future. No problems were observed.
- 4. Bayou Pierre to ICG Railroad Main Line There were no problems with this agricultural land.
- 5. Joint Railroad - Transmission Line R.O.W.
The slide area north of the railroad appear to be stable. There was no additional erosion at the old Civil War culvert. No erosion was observed on this line. Another survey is recommended for the Fall of 1985. J20PMI85073002
T I,
~ =
_ ~ _ - . MEMO TO: Mr. Dodds Hennington FROM: Mr. T. E." Reaves, Jr.
SUBJECT:
Aerial Survey of Transmission Lines Associated with Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS)- FILE: 0290/15320 PMI-86/1666 On November 4,1985, the second Semiannual Aerial Survey of the GGNS Transmission lines was conducted by Gail R. Whitney, John Bankston and Jim Newman as outlined below:
- 500 kV Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS) to Baxter Wilson
- 500 kV GGNS to Franklin Substation
- 115 kV GGNS to Port Gibson Transmission Line
- 500 kV Ray Braswell Transmission Line Attachments I, II, III, and IV provide the results of these surveys.
Stabilization of soil and vegetation in transmission line right-of-ways has progressed well, and sufficient ground cover is now available to preclude future serious erosion problems. Past and present semiannual transmission line surveys have established the following: o Construction practices were effective in minimizing environmental ! impact.
- Erosion and vehicular damage caused by hunting and logging encroachment over the years has been minimal and caused no lasting problems.
- Past remedial action required to control erosion has been effective.
l 9 J36PMI85120602
If you have any questions concerning the results of these surveys, please contact Ms. R. R. Jackson at extension 9217. i TER i 2/13/86
/LRM:wjb Attachments i cc: Mr. T. H. Cloninger (w/o) Mr. G. E. Anderson (w/a) ,
Mr. O. D. Kingsley, Jr. (w/o) HR. G. W. Guider (w/a) [ Mr. L. F. Dale (w/o) Ms. G. R. Whitney (w/a) l Mr. J. E. Cross (w/o) Mr. f. M. Lehmann (w/a) Mr. G. O. Smith (w/a) File (NS) (w/a) Mr. J. D. Barlow (w/a) File (Central) (w/a) [ 6 ) I I r i L 3 I ' J36PMI85120602
Attachment I Semiannual Aerial Survey The semiannual aerial survey of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS) to the Baxter Wilson 500 kV Transmission Line was conducted on November 4, 1985 by Jim Newman, John Bankston and Gail R. Whitney. The purpose of the aerial survey was to identify erosion areas along the transmission line corridor which may require remedial action.
- 1. GGNS to Anderson Tully Natural revegetation has eliminated erosion in this area. Tower sites in this area are stable. No problem areas were observed.
- 2. Anderson-Tully to Warner Tully Road Natural revegetation is excellent in this area. Engineering proposals are underway to mitigate the erosion problems at Tower
#24 which were identified in the previous survey. No other problem areas were observed.
- 3. Warner Tully Road to Big Black i
There were no problem areas observed. .
- 4. Big Black River to Yokena j The erosion problem previously observed at Tower #52 has been j corrected. No other problem areas were observed. ;
- 5. Yokena to Baxter Wilson Steam Electric Station (BWSES)
Natural revegetation is excellent in this area. No problems were , encountered. + The Baxter Wilson Transmission Line is in excellent condition. Another survey is recommended for the spring of 1986. . i t
' J36PMI85120602
._. -. - - . , _ _ . . _ - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ ~ , _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ . _ _
Attachment II Semiannual Aerial Survey , The semiannual aerial survey of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station to Franklin Substation 500 kV Transmission Line was conducted on November 4,1985 by Jim Newman, John Bankston and Gail R. Whitney. , The purpose of the survey was to identify erosion areas along the transmission line corridor which may require remedial action.
- 1. GGNS to Windsor Road i Natural revegetation is excelle.t in this area. No problems were observed. ,
I
- 2. Windsor Road to U. S. Highway 8 1 r
No problems were observed. , t
- 3. U. S. Highway 61 to U. S. Highway 28 >
The erosion problem at angle towers 192 and 193 identified in PMI-84/6728 still exists, but appears to be stable. The MP&L Engineering Department has determined that no action will be , taken to correct the problem at this time, as it is not affecting the physical structure of the towers. MP&L Engineering Department personnel and Radiological & Environmental Services j staff will continue to monitor the area. Minor erosion due to logging observed in this area is no more severe than that previously observed along other transmission ; lines. Previous observations of logging erosion have been corrected through the process of natural revegetation. No corrective actions are planned nor necessary.
- 4. U. S. Highway 28 to Franklin Substation (including Homochitto Forest)
Natural revegetation is excellent in this area. No problems were obse rved. 6 The Franklin Line is in good condition. Another survey is recommended for the spring of 1986. i J36PMI85120602
Attachment III Semiannual Aerial Survey The semiannual aerial survey of the 115 kV Transmission Line from Grand Gulf Nuclear Station to the Port Gibson Substation was conducted on November 4, 1985 by Jim Newman, John Bankston and Gail R. Whitney. The results of the survey are as follows:
- 1. Port Gibson to Highway 61 Crossing Natural revegetation is excellent in this area. No problem areas were observed.
- 2. Highway 61 to Angle at Structure #13 Natural vegetation is excellent in this area. No problems were obse rved. t
- 3. Structure #13 to Bayou Pierre No erosion was observed in this area.
- 4. Bayou Pierre to ICG Railroad Main Line s
There were no problems observed with this agricultural land.
- 5. Joint Railroad - Transmission Line R.O.W.
The slide area north of the railroad has stabilized and should I not present any future problems. No erosion was observed on this line. Another survey is recommended for the spring of 1986.
-s J36PMI85120602
l l i I l Attachment IV Sealannual Aerial Survey The semiannual aerial survey of the proposed 500 kV Ray Braswell Transmi'ssion Line from Grand Gulf Nuclear Station to the tie-in on the existing Ray Braswell Line was conducted on November 4,1985 by Jim Newman, John Bankston and Gail R. Whitney. No erosion was observed on this line. Another survey is recommended for the spring of 1986. i L 9 f J36PMI85120602 s
1 APPENDIX II SPILL REPORTS
~
l II-i J20RPT85030606
MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Helping Build Mississippi P. O. B O X 164 0, J A C K S O N, MIS SIS SIP PI 39215-1640 March 15, 1985 m o..'icIE.I5cs!=sueco t Mr. Jack M. McMillan Director, Division of Solid Waste Mississippi Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Pollution Control Post Office Box 10385 Jackson, Mississippi 39209
Dear Mr. McMillan:
SUBJECT:
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Unit 1 EPA ID # MSD000644617 File: 0260/15329 Sulfuric Acid Spill, March 2, 1985 AP0-85/0240 Attached is a report of the March 2, 1985 sulfuric acid spill at Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS). The spill involved approximately 300 gallons of sulfuric acid and was confined to the immediate area of the tank. The spill was neutralized with sodium bicarbonate and the residue deposited in the GGNS on-site Burial Pit. No environmental impact occurred as a result of this spill. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. G. O. Smith at (601) 969-2672. Yours trul , he CLT:ay Attachment cc: Mr. J. E. Cross (w/a) Ms. R. R. Jackson (w/a) Dr. L. R. McKay (w/a) Mr. G. W. Guider (w/a) Mr. G. O. Smith (w/a) Mr. David Lee (w/a) Mr. J. D. Barlow (w/a) Mr. Freddie Roberts (w/a) File (NS) (w/a) File (Central) (w/a) [ 2 3 U. S. EPA , Region IV Mr. Al Smith, Chief Regional Administrator (EPA) Environmental Emergencies and 345 Courtland St., N. E. Response Branch Atlanta, Georgia 30365 U. S. EPA, Region IV 345 Courtland Street, N. E. Atlanta, Georgia 30365 Member Middle south utilities System J0P20AP085031102
ENVIRONMENTAL INCIDENT REPORT e Name, address and phone number of owner or operator:
- Mississippi Power & Light Company Post Office Box 1640 Jackson, Mississippi 39215-1640 (601) 969-2672.
e Name, address and phone number of facility: Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Grand Gulf Road Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150 (601)437-5260. e Date, time and type of incident (e.g., fire, explosion, etc.):
- March 2, 1985 Approximately 0700
- Sulfuric acid spill caused by a leaky fitting on a storage tank sight glass. The released was confined to the immediate area and no surface waters were endangered, e Name and quantity of material (s) involved:
Sulfuric acid
- Approximately 300 gallons.
e Extent of injuries (if any):
- There were no injuries.
e Assessment of actual or potential hazards to human health or the environment (if applicable):
- Not applicable.
- On-site personnel contained and cleaned up the spill with no impact to human health or the environment.
e Estimated quantity and disposition of material recovered from the incident:
- Approximately 432 ft3 (1.5 dump truck loads) of spill residue was recovered.
- The neutralized spill residue was deposited in the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station on-site Butial Pit.
s_.
'n 3 ll L lb 5 l C. L. Tyron Date Acting Man er, Nuclear Support J0P20AP085031102,_, , , , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ..
1 MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
] Helping Build Mississippi M P. D. B O X 16 4 0. J A C K S O N. MIS SIS SIP PI 39215-1640 April 24,1985 .cn o o .#
i NI,5cDe umav Mr. Jack M. McMillan Director, Division of Solid Waste Mississippi Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Pollution Control Post Office Box 10385 Jackson, Mississippi 39209
Dear Mr. McMillan:
SUBJECT:
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Unit 1 EPA ID # MSD000644617 File: 0260/15329 Sulfuric Acid Spill, April 13, 1985 AP0-85/0291 Attached is a report of the April 13, 1985 sulfuric acid spill at Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS). The spill involved approximately 50 gallons of sulfuric acid and was confined to the imediate area of the tank. The spill was neutralized with sodium bicarbonate and the residue deposited in the GGNS Burial Pit. No environmental impact occurred as a result of this spill. If you have questions, contact Mr. G. O. Smith at (601) 969-2672. Yours truly, g e -i # CLT:ay 4 Attachment cc: Mr. O. D. Kingsley, Jr. (w/a) Ms. R. R. Jackson (w/a) Mr. J. E. Cross (w/a) Mr. G. W. Guider (w/a) Dr. L. R. McKay (w/a) Mr. David Lee (MDNR) (w/a) Mr. G. O. Smith (w/a) Mr. Freddie Roberts (MDNR) (w/a) Mr. J. D. Barlow (w/a) GGNSOperatingRecord(w/a) File (NS)(w/=) File (Central) (w/a) [ 2 ] Mr. Al Smith, Chief Environmental Emergencies and U. S. EPA , Region IV Response Branch Regional Administrator (EPA) U. S. EPA, Regional IV 345 Courtland St., N. E. 345 Courtland Street, N. E. Atlanta, Georgia 30365 Atlanta, Georgia 30365 wwr.vw.mr.VWY.T IXlCmROff [Mldr'r.Th hth GCtilities Sgstem
ENVIRONMENTAL INCIDENT REPORT j I e Name, address and phone number of owner or operator:
- Mississippi Power & Light Company Post Office Box 1640 Jackson, Mississippi 39215-1640 (601) 969-2672, e Name, address and phone number of facility:
- Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Grand Gulf Road Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150 (601) 437-5260.
e Date, time and type of incident (e.g., fire, explosion, etc.):
- April 13, 1985
- Approximately 0230
- Sulfuric acid spill caused by valve misalignment while unloading a cargo tanker. The release was confined to the immediate area and no surface waters were endangered.
e Name and quantity of material (s) involved:
- Sulfuric acid
- Approximately 50 gallons.
e Extent of injuries (if any):
- There were no injuries.
e Assessment of actual or potential hazards to human health or the environment (if applicable):
- Not applicable.
- On-site personnel contained and cleaned up the spill with no impact to human health or the environment.
e Estimated quantity and disposition of material recovered from the incident:
- Approxinately 300 ft3 (1 dump truck load) of spill residue was recovered.
- The neutralized spill residue was deposited in the Grand Gulf
. Nuclear Station Burial Pit.
% u= "
4 /23/ 8 6 C. L. Tyrone Date Acting Mana ar, Nuclear Support J0P20AP085042301 - 1
MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Helping Build Mississippi P. O. B O X 16 4 0. J A C K S O N. MIS SIS SIP PI 39215-1640 liay 1, 1985 act c o.#icId.I"ucDe sunoer Mr. Jack M. McMillan Director, Division of Solid Waste Mississippi Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Pollution Control Post Office Box 10385 Jackson, Mississippi 39209
Dear Mr. McMillan:
SUBJECT:
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Unit 1 EPA ID # MSD000644617 File: 0260/15329 Sulfuric Acid Pickle Liquor Spills, April 23, 1985 AP0-85/0F9E Attached is a report of the April 23, 1985 sulfuric acid spent pickle liquor spills at Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS). The first spill occurred at approximately 1300 hours due to valve misalignment. The second spill occurred during cleanup activities at approximately 1800 hours and was caused by a leaking sight glass. The spills involved approximately 50 gallons, total, of sulfuric acid spent pickle liquor and were confined to the immediate area of the tank. The spills were neutralized with agricultural lime and the residue placed in 55-gallon containers. The containers are being stored in the GGNS Hazardous Waste Storage Area until arrangements are made with Chemical Waste Management for disposal at their Emelle Facility. No environmental impact occurred as a result of these spills. A new storage tank and concrete containment structure have been constructed for this operation and will be in use within approximately two weeks. If you have questions, contact Mr. G. O. Smith at (601) 969-2672. Yours truly, CLT:ay Attachment cc: (See Next Page) l l Member Middle South Utilities System J0P20AP085042501
MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY cc: Mr. O. D. Kingsl y, Jr. (w/a) , Mr. J. E. Cross w/a Dr. L. R. McKay w/a ' Mr. G. O. Smith w/a Mr. J. D. Barlow (w/a) Ms. R. R. Jackson (w/a) ' Mr. G. W. Guider (w/a) ' Mr. David Lee (MDNR) (w/a) Mr. Freddie Roberts (MDNR) (w/a) : Mr. Bob Rogers (MDNR) (w/a) i i U. S. EPA, Region IV (w/a) : Regional Administrator ! 345 Courtland St., N. E. ; Atlanta, Georgia 30365 ; hr. Al Smith, Chief (w/a) , Environmental Emergencies and Response Branch U. S. EPA, Region IV 345 Courtland Street, N. E. ! Atlanta, Georgia 30365 i r File (NS) (w/a) l File (Central) (w/a) [ 3 ] t i l J0P20AP085042501 ._ . . . . _ _ _ . _ . . . _ _ .
i ENVIRONMENTAL INCIDENT REPORT l e Name, address and phone number of owner or operator: i
- Mississippi Power & Light Company Post Office Box 1640 Jackson, Mississippi 39215-1640 (601) 969-2672.
e Name, address and phone number of facility: Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Grand Gulf Road Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150 (601) 437-5260. e Date, time and type of incident (e.g., fire, explosion, etc.):
- April 23, 1985 Approximately 1300 and 1800
- Sulfuric acid spent pickle liquor spills caused by valve misalignment and a leaking sight glass. The releases were confined to the immediate area and no surface waters were endangered.
e Name and quantity of material (s) involved:
- Sulfuric acid spent pickle liquor (< 25 mg/l lead)
Approximately 50 gallons, total. , o Extent of injuries (if any):
- There were no injuries.
e Assessment of actual or potential hazards to human health or the environment (if applicable):
- Not applicable.
- Onsite personnel contained and cleaned up the spill with no impact to human health or the environment.
e Estimated quantity and disposition of material recovered from the incident:
- Approximately thirty 55-gallon drums of neutralized spill residue were recovered.
1
- The containers are being stored in the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station )
Hazardous Waste Storage Area until disposal arrangements at a i permitted repository are finalized. J
-e -e - 4 / 53 / 8 5 C. L. Tyrone Date j J0P20AP085042501 - 1 t
1 I l APPENDIX III HYDROGRAPHS FOR PERCHED GROUNDWATER WELLS I 9 III-i J20RPT85030606 _ __
wett !.to. W- 1 109
- p. , ,. _..,_ . ,. _.._....
9 t__.,,._.. ___.p_.._......._._.p...._...-___.g-_. ,___.v.
.}...._,t
_ _ . . _y.....
.____y...____ _ _ _ _....
L _ _ 4 .. . . ! _ _ _ . . _.
...__t_.- ,. .
t_._._4._._.__, - ___ .._ r _ 4 _ _ __ . 4_. _ . . ; . . . . . .. . . _ . ...
, _ __. 4 _ _ _ _ 7._ _ _ _ L__ _ __4_..__
_.l.____. _ _ _ + . . . . _ _
. _ _ ;- _ . _ p . . .-... .-
t 1 t . ...._._v
. _. p __.L_____
.___.}.__.. ._-..y_.._....__
7 o . --_.. , 107 '
..____..9-__ ' '
p . _ ._. _. ; . _ . ._ g'__,_. _ _ ___.-.._p_. _.y.._. . _ . 3, 106 p ___ -___,4._-__+ ,
. __ ' p_ __ !
_ P.- -+ l l 105 ~ ' i 104
._ .4__ a y , v._..._j L. '
! 4 L______.
103 r
@ i -
l --1 - Q8 102, i n g ,e t 1 i 1 v '
; j 4 --.
h- ;- i i 1 ut m ua 101 ta. l , i 2 l ! 100 , 2 i o 2
-rx h f 7 i \
N 4 g . t ? I N # i N. #~
~ ,
W*
;3 O
=v U2 Es d
E ga
-e e:
x3 w 94 i 3C 93 91 91 '
, ., , o
( ' 90 M JAW AA Slip AT FEB MMt. MA'f 3VN JUL AU6 NcV PE I A RS
v wat %. M W- 1 109 i- --e - _, . . _ _ .
- . . h_. . . I .. _
[_,_,.,*, a
'.--__*I.~.'._~ ,~_ - ~ ' f ^ __
. l l.. \
jgg i F - - - - - - y --- . . [ _ " ' ~ '
~'
_ ~~*- ---- _}^_T.-* _ _ _ - _ - - - - i
-----,'__..t...
i p.~_, s
* --- . ._ 4 . _ , ~ I ~~ ^ ~ P - - " +
- e -
- . . 4 _.___._ :g i j '--- - t- - r-- - - ! .
(
--u_.
. 1 -__.._ _ f- t-- -- ---- __. _... ... . . T ~_T. - -- t- - - - - - -- - - - - . - - . . , .
i --- --- ----t---t,----t----.---.- -.-.
}._._._ c-107 7
____1 f-- [ 7{7--
, .___ _. ! , j_____...
- __g i 3
i 1
-y 1 -~ , g T----
t
- 7 i
E 105 ~ t - M
' t ,
7 - l 104 ' : t --+ - - , j i
- *~i- --
L-i,- - -,i
-F---,
103 - , o g a I i , j cc t ' !^ ~l QC l '
' . i '
W*T 102,i i i , i E ,
! I v p i b i r -! i I ut m 101 i +
, I ' '
L f i ' i 2- i fb I
' l 4 2 i 1 ,
()
' ri !
h PI ! i /
/i\
\ i 3
l' { i / \ !
! l \ -
LLL
! / \ !
J QO / \ ! L12 10
! I t \
! / 4
' / 3g e- ^\ f ,
I I. / '\ Jk I 7' / ! ( / \
'e' i/ I i / \ l
*; :/ 6 y
\ 1W J \W ----
h Ao
- o f& l \
\ v
/
\ I M*
-7 I ./ --
td \ / e GC W
\ /
O. \ /
$2 \ /
s II e7 ' 1/- w Q ' L k f i 91 9 f 0 f JAM FEB Malt Am pgy 3yy yg .p AW
wett Mo. NG 109 - - _ .--.- . - - . p .. , .. .,_,9._. p.. __. _. ..
...._g..__.._._. . .
9 .~ . I.. .
. _ . _ .. _ _ . ~ . . _ . . . ._ _ _ _- - ._.
_--..- + . _ . . . , _. ..
;....._-.1.__.._p..__....,..~_..-.
[ .. 6_- _ . . - - -. - - - - _ _ . - - . . . ..&.
-._ . . p_ __ y _ _ _ _ . ! - -_ _
_. __ . . j __ _ __ p _ . (
.._.4_.
r_.__....__._
. _ _ _ .._L..- ._- . . _ _ . . _ _
_._..r-_--
._- _3-.--
_y_. .. . . .
}.. - _ - _ - -
,_._..u i q .. . _ . _ _ _.._p. -_ _ _ . . .- - . - .. _ __ ; ..
- _ . - 7
> _ . -- - _ .s ._
.L.__.._..__.-+y.... .
106 p__ _ ! u.._.... l __ ,. . ., ..
,.._ _ . _4.. .
y.-.- 1 \ .a.._._. .. I \ i i \ ! l \ ! . G ._ ' .' '. _ t I \
. +_-
l I \ t I \ ! _ .
. I \
' ' \ "'~~~
103 i O 1 1 \ 1 g_ . . . . ..
@ l i \ ! . . _ . .
E) i \ hO@ I ! ~' i A L \ -
.__4._.. .~
V)T E lQ[ '
/
/:\
/
/ \
\ !
' : \
k [ ,/ x j ~~ ~~ ~i~ ~ ._ d 'm - - ~ ~ 101 ' \ '
' a' i 8 /
A s 1 ! -_ , __.^ :. I.~. 2 \ / : _ , 100 \ T l 7g ,
\
l ; . _ . . . . . - ~ _t \ ,1 h_-....._.. 1 I n
! \ i - __..
g . 1 \ l ._. ._ i \ l ,I , 1 \ i I \ I {--__......
,. i \ I _ . _ _ _
E. Q d \lf ' -
!=
e*
\
\ r 1 \ r - . 1' . _. -;. . .
zv gg -[ i
- -[- - ..
y" ' _ _. I .__ ; _. . ..;
-g . . . _ _ _ . _ ,
d 4.....___
#: .__.4._.-_
xs -
.a 2
_ .{ _a lA3
~
i _.....{
% i _j g ..
$2. I i e 91
. ,i .
I I e
, i e
JAW FEB MhR AR MM 3VN JUL JUEr Sil' AT NCY PK I4 M
1" -, aa. No.MW-L : 105 ..p. p ._. i_.__ .. . . . . . _ _ _ . . . . _. . _ _.___ - 4 . . . - .. ... . _ .._ .,..._-{. . p.me-h 64h_*W __ _ p __ _ ** " so4
-g_ -
7 f
-- q- , ,
-j '(_.... . . _ -
~~~
/ \ -
{ ___. _ _ _ g.___ .- T g
,f .___. _./ _ __{ . ,
\ , -- - e.. _.. .
_. . 9,
\ l _ . . . ,
\ '
set \ I . , . - . . , t 1* I 4
\ l ! __ __ . ;
I
\
' } }
Io1
\. I
\ _l * .-
_ } -. .,
\ l __ ._ 4. ~ _ . . . . ...j
.1 1 g _ - .3 im i, m
\ l
\ l . . - . _ .
)
\ /
ge \ -( - _ . , O #' f _ _ __ 1
@ \
L/ ..J 00 O __4 v - - _ _ . - - .
-- 4 m mam-
-- I -.e I -
I
*~4 i
s
- Q .--. 4 p -.
95' , q_____._,. ( -. , - ; .
- p.. . _ _ .
M i w __ ._; i _4 1 4 6f m. w j: r os !
;I d .g i
r
--q "O N - _.-
Z Y.. .
'l 45 ef.i '
o3 91 , ug i
.a '
g 4e
- i. ,
X , . i 99 . .
. i ,
, , , i i 4 i !!. ! i i . , , . . i 88 ,
i* -
, , , i + - !
i e i i . I !
, i
! ! iw . ,
, i .
, i . e t 6 t
i i s i, . . . , ,. , i i
, . , , , 1 i .% -6 '
t i i i _, e ! e [ !
' t i ! > s i ! * *
- 1 6 I e
k ; , , 4 , . . ; . i 6 . i t . ! t s i i , 85 na % seg ocr Av tuc JAu nr. - Am May 39 st
,. -f 1985 w ,
f
ELL 0. b - 112.
- --.- __.._.t'--.t -
*___'...'-.._4 y
!1I
.__...l .
y -- e t , \ . . - . - - F a 109 161 10'7 106 8 8 v l05 IO 103 i i JL /_% 101 N / x . < s
'l 11
/
\ l\ 6 _ ar
\ l \ i e Jr If lhl \
\ l l \
1- ) ,
\ l \ / .
\ l \ I
= 4 i I 'i i # a 1 I
$2= 100 \ I 1; .
e l
. t
\
4 _\ .
.h I 4
wI* \ r l
'\ il ' ~ \ I \: 1 o
ZU o $$ \
\ l
/ \
\ r1 f
;/
yM \ l \ ?
- \ /- . L 1: e i tlw H '
. \ I i i !
Q i
*e e
\ /
6
,g 11: .. , i. 6 i - o. ; i . .
x} W ' X i . a ql, , . , i 1
. . , e t i i . . I I I 1 I I f I 1 f 8 8 '
I I I
. ! El * , ! ' I r I I ! '
. . . ! l !
a i e i i I + . 6ii i .ii, i ! !e I
. i . ; i i .. a i
~ t . . i '
% i i
. . - i i i i
, 1 ,
4 . , i - , .
. _s i . i .
!8 i j e i ! e I ; . e i [ i i j i l j 4 i _ , . ,
j . i i I ) f 3 i
! i .! e i , } i i e
[' g . l i ,
, [
3 3
- i e
{ l { 6
, i i i i , i ! i i ! . . ! ....
i ' i I i i ! i !
.' I ,
JAN FE S MMt APR I49 N J AL A4 3LP ocr nW og Nb
Mu. tk. M Wo
! ! 2. ,
- - - .__ r . -
_ -- p+ __2. . . e. i _. _. _ L _ . . _ _ ._ _ i
-+ l
~~~
( . . _ _ p.= 161 10'! , 104 o D
@ /
O /
/
v l05 j w ;r
./ hk. /
\ /
\ .'/
/
]$ \
\ , x s
+
\ /
1 /
\ /
/
103 \
\ /
T' /
\ I
\ ' /.
i / 101 \ /
\/
- ti 101 e-a s .
e.
- a
_ G n;
;g 91 - 4_ y p
_s e Qw 38 9% , x3 , ,. 17 W- , j . ; e . , i
. . . , 6 , ,
95 . < f ? I I i I i 3e * . ? l . j l I i j i e I ie e i t
- I i l i i !
i i f
, i i< . , , i . .- .
94 . . i . , , i . , ,
- r 4 i i * . t i . i , i i . i i ! e ! i6 t !
I
- 3 e i e I e . i 8 4
! ! l ! l t I !
8 ! I . gg . , l 6 3 I I I I i t i I I . 4 l ; e i e 1 i
. i. ! t a i ! !
' t ,
f
' ' ' . I W
JAW FES fMR APR M M JdL Au6 XP oct DfC. M
Wau. No. M W- 7 l05 _ _-.
._-._y____ . . . . _ _ - ..
-._ - . . .. - - - _ ...--3....g.....
- . . - , - _ - . _, .}
.__._.-9--
io+ ..- ..
~~ "
101 l01. lot 100 t
=
O v N i er D N
. , 4 95 , . .
( I ! e 6 w e , of i ' r [I i
,a ' ' +o it >
Zu i i I t i y t t
' ! 8 Q,W 1 1 O. *2 ' , '
x3 ou
- i W
90 '
\
/ \ .
i ; * . ! ' 'I \ X ./ \
% \
' . 1 i ai . i i sp, . i e 1 /_ \
\ /. X
\ / \
i
/ ! \ '
N/ \ i i i i : Jr, N
\~ < .
.\ i ! , a i . i i ! I i . / ! i f. f 't:
.\ j i 3
. ! ! ! a i !, 1 7 i - \
o i / . I h i
. \
88 .\ t i + i t i ! i/ t if I . i i T
\ !
, . i1. i
+
6 ! t i
!1 1 i I I '
,, i < i / ! ' ! l ! 6 e
. i . 1- 4 ! r i
.\ i
- i i 4
- t \' . /\ i i e i e i _/ i !
6 i 1 i e \ v
\ ,
f X' 5 1 b i . I -
\ . /.
\ fi .,
t X i i \. i i i ! ! !
./
'/
i
! i i .
6
! 4 i \ i e
, i , ir i e X i ! . I i i i !
5 I f5 \ e
" . i ;
I i . . %.,! . /: ! t i i i i i ! '\ i s i '%; _ ! (e , * ' i i e \ l l N4 / i i
- I ! ! - 1.
f' t
! . i . i w s 1 i . i i '
i
, . - ie i 'r. . i e _ 6 . i i
+ , ! ! . I r e+ . i ! t . 1 i 1! . ! i ! ' !
' ' ' ' I 85 JAN as at Am 'my' ' ' JW J31 4 Ser oc re'v Iwc )
1985 l
Wau. No. DW-1 gs . _ _ _ . . _ . . . . _ . _ . . . _ . _ __ _. _ _._ p. ,
,. _ . . .__ p_ _ .. _ _ _ . .
.__.,._ ._.._....._g... ...._.,.
p .- . _ _ . . _._...t----- kY - .._ . p.. ._ . p.__ _ _ . - . i F 0 u n 9 \ / \
\ / \
' / \
\
\ A /- \
\ / / \
O gg \/
\
\ / \
\ ./ \
W \ # \. O \ / t
@ gg \ / '\
T \ .F \
\ l \
\ f \
\ l \
\ f \
b1 \ l .\
\ f \
T #. .N f \
- V - X I. \
a6 '\ !~
\ iI
\. *I
\ .f. ,
or '
'i k
( i
\ .I i .\ -I l
% 3 \
\. Il
\ l-
\ l
= \ f i l
*I
!=n $$ \
i i
.,. vi.
e ' wl
,3 M *o $t Zu Y
t, i E!.
- 81 #I '
- f, .
k Y. l
$ I 19 .
9
! l
, e 6 t l
18 , ,
' i e + 6 i i st : ! e i .I I ! e i {
I i e * # .
, 4 i 3 , e I a
{ T k 8 l ! ' . ! ! . 'i
, i i . , i. . >i , ,
e i i 6 i
- i t i i i
- i i i ! l i i i r i ( .. ! e i i e i 3
e i e i i i. ( a . i
.. i
. l
. 1
, i ,
1 i t t t ! ! I t I e i
. , i , i e or m av am ns ne. nn, aa % sur oer zwc 1985
Wat_ Mo. DW- 2. 109
. . .j . . _ .
r
-.7.._--}
.-._.g i__
7._...__ .
..['. .
. {. ,.
7 _ . 74-___ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _.__._g__,__ _ -. _7 _ __j...._,-..._.p .
...___.{______ ..______ _ _ , _ _, , p . , _ _, p _ _ .
i --- - - - I _- . i - b.._ ____._ ,_ _ _. L __ _ . [' . _ . _ . . t L . _t _ --
-__... p . . . __ ... _, _,
107
; ~ ' ~ ~ --' ~ - ~ '
.- -~ i -~~- ' - - - - -- ~ - - --
t - -t - - - - - - - - - " - - - - '
- . .t- ; ___ _ - _ . ._ _ _ . _ _ .. . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ __.__j
. __ _ ..1
-- - y I.
gg '--- i r - - t--- _ _a i J-f- i 105 : i
! I I I
l g h-- r
' b_.-..
e l l i !
; _1_ J t - --
103 + p i Q@ o We 102, r - -- ! ET i h ,I us lna Da sul ' U-1 2 L-- . t\ I 100 :\ -m-z !
\
\ it ir
/
O i /\ n / ~~ \ / \ J\ / b i
\ /
i \
\. I Il\
\ I
/
~
\ / \ I \ l j
ug - \ / \ f \ J ao ! \ / \ I i I ~ Q lD \ / \ I \ f
' \ l \ l \ /
' \ l \ f \ j
. . i i I \ / \ I
' /
Qq l '
\ / \ / \
\ I \ / \ /
jI ll
\t / \ / \ /
2' U \1 \ I l d lf. \ / i mf
. % 'n' I w
Va i Et i cet o' Y M3 w 4 i g , . i t t '
' I
! i 1
i i 4 . I e i e + 1 i f 1 I J t e t 89 JAW FEB p%R Ak MM 3VN 3VL AJ6 Slip OLT tgy DE
.1985. .
Wat. No. DW-3 109
, .- i f . . . . . . _ _ _ . ... .' . .g.- . ,
._n..
_.g... .; ._.
.,.....r._.._
___.{.
- ._7
_e _-.._.._-..~_..[.... ----.L-
...-[,.
--_--..p_.
.L l .. .-e..
._{_.._
.w...._ .__.
- ~..~~ ~. .__.____p
'___7-..-...,._..
t _ _. _ L . _. L _ _ _ _ __ _ 4....- _7.__,_.... p_ _ _.. -. .__ _ ._. -. . ____.7._ .g..... p .~ _ 6 .r. { -} .._._ ..; _ _ _ .__ . {
., ~ . . . -~.- _
,- - _ ~ _ . _ 7~ .__ -,
u_ .1.. -
.__.-._ J_ _-. ..__
4____-
. -- _9 _ .
.-. w -
s . . . _ . . ,
,1 -
. ....-- _a
__p - 105 I' 7 ' ~Z _- y_ _ - - - - m 104 h ! I T
- t 1
.n _
A i i i ~ l i i i' - 103 i 1 . O I
~
a$ o oc 102, ' e i
~
i
' -- u i
KW __y f , __ we l
- - - ' i 1 b j ;
sa ine , tu IUI - a (L. _ _ _ 2 - 100 - z-Z k -- O li \ -- h 33 I I!fi g\ - i a t I \ - _ ( g I I I \
\ ].
d 98 ! !, \ m _ - s W J_~/N.~/ t i #
' I 3L 1&
,, i I \ / -
. ! I \ / ^ '
I; i I \ / il \ / - C E !l \ /
,I FI \ / -'._
-8 I \ / --_-
*o zu k ._.
d V ] _. VM zy g g. es T z -- e: _ x, 3, __ q4 w _- i - 93 - e q 6 92, _ _- t A I e
- ; i
! i 1 r
- i I i - - -J g :-
. . 1 . , s,
. . _ n_. --
- m gg i
JAM FEB PER A'% MRf 3VN 3VL AJ6 SUF OCT f@V PE l W*I
Wau. No. DW-4 105 _._._.._.t.._.__-t... ' r,_._.. p; _ _. . _ .- - _ . . t . . . .. .I.. ,- _ . . _ -.. . .. l _ . . _ _ _q.....,..... 4
-,_.._}...,
* _ w_ .. i l -
101 107. 101 100 n I 'T
/ \
/ \
O g W
/ \
\
@ \
W \ O \ T g \
\
IN
\ j..'N .I N
L / N- I
'l I N I
\ l % I
\ I 'l I
\ / \ I:
\ l \ . I 1 I \ .I i I \ I qt
\ / \ /
\ / \' I
\ / * \ l
\ / \ /
\ / \ I
\ I , \ I
\ I \ I
(.
\ I.
lf
\
.\I I
Q II e of "I we m 3 zu o 92. V
-3 e-R m
91 i e e I N g 90 i 91 1 88 , , , t 4 e . l
?
' ? 1 i ! ' I !
I e
- e $ e i e f $
87 1 .
. ,1 4 i i
. ! l , 3 t . ! +t n [
- i 1 a i i i , ,
, ! i 4 i ! 7
(
, a e 6
5 l 6 9 I p 4 4 9 i i ! 86 JM FLs nr. SL % say or.T ekv Dec set hay Tan 1995
NELL NO.) d , 109 , , ,
._ . . _. .. i . ._.j
._,[. ,
{._.
...-y-...{. 6
_.,___._..,7_..._.. . . _ .
. _ . . _,__.._t_.. t L.._..p__ L .. p,__.. . . . . , _ . . _ _ , . . . . _ _ . _ _ _ , . _ , , ,
4 k- d i d. ___!........_....__.. . _ . . . .
; _ ._ _ t _. . 7__ _. _ p _ __ _ _ g_ _ _
. _.,________, _.. 7. _ ~. _ ;, _ _ _ _ ; _. _. a _ _ ._ p__ ___ _}'._ _ ,., _
-_.-..._p-
_{ _ . . ',_ ___ t _ ..__ .___- _-__-r____-- ( , . p,_
. 7 __ . _ y .
____[._._._. ._._}___.... ,_..__g...._ _[___p.___._,,, f- - - , __~7-,,____4___._
? - - - - s -~ ' -
h -
._ 1 j_, . . .j g i---
-f _ _ _. [ _ _ _ e _ . ,
h -- l
-- .- i +
p_ _ _.,_ _ y i - - - - - - 7 i 105 {' " , a i I
- p f,
_ h.. J j ,
+
; . ,. ,___.3 gg 1
l
-h-.
p -i l 5 i h ! {' i h- --- -, 103 r-i , C3 i . I i
' t---
@ i . -
2 CO ; 6 l QC3 ; - -4 v)* 102, ' ^
-1 z*
v / x x J / F
- p. f' N -
/ i W x 101 f
= 1 ! _j
' ' 1 p u j. n \ ~ s a
i l \ H / == 2 l _
! \ /\ f 1
1 fb ! t
\
\ I
/ \
\ /
I Z ! ' ' \ f O l g I \ . _ _ .. .- f , I b M I i \
\ /
/' T
\ # i J
I ( \ l l \
\. / ~
UL \ / \ I d 00 10
\ / \ I tu <
\t I \ f
\!/ \ I
\1 \ I e- " --
l[ I ,
! N oI
- 12 -
O zu # P_ y
~.,
S!i
!a*
H3 94 l w I - M . 92. 91 1 ( 90 89 JAM FEB PWI, A PR MM 3VN 3VL AE 51.7 OCT Igy DAC 19 RS
Ma th. DW-6 112. _. ___ _ ... .. . .. ; ., ___..__{..____ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ . _ . . _
-- _.-_ _- j._-..
y.- - ..-- .
. . .. . y ill J q
( 109 101 10'7 w > o / mp /
@ Jr CO / \. >
O /- \ /
% s \ #
e T 105 7F \
/
\ /
T / i
/ i
~~
\ W p l% \ ' i 1
1 1 I
\- .i
\ /
103 \ l
\ I
' T- I
\
- I
\ !
l02. \ .1
\ l
( T
\ l 1
I I 10l \ . I dC *M I' a Mr d* , 4: W. 100 . of
;f .
a 98 ZW d .. 58: 9% ,
, i , 4 , + i ,g +. . i x , 3, 17 W i g , i i
h . .
, . i
! ! I !
', i 6e ^ i ^ s. i i i
- 1 , .
95 .. , l I ] 8 O j i I I ( , E , i t {
. . i i i . i f i
, i i i i 4 1 ii i t . . . . .
i
.4 4 i e .i . i . i i I e 6e i i
! i i ,
,, . i' . . . . !
l *1 i . I e . I i
! i ' '
1Li i*t ii , F ! ' I . . i i .
. i i 6 * '. ! I i
- i r ! i !
i , , . 1 i i . , i ; . i
' . E 6i s i 6 i ; i l j .
4 i , , , i
% 4 e i
, ! , . i , .
t . I .
' 'I !
' I 1 i i I 6 i e ii
- 4 i e
, i . . 6 i . , , 1 ii I I i
hh JA Pd FE S PIAR APA 'r91 JW J A1. Au6 XP OCT W DK M
NELL k.hN'7 109 4... ., . }__. g___... *
.. . L_.. ---_...T.y__._..- - - _ _ . . " _ _ . . -
_ , ,i . . .
..__,7_-_.
7 _ _. __ . 7 _ _ _ _ . , . . . _ ___. . . . , . . L_..-._....__.1.__._ p. _ __. ..__9 _ _ _ _ . _ _. . . . p ._ . _ _3 . _. 7 - . . . . . - _ . . p_ .__._ p _ _ _ 4 _... _ __. i .. . _ . L. . .. _ } . _.. . p . . .. j [ . .. __ . . _ _ . . _ _ 6 __L__. . . _. 1 . . . _. .;., r.. . ( 4....__ ___ .___ ~_ ._____.4_.._.___._.
. _ _ . _. 4_ _
_ . _ _. . . - -....._ .-..-_=.6{
. _ _ _ _ - . 7_ _ '.-_._f......._4-_.__,-
7 _.J._...__}..._._t..____L_..._. _ L _ _ _ _..___. L__ l
. l
__4. . . . . . _ _ _ .. _ . _ .__.;..._..f_____
,. _ _ p 9
f
. 4 _ _ __ l
._- .a._.- . . . _ ,
?_
. __ _4
__._.-9
---- ---I--- * - - - - - - - - '
- l -t-y._. 4_.___- ! _ :. _ _:.-__..w...-._. } . _. . _ _ ,
..._7_.-.
P__ _ _- p._.__e_--._-,r.-----
,- _ -------------t--_--- r__
y .. . . p I 105 F H-~~ P ! I i i p _ _. _7 {4. i s _ __+ . .J ; , -p .
! 4--- ! .-
'j ; _ y . m
( __7 ._{ p j 7. - - i. -. _ - ., i,
-.4-_-_.-._._;
, j i ' ~'~~~~
O 103 ' L
;___L 4 .
I 1 I I 2
-__ f g$ H -"
' {
~
! i ..
b ~ ~ ~ ~7 -- _. -_.;1 v> # e 102,r i E
- l
' l j l l ; L-- H t-
~
+---
r , j b I i l i 1 s 101 ' t g _ _ _ .
, J 3 'l. l.-_ . - _4- - !
j y--- j f j l H i i 100 - i ! z O j i i l i i
, "_ Hj
,' h
~-*~ ~
i i i 1 i t 1 i ,', ul _ f L..
.,,,\
j y l -p.._..
- i l l l --H A
~
! i
~1
( ]
~
' I 1 I.\
) li\
- l. \ t i .
F _j II \ ' ! 3 ! #
- I i
^ l~\ !
~
---i
.o $s I \ ,
i Id y$ I I
.I I
\
\ /,
J ___ _M q i I \ / y
\
y$ a g - I
/ :
\ .. -
/
e- ~~~ I L Y x3 I 'N 1 eE I \ l
~~ ~
l \ I
& (_ K I-,.
j y .- _q 93 \ \ I
\ l
\ l
\ I k[ \
\ l I
\ I
\ l
\ l 91 \
\. .I l
\ I;
* \ l
( 9a
\
\ l
\ f.
\l-i ll 6'l _
a.T teY PE JAW FEB PWI. A% fWf 3vN IUL JIU6 51.7 19 M
W'nt. Mo. DW- 8 I12. . . . .. ;
. .p 7..
,__ --- -.-+_..--4 .I p . . .. . . . _ .
.-_.y 1>+
= - -
I h 109 / \
/ \
/ \
/ \
101 I \ l \\ l
;* A \
/
I
"# \
f i . gg J \ l \ J'
\ l \ #
\
A I f V"7
% I
}% 'l- ~l o \
I l
@ . \
g i
\ _l f
o los \ r 9 \ l
<\ l 1 1
% i l$ \
\
l f
\ l 1 I
\ 1-103 \ 1
\ l
\ f
\ l
\ l '
l02 \'
, u l in
( 101 f e'A.r
- s.
CI
;I E
m g z8 M
'yt i ._d d.
go q$ -
-e .s .-
I gg - ,
@K W
X i
, 1 , ,
I ! ! f I : i i . ; , i q5 i i
, i I
I i i
! e i i ! ,. I I I - -
i h 0 f h g i $ 6 I f f f
, i e { g 5
. ' i '
i ! 8 i i I 6 1 i t ! ,
. i , , , , . . . , , , ,
i } l ! j je ! # a f I? '3 ! l ? I * . I f - I
. . I r . ,
i i i l i
! j i i t i
1 i i
' r '
l* * ! ' t ' ! ! 9 '
, ! l i ' I *' '
, . j i !
( . , , , - p , i l 1 -p i I i I i i # I 9 j i i ! l l
- I ! .
4 i i !
# i ! ' i ! '
I e I .
- i , ' ! . ' '!
JAN FES MAR APR fgy w JAL M M oCT MW DK 1985
r APPENDIX IV ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS I a e f 1 l . I IV-i J20RPT85030606
'I -
}
l GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION i h FSARlERCHANGEREQUEST/CHANGENOT EVALUATION J' Sheet 1 of 2 00 Cue 84*ef EvatuaTED 08WsesAT0ft
%Q19 ka l '"" , f_J * *
- b #.C'T" s t .k. .
I. SAFETY EVALUATION Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:
- 1. Increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in the FSAR.
't"J O YES E NO Basis: (i.e _ me.t.i.16 via S EceliCtC W f' 1.t (AucrAf.tA"" #3.0.3 U1" We tat _t_ um N t.f_U Lf., n**_ Ct'_%th t Lt T4 c4 .Lu if Lt tfLMT h-f_t r_
Rr_o_ sit.eveu ~_ s m rwsate ri+irr Id r.A.0 5 IW f A M *45u t.M .1 W L tW.G t'.4- .!A t.t Lt.-)r t. c4 o o1.uW f/., 1Mir.44 C L, t T :.W Dta b
- 2. Increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the FSAR. iwcu,3 wea.cing gr.a.c.mo ;
O YES S NO Basis: dir,c_ e l
- 3. Create the possibility of an accident of a ditferent type than any already evafuated in the FSAR.
O YES S NO Basis: I,_1_ El i
- 4. Increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
C YES % NO Basis: bA. e I
! M
, w 5' increase the consequences of a matfunction of equipment important to safety previously eval,ated in the FSAR.
j ;D d-
. O YES E NO Basis: b4_ Al j -:
I , I
- 6. Create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to safety different than* previously evaluated r
in the FSAR. 7ES S NO Basis: Is r_ d # I
! . . .. I L
l
- 7. Reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification.
C YES 7. NO B a s i s:[m.. t,l'a t' _d.1 0.J ' t L 3 f.hin en_ t a, dig.p_C.A fif M Ok IS1".IT/*C_LW-GPD 3M321263 Sheet I e8 a
5 : ... FSARIER CH ANGE REQUESTICH ANGE NOTICE EVALU ATION Sheet 2 of 2
. 1 II. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Incorporation of the ChanQe into the FSAR:
- 1. Will require a change in the Environmental Protection Plan.
Basis: Nm- DA CT ##. rW b. sp em .t , r.rA . O YES S NO ' >&=mv ?T rn a bma
- 2. Concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmentalimpact previously evafuated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC Staff's testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) supplements to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any decisions of the ASLB.
O YES 7. NO Basis: b_e_ 'I
- 3. Concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accordance with 10 CFR 51.5(b)(2)).
O YES 12 NO Basis: bA M 1.O ' :, 1
,t :
f'
.e-4 w
- 4. Concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the documents specified in 11.2, above, which may t g9 have a significant adverse environmentalimpact.
y , O YES j5 NO Basis: M 'I
?
, - a ; I - , . , l; J - 0 4 ( l '
~ fp;"TWuS 8f Alfe!
*tek/N APPROVED BY: APPROVED 8Y:
APPROVED 8Y: APPROVED 8Y: (Envi'on Licensing Enginee4 (Presect Enginee4 tGrove swevJ (Licensing Enginee4 h/~((
/
-Ldik' ls?t i
e ~
=
- Q ..S)kf.
/ / ' ,, . . : 6'8 H$28 **3 #".'.8 8
. - - - _ - - . . _ ~
.+
01-5-15-2 Rev. 3 Attcchment II Page 1 f4T 2 FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / EVALUATION FORM For TSAR Change Request No. " N E PART I - ORIGINATOR i A. Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was previously sub,jected to a Safety and Environmental Evaluation? [ ] Yes Attach a c'opy of the Safety and Envirornental Evaluation Form or equivalent. Complete Part III. l [g No Answer Question B. B. Is an evaluation of this change required? D() Yes - Complete Part !!. [ ] No - Enter basis and complete Part III: PART II - EVALUATION A. Safety Incorporation of the chance into the FSAR will
- a. increase the probability c.f occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR.
e.o. u r-a, f. es .a c u .. n . [ ] Yes Basis: Ta s m a s .ru.s eo l- e i c.e.. e t.4 - .v=.a ors,c. .a t o e e _ vwse,y [X) No p 4.-4 STraA o a.m tt.L 0, e. J c, 59 t is e s it.e... '
.e S.=vor T'o ec.c a P A sview. 4 u a 4-ce r o,- aae s e dece.e e
- b. increase the consequences or an accident previously evaluated in the f 5AR.
l a t>e s ec. 4 N o s s 8th [ ] Yes Basist c u A4Ges oo . ace Atten c.s Pt aus cPr uwu . . 4.
. r. . w. . u i es ad Ai r . ac-r eie r ec-sar.eo, on A , ,, , ( ,:#u , . d.d 3.
[)d No ' J / . 3
- c. create the possibility or an accident or a different type than any already
- evaluated in the FSAR. RAc.,c.v t A.m e,,rh. 56.
[ ] Yes Basis: Ace. 6 4s A. k.t. . 4 L i .a t cas A w a t rue ,aa re psaA. i [X3 No .
- d. increase the probability of a malfunction or equipment important to sarety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis i r s, 4-o c. c.ne t ,a _ v c e. . s y Fe r,( ,wo A t.mmotte [2() No Pi@. 6 L u i, if Pct D ed eGw mte adT"
- e. increase the consequences.or a malfunction or equipment impor*. ant to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR. ,, a. Ors,6 aa . No
. <. e4G r5 os m ov atret An a, treL4v,.
[ ] Yes Basis p e c e 4 ,o , s k . n E= n .. i s . . . . w s . 4. s, _ s t . . g.
..r.,c. , ,s
[>d. No e. ' ' mes ..t h -. 3 6. _
- f. create t,he possibility or a malfunction or equipment important to safety -
different than previously evaluated in the FSAR. l . (4. l t. . t 4. s 4 f. /. s svik-1 8 .<s Lee, t vstwsh d l - [ ] Yes Bassist '
- [X] No o,w . sly .. -m 5.snt.'
- g. reduce the margin or sarety as defined in the basis for any technical '
specification.
%A S ncs de m .T ule e ns h% Tuf....:4 .. w A c u Ae.,
1 Yes Basist .m .a [W No e . * ,. t, c.o... m s u . - . , . . .~ e
*I M6 R UPDATE ,
m -* -, , _ UY --
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDLRE GRAW GULF NUCLEAR ST ATION 01-5-15-2 R ;v. 3 Attachment II Page 2 of' 2 FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / EVALUATION FORM (Continued) for FSAR Change Request No. $hi PART II - EVALUATION (Continued) B. ENVIRONMENTAL Incorporation of the change into the FSAR:
- a. will require a change in the Enviromental Protection Plan.
. g v . s.v o.
'[ ] Yes Basist d . h i. 3 ,i _-t o - A g ,,s,a . e.,,
% No
- b. concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the final Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staf f's testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensino Bomrd ( ASLB), supplements to the FES, enviromental impact appraisal, or in any decisions of the ASLB.
[ ] Yes Basis: Trw p em .py,,a e, J t e.Kr.., e M % C"J 4 1. c. f.h t. Dd No e t L m ,,,A o g.., .s,, w r ges ge,,.. A .. . _5 ..),,+,,,,+,, wA.. tid . .'. 's . J.+ r . gm e a a.a.w-e w w .)n ei n .s d:' rJ J
- c. concerns a significant change in ef fluents or power level (in accordance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)).
[ ] Yes Basis: No s i o g,c t e.,k u m h fo s,. a r LA .nl o r e . 4.lved. N% hj o E 4V I R uPJ a* NT As f-cLeA$C A sf-s* #4 We a.o rd.
- d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the doeunents
# specified in B.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse enviromental impact.
[ ] Yes Basis: Te e.F tu s oet op 7est ( - *. A st= w d L 4, .! ' J - <tJ M No ps s , , , f s ,..,, +3 . ,s_ s 4., .m ., f,j,,, gy. 3 _ .tta reA ., e < ov.t.7 4.4
- e .=-.., p./.% .sy A -Os.'t.cft c 1,Ir f,f . a u Jr.' w .1 a 3 r . < -f.
e.,3.,u %.+ % p m r6.idy .4. % 6s.s.s.... % ht- 4ka dois .* uc . . PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE , A. Originating Organization ,
- f. h st sa.19 ._ , 12hrh secuonanagereserrvisorfoste Onoinatorfoste g .
FSAR UPDATE fi S-eY ~99 3234
Pcg3 1 cf 2 a
~
d TSAR GANGE ar.yurW/ CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION TCRM SCR No . ak-Pt .1
- 3-SCN No. 3219 PART I - ORIGINATOR '
A. Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was - previously subjected ter a Safety and Environmental Evaluation? I l ] Tes - Attach a copy of the Safety and Environmental Evaluation Form o-equivalent. Complete Part III. N No - Answer Question B. F&R UPDATE
/p/ti.a4-ts-B. Is an evaluation of this change required? - ^
C>4 Tes - Complete Part II. - ( ) No - Enter basis and complete Part III: ---
-PART II - EVALUATION ,
A. SAFETY - Incorporation of the change into the TSAR vill:
- a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously l evaluated in FEAR.
( } Tes Basis: %ko Es/-Rod ea, .:a s osa. .,J;/ a retc :,.:t:. /:,,, u.ra. I ,s rer.:,,d a l >L;a t
& No 4: e :/ e s ses. g f e e gt. ro s .zre. les" e n a leve t s :4 4. 74.s. f r:.e a' ReZe i.:J:. l:.. o d o wrm /.or rle da.:, I:.e s>:// Ar : sol./r.l. 'a //u fett 4 /.~pel:n oe. der ;e. ."
- b. increase the ccusequences' of an accident pr'eviously evaluated in the FSAR.
( ) Tes Basis: As sj, . . J re . d:s < A. ee o'.or ,r J re.,:sr o.or. // us h , /. / a. D k4 No paa J .. /.es tri-c.o o i ra s re :n so'r:rt vF:s et.... s.,:4.Les 4. ..r . I e Ise per:Jr..a J ..at v I<r. s.4 de n,s ta.~ d.,:o., si;o! .II rs isa!.lia at 4:s Jn:a 1: o o.., Rere Jr.a. d.
- c. create the possibility of an " accident of a dif f erent. type than any
~ ~
already evaluated in the FSAR. ( ) Tes Basis: rir a/e sosili < s .s /Are are oe. Ao a s. 6-s // do :,. d/ .. / o re < *a l
- r. J . . h ., A:A l>4 No we r e r :4:.p. LJ :.3,,4 . ... w: n ,L., .r!, , .re,s . ,,,
- RfrC 18 *a .p ees h . . .
- d. increase the probability,of a. malfunction of equipment important to .
safety previous 1- evaluated in the FSAR. l } Tes Basis: Tfe A.rp se ./ slese << 4rs tr + is./ le de rere A.rt: o e la.es M No Jr.:., 4. a.'J .ac. J ,: . . r~.1 m s .s, .. J:.. c rere i., ss ..ds,). rir s t.,rr f,. . es: i., ua L w.., a s i. 1s. t. se d.:s Jr.i. t. r . - eete t.:Idlo.a i .ser.p..,. _
- a. increase the consequen'ces of a malfunction of e'quipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
l 1 Tes Basis: rxit e 6,,, ,4 .,,v , A,,:<. /., -..t4 ... o r,. t L, & /.e c 1. ,e ,, /.c ,.,ct.,, Q No ,f tst.fco4 i re'esd.r:as ,,.r . I ;pe,. /:le . 'rie l'!so is ;,, ,,,,< a s 's A. M re.<:r i:.~ 4L.r .!es:< d** :a.,Ie. rhe 'zere s.s /r.,. s1:1.orr. /r s se, aea:s,,o. l
- f. create the ' possibility of a malfunction' of equipment I'nportint to safety different than previously evaluated in the FSAR.
( } Tes Basis: rie awkes pernle +Ae aa., dee sh./J, and /le Plth is ;- eme
. M No 2,,sto :ss 4 m t. de e.m.,I oos:f: .*. '7Ae <<I rs :// is./. le rLa dea 1. I: e ai reo:r'e J 4 s., s /ee dis h,,'. ~
3 reduce ths x:.argin'of' safety as defined in the basis for any technica.1 specification. ( } Tes Basis: glae Est foot een,a:as errn 1:/ a Merc is t. /: ,, s:<aa f :s recer.de l PR No aj:c A 4:,.o :/ eines. f5i fas :s err.frJ 4 . Jr.et s ,:tal. D ;;.. scrc :,,:/: /e., a<d
, r e rat:. . ESI- Fm + e lo ses f re,.u tre s e les ed. s' h t A e n s aes gt[c [Lat./h infese:L, a'. d al.*s ,' . I r e d a e n e .,a r,;a et s A L a ot. freed :n vaa k sares.'
n --...~ . . . = ...~: ; .; ~~- '-
- ~ . ;~~.
4
- 3. EFVIRCN> ENTAL Incorporacion of the chansa.into the TSA1.
, . a. will require a chansa in the Environmental Protection Plan. '
i } Tes Basis: 7%:s e haa,a :.,;// ,,./ :,,e ,.ea ,e ne te. Its / l r r.J:ss.Li*e e 4 Bo teleases 4. Se e,. .,:re,,,,,e ,, 4 _ p, e ,;n ;+ ',,es,r,, s sc re Aw.e J aels : . our :As so n:as s.
- b. concerns a matter'vnich may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final i
Environnental Statement (715) as modified by the NRC staff's , testi=eny to the Atumic Safety and Licensing Board (ASL3), supple-d l I sents to the FES', envirec= ental i= pact appraisal. or in any p decisions of the AS E. [ } Tes Basis: 7Ais ree:ser a 1.s/J!' /;,,,ae 4 si..o cwe</ sebe p ///*n s k N Bo / win < s.es.ra / eseia Noa . 7Ar 's,sse- ,L a / tea so:M - /4w'is*/* k QA I J i J j c. sf 4: dear., r e A . it. , xc.rt' .~ tea /.-a s 14< <res</ concerns a significant enange in effitients or power level (in accorc- ; ance with 10C7151.5(b)(2))
} ( ) Tes Easisc tJis .* a solkere .4 cL .. r2a saJa,..s<i si. , Mr <erre< /
y a. se ,.,.n.. . s ,s.- u a. w.., i,.i. & n .a -c . /.e kI I
, gl d. concerns a matter noe prwnously revtevec and evaluated in, the docu-(,t
- 9' 8 ments specifiedi ini K.1.1r.. above, which may have a signi'icant adverse S environmental h - .
$ Tes Basis: 7)k eA aer w Y D I / mss el s. ,' n,. fr e ee* <*rn/s e trAnse */
Lt.,{&m y( }t. s. ,. i.. . . . i,.. . s. . + ,,.... a. ,e.:. .:a . . s ,,. i . ia 2<.. .. a.
\ f o.;J *ne >=he s/ orla.;, eor bin 4e eAted a(.ti.y AcK ofet*him. - ,...--- ... .... n FART !!! - RITIrJ/CCNC0KKINCE. '
i 5 { A. Ord rinating Ortr i:-ti=:r 11?t!. - N?I Cascurrence , i ) fOriginator bw fA@d" 0 - - -e - l ikf }/ Y ; N?E Respensh ie Ing:.neer (
/ / (For Contracter Originated *TC1's) 5 e ( t fe n~ tiJ(n a g e r/ Superrvzscr/ D a t e' !
- 3. Nuclear Safety and Comaliance 1 l
1 Safety Review Action. irav'al Nu=ber
- I y-Reviewer /Date
)Q i
Manager of Nuclear Saf ety and Cc=pliance/Date , C. Radioloeical & Envina-mal Serrices . 4 er- O /0 O d& L d R* MA 2///J'. I Reviewer / Date Manager of Radiologii:a1 & Environnental '
. Services /Date
- 1 D. Nuclear Licensins . .
~. . * ..
( r*
&g enG'c y Responsible Licens1=g. Eng1::eer/Date Manager of Nuclear Licensing /Date
. . ..a FSARllsd2 . "
- N
. .'s..a;. M M v.n .:..u . - . -
12 nom M L'^ A W
p 1
* ~
j , . TSAR CIAEGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORN j
- SCR No. e4!E*N'*N SCN No. 7 SPI ,_
l FART I - ORIGINATOR ~ A. is this change the result of. implementation of an activity which was previously subjected to.a.5Afsty and Envirot. mental Evaluation? E ] Tes - Attack a copy of f the. S'afety and EnvSronme9t 1. Ev of 4 equivalents Completa: Fart III. M Wo - Answer question .RL
?bA Ui'JA tote sluagfg 4s/Ir -Jf-88%
E. Is an evaluation of this channer required? R4,3m j N Tes - Complete Fart.II. .
, gg g....yy- - -
2 [ l No Enter basis and complete Part III: - 1 : , i , \ FART II - EVALUATICE l
,i A. SAFETY l Incorporation of the changesints: the FSAR will: !
- a. increase the probabCLicy of' occurrence of an accident previously i evaluated la II&EL i i 1 Tes Easia: 7hs el,r,r rea ;ers //w r!M 4. er/A.Ja seere res As/4 ed. 14 *M AS \
N No en rua, /:a o ,/J, . w 5 .r ,. a :- s s,4 a //,,..s si.,e 4 ,as ;,,s 4 ..W a ir s,s +*. i., )
, ,r e. , a e. .. se <A, + ,4 ,,.sec h ., e:. 4 /a re Ja.uarea/ J saa. + de seaezr4 i, rah s nW. i' i b. increase the consequences. of an accident previously evaluated 'in the' , ( TSAR. , i i l 1 Tes Essis: 74e 1,4. g o 4 re.+ usa, e$see;4ed i.o 44, f$nP ;< a reers.o.., 4 loa ods l
- [>4 5o J.. .,. re ,,.
- , ,,, ,,,5. n . h a':.,. , A;: 1 < s' L. .e s . t. . d. . s / // , f e. s 4. e A. -*+ i
} 1.,."4..A / a:e :s u '< :,e c. Teone;re ,4e (,.ish,, 'k.' 4e . 4h rea,Mr.e,s eeok,4r. l 1 c. create the ===4*H"ty of an ' accident of 'a dif f erent type than any j already eva1==e=di inn that 7511. : ( ) Tes Basis': A, ,4 bd s4.., . ,,A:s e An.e ,,;d ,/Ja/h i . d.c 4 k ' s seo.d4 s.. l k$ No + < , ,n he.a +, 4e /Di n s.e,adie ' s, s .te-, . - ; e } d. increase the prohahility of a malfunction of equipment important to i safety previessIg. araluated in the FSAR. i 1 Tes n. sis: s .. iura w .et s.<,, ossi,.s ,,.Med. . ../ ar s ,s .;, .mA n;I N No s / / s a e ,.. fe. ' -,4, ,J /;, e ,; ,,a 6 2.e<;si.'s rCe is . +!,, w m 'a % v4- l l sc s me /.e se> +.'. TA.u. /Ds aat/ 4- ena M/ f 4,< /.u As- sites. \ j e. increase'the consequences of a. salfunction of equipdent, iniportant to l 1 safety previously evaluated in the TSAR. , ] [ 1 iea Basie:7L. 7 d. :14 3as au,4.a /ur see., a s/,, t,,deakd in de fs# t.sor,s a des ' l N. No <<w , ,,., . .. / 6. './ < rea ,,,,*,, e4 /:e,, . m' u,, a a Aa / a te w L ., :n' afoe ,4, i de A >rev.a A,,. fe,m s:e ,a h ,s a //.a 'n /Ds va Los '.VerrGem &;r Laidse. l l f. create the 'possilki'lf.ty of a malfdaction of equipment important to {
! safety different shart previously evaluated in the TSAR. ;
} [ 1 Tes Easts: IZ.s 5 ,h a .sm /., s/:// .. /L.us a.-de Ara 4 ressGr* Ins /eam/ a:r or
. l u se + <a -o, . /. ., a '/stle ea,,,C w.,4e., 2rea;aa r la . ,4.r., . w ,=a A .s. M.w .1
~ ' M. No ' ' ' 1
//, m /to r s. /-,.,/:.., ,, e .,.;,e v. l j g. reduce the margia ad ausfusty as" defined in the basis for any technical ;
! specificattom. 1 l } Tes Basis: 71/s e Ja a,,,a 4 .11. , he e, /is/te /for sie s..al., ras e;4 ./
- (>4.No 5 ca., ,
l \ FSAR11sd1 i.
._~ _ .. __ . _ .
.e- .. __. . .. . . . . . ...... . . . . .
.....s l ,, : '
- 5. ENVIRONME!ffAL Incsrporntics of tha chansa inter tha FSAR.
i . a. will rcquiro a chansa in ths Envircam:ntal Protcetica Pica. l
* ( ] Tes Basts: 7Ls c huer s/J ./Ls s at.a na;,, 4 ers,.iria. n,.ha e oAe dos te s~nf, i bd No S A :, a.s .... A + ,, u ,A:h 4,'e,). st.,4 i... % , % w .' rs. , n <A... , + 6 e '
~
j - f. o.^re . e,r.,4. i fr. 4e s t i. . Pha ;, e ,,, tre d, i b. concerna a matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the final . i g Environmental Statement (TES) as modified by the NRC staff's l l l h testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB). supple- f ments to the FFS. environmental impact appraisal, or in any l ( decisions of therASEE. I I b, [ ] Tes Basis: As <4 /,d /,. Arcer esAn, ac % ,-u A ,c ;,os4 /4//<.4/ /1 = l
,,, , :r .,,, v. n. i ( ,, ,i'. / , m ,7.
{' Q bd No e,,, ,, ,. / /.; ,, .. / , ,4 , co
+ , ,e 4 se-,' +, n s.~a ,, ",th., as s A. a );., un de,i,;.
;, . s,. .. /, N ,
\
) c. concerns a significant change in ef fluents or power Ie, vel (in accord- l ance with 10CTR51.5(b)(2)).. ! i
] Yes Basis: 74 s .&., <r, , 4 ,,.,.V,, ,4'9. /, se , ,r. ./4,., .A~ .te de er
$y&ah(t4Ne g'sr s v:,i:,s t. i. , n es :....h. ti, s n n . n, ~. o,. L ,, ,r er a A.,,, h/ c, ,.d,.
.e, irei s a
?
.. , ,s . , 43 , tt/.. <s .,
- d. concerns a matrer not pruriously reviewed and evaluated in, the docu- l b
kz{q $ ments specified: ini1.1.1c.. above, which may have a significant adverse environmental 4---+ .*' ade l i 1 Yes Basis: A % 4a s t...e par a:// st.fi Laat - w / a..,. J .1 *E,,, fer se + Q No ave,: ,4 r a ...... s a. ,s u. ta . / J i., e.1 s n s <e' :ii .s ha er ,. h d. . j PART III - REVIEW /CONCUEEENCE. , 1 A. Originating Organizstiotr MP&L - NPE Concurrence t
$ <Y w br9r /so it H- A)/k NPE Responsible Engineer j Or191nator/Organi4=e+a=/ Data. ,
6i ' w / v ,// d V [ Sectidh Manager /Sapervier/ Data (For Contractor Ortainated TCR's) j . B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance . J Safety Revi*ew Acties Rav+ml Number l Reviewer /Date Manager of Nuclear Saiety and Compliance / Data i C. Radiological & Environanntal Services #~ Reviewer /Date Manager of Radiological & Environmental
- Services /Date ,
i
. D. Nuclear Licensing . }
i l Responsible Lie.ensing Engineer /Date Manager of Nuclear Licensing /Date l l TSAR 11sd2
l'cg3 1 GI a
'. N PE FSA R 8 4lout, FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVA1.UATION FORM SCR No. MPf-N-ood/4 SCN No. 32f.S PART I - ORIGINATOR A. Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was previously subjected to a Safety and Environmental Evaluation?
[ } Yes - Attach a copy of the Safety and Enviror. mental Evaluation Form or equivalent. Complete Part III. . [>4 No - Answer Question B. B. Is an evaluation of this change required? ()<} Yes - Complete Part II. [ } No - Inter basis and complete Part III:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------==
PART II - EVALUATION A. SAFETY Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:
- a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR.
[ } Yes Basis: c/u ,,a raf // ref/u/ Al- Sal // Cr,J//#e. . [w//I/ vare/ wr'// M No A// L e' yt,,es (_4 )! rec */, ce ap r; /ror.e , A- >,a r L,J,4/l'at. , g
- b. increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the FSAR.
( ( ) Tes Basts: So*febw ed 6H6 erd,u. .<>.;u r,J hr o.tJ seM-l>Q No
- c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any already evaluated in the FSAR. re/unsfe, 4~ IM'4' Yn' h ( ) Tes Basis: CMa s offule R,d of fts l
A
't., &
M No Ger:Nor., Cs; /iLa.,J " Li,a r % LLf ay , La ylltars Lu1 QJbfg .fam ,ju; V g rdomilAklo olal is 'b e rh et_ M Llared usiW) iln kv-4ko'v%Lefrueforor bMetW7 b d. increase the probability of 4 malfunction of equipment important to' safety previously evaluated in the FSAR. rr),,,Ja.,+ iso *L an > h,<v Jower W a 1 B ce,<a d t u af du Mra b % No 6u,, ch', ,o). G,};te. m,! cui s rJ,4 a, so Lo,'d & ovf o,Mais:/. fjag ()Tes&asts:f)sfa
- l w:M nd dairwr it, %hhhh"d oMuti L ior n LL*/ik.
b, e. increase the consequences of a malf6nc/io6 t of e(uipment important to l i safety previously evaluated in the FSAR. g ea J yr /taesuu.,ed l i Tes Basis: .Co fel 's,ctiLoi,,J L///h* s's o w l a /S et fo d . d ie noufirIA
% as alr%}ia. Is a;.m/Linfa/
"h % No M
cLa r in km am/re at e.:1 dr vis in V i i i L create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to ik f. l safety different than previously evaluated in the FSAR.
,,, vd,o a ,s v rlmo o% ogo.,ek l } Tes Basis: -f t,u rhn,w a r] m J asiU J'ane f ski al A d & .n))n \
% No fY eso ro.fis<. . .-fla Glikl waf e J
~
I 1 it+'rdd . ! reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical ! 3 l ( specification. ( ) Tes Basis: Tin _Lb oJcd
~
SlnR0cs.lr'st,
' /
tl A/"' rl4d.
/'
\
f (K No i
. FSARllsdl _ _ _ . , . .-
. i Pcg2 2 ef 2 B. ENVIRONMENTAL
. Incorporatien of th2 cheng2 into tha FSAR.
- a. will require a change in the Environt tal Protectionda Pl O
.J Tutdau,
\ 1 Tes Basis: duo r ofuA nd a' tad saa
()Q No Qfe n . / ') ( b. concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's . y testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple-sents to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any l F decisions of the ASLB.,
<( r 1 Tes Basis: h x?d YL4 F3AR clmo ebol mf Lee an ,
(d No e n*vw_a nfQ ' ,% LA w b _1 L t i,,y, % e orv e"f.aswo a MYl:-eke O' d v' venfo r b dte levn te . h c. concerns a signifidant change in effluents or power level (in accord-
] \ 1 Yesance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2))N Basis: TldA FSA del cdones ed (n um /W o.sv cd,q c LA No in p H_ In & o < v ' lo vo J ,
( yg , d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-ments specified in B.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse g N environmental impact. b
- I (,$ \ 1 Yes Basis:
M No
'T[d4 Cdom e Cn ai en w t Jd eh G f.
e/ad es[ have any i i 1 j .............................................................................. PART III - REVIEW /CONCUP3.ENCE A. Originating Organization MP&L - NPE Concurrence 4 ( A L nPs Originator / Organization /Datd eh6 i NFE Responsible Engineer WA1 att. ^ Y // f fry (For Contractor Originated FCR's) Section Mana'ger/ Supe'evisor/Date B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance - Safaty Review Action Serial Number l Reviewer /Date Manager of Nuclear Safety and Compliance /Date C. Radiological & Environmental Services N$ Reviewer /Date Manager of Radiological & Environmental Services /Date D. Nuclear Licensing k Responsible Licensing Engineer /Date Manager of Nuclear Licensing /Date FSAR11sd2
pC82 1 cf 2 >
...~ .
*i *[ TSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM SCR No. NM-POOS8 SCN No. 3 972 l(
PART I - ORIGINATOR A. Is this change the result of impienentation of an activity which was previously subjected to a Safety and Environmental Evaluation?
- [ ] Yes - Attach a copy of the Safety and Environmental Evaluation Form c. ,
equivaient. Co.,1ete Part III. pc3AR UPDATE - ()4 No. - Answer Question 3. j st(mal -- 3.*Is an evaluatica of this change required? _ j [>4 Yes - Complete Part II. ; j l ] No - Enter basis and complete Part III: - l r i I l i PART II - IVALUATION
- A. SAFETY >
Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:
- a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR. ,
l
- [ ] Yes Basis:
l QQ No 'stf })b LD/7s RYnbr ADrs6tM' /VM/W N/?V5 DOR /A/) Fir-DWl ' I l b. RiftzlR)MA05 increase the consequences *TkDf' of AtA74Y/4)Mt/2Y/5 Ab7/A/NW2(f on accident previously evaluated in 7MhiVE/?d the j FSAR.
\
l Tes Basis: %? /isrDrDrin/Ac A}? //2/>7': ><///1 Ab7JM3f}99V 7hir ~ No /VHWACF2RC% AF At/ A00/nFAlf. l
- c. create the possibility of an accident of a different. type than any l
'- already evaluated in the FSAR.
! ( Yes Basis: 71/f /Af5YN/J)T/u/ ff TNf D/d f)MsK 7YPS AL/-JU7/Yh'XSC } Yo ~ i f)MI) MfMJ FAHL'PF flhVS
- d. increis( the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to .
safety previously evaluated in t e FSAR. \ \ Tes Eaais: TJ/p JA)STA'r Ariff . tZEPs971/) AJ DC ThkC Ah /JA/7s h/M11//rsitf11%k;r 7/2t' 2VEB9&/t71)/1F A D)#It/1197/BA/ AF
^
{ No i f-fb//7)/)YA/7 /A M M 77) wWF7Y. l e. increasf the consequences of a malfunction of equipment taportant to he FSAR. i safety ies previously Basie:
~
lNF /JF71}VA7]Du', evaluated injBWAGT//Vl$3- 75~ Ab /As//1% blu' l No Ah7"sM&JFF %Vf $O/CM/JfN/PC" AF A /112MAM7/AA) ff is%i1/D77/A/7 //)2MP/DAff~ 71) M/}W creafe ~the possibility of a malfunction of eqGipment important to
~
j f. i safety different than previously evaluated in the FSAR. ( ) iea Eaaie: TMF/ANXV/AII0A) !NF~A97#11/ bf $f*~ >$h /2/74 / l No 7WS 27'/M/k'PASF7A'F M);w'irb tDF A n]NkW//7/M/ W I ' i '
~ FiGi11%)]FA/Tr/7)kP2OV7 77) AbCf7f ..
reduce the margin of safety as define 8 in'the basis for any technical (
- 3 specification.
\ l ies Basis: &/AkTA/' A7/Mf ! $O!29W/&/ /)f Jyks' A/d /hlj7% kki No Af7 oaf 2F 7MJ2AYikJN AC 5Pff///A5 ZYf/1)fA /A/TEF AD<A R22 /k/L/, ?i~ Y'l/E84V &IWAf/tW7//W
Pcge 2 cf 2 , l I*# Sk ENTIXONMENTIE.,
/ .. S. Incorpar:stian of th3 chang 2 isto tha FSAR. !
' # s. wi1IIroquire a~~change in the Environmental Protection Flyn. )
( 1 Yese 2 Eats:. 7Aes A7]4 t/MM A*f M-6W/A> fab ?JMP/DF 1 V4 Ka.c A/o Psyr/Kfs rP /A/rAAFS FATA7 TW A'7/?/X7WM b.- cancernar a matter which may result in a significant increase in any advarse.enviremental impact previously evaluated in the Final ~ Envi mr= ental Statement (TES) as modified by the NRC staff's testimony,-to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple-sants.co- the TES. environmental impact appraisal, or in any decisiotw of the ASJf).
& /M/ //X/ Q/25
/ 26 Al7' (9 )1Ff2/A /JJG17/PJe/>MW
[ } Tes e Rksis: fd H < % 5o s 1220s!JA< tid ///vf S&A/sfiftQi77 iM/fEMW7s>>A/A/ fifA//fnl//2'f1/7A/ //J)Ps9(!?~
' /#W/3f
< c conce'rns. a significant change in ef fluants or power level (in accord-
~
anca nrittr 10CTR51.5(b (2)) . , Cl Tiss Ekais: NF ()f/75 ))f3r fpfijR1&A) 35F/W/75 hhrM siF /Dnarrh R//7aaf7h/ (PsrskFF /m/ri. l WEac 3 L::. cancerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-Z & senta specified in R.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse emi m s alj apact. l Teks 5k isr //// ///9/h}}7)[W,$N N )[I/G(/ W 7k / A 9 /)A/J E hl 51- }A/// A/d7AWJW// A?Ffff7T ryr:PA/Vs/h/JJ7fAU~ b h FAIT III -RETTE7/CONCI*RRENCE A Ortrinarier Orvanization MP&L - NPE Concurrence g6%Atv)144r
~
i
'ur16
- tor / ganizat16n/ ate' NPE Responsible Engineer
/ )/ b//
/ (For Centractor Originated TCR's)
- ~ 5act'f on Manager / Supervisor /Date Ek. Ndelaar Sifhtv and Compliance .
Safety.R4 vinic Action Serial Number i
/d or kEQ'O )(
i Reviewer /Hara- Hanager of Nuclear Safety,and Compliance /Date C; . Radiological' & Environmental Services n .r brn x I Reviewer / Data. Hanager of Radiological & Environmental
- Services /Date 1 '
k 2. 23mMestltnzwist j ,- /Wo - 3 Manager of Nuclear Licensing /Date 4 R&sponsihim Licensing Engineer /Date
,..----C ^ ^^
- s p
l 980
- \ 84 3g
- / . CFJJ0!!_, IST, OR IX?IRIPI!CS II;V*RONMI' CAL IVALUATION 70??.
SFIIT OT
?a-: 1: Docu=ent Ivalua:ed: -rbe Pp 5m_"A Sys:e=(s) Affected: 4/7 rft.L rne,P Ar D heaa 12 =_--ur Au k corn nwaan heure+ sama l a..;-.esa> .
yaw L.wu: Ar :: ::y.rms Oescriptien cf Change, Tes. c: I: peri =en: laing Ivaluated: 7At nJJ:ar al sal.s',/ L M s% F.s ./2.n2 _ =_> sdfa L A. e '- o a Y / NJ/ & -# bum mL aJA 3 Ar 5L d'h r derslo1 af
J:.I.:adnow & k . -- s at .se C r 6 ~ A se sifAD 4 ,o J .s-- dlA/% 4/b.J 0
?ar: 2: I:;1e=en:a:ica or perfor=ance of :he action described i= the evaluated decu=en::
TIf _NO . a) vill c: =ay affect the envirorument [ b) is required te achieve ce=plianca vi:h Federal, State, c local envircr.= ental regulaticas. c) Will result in all =easurable enviro =en:a1 ef fects being confined to casi:e areas previously dis:urbed during site ;;eparation and plant cens::vc: ion. d) Will recuire a cha..ge i: :he Ir.vi c=en:a1 ?:c:ection ?las. e) Ccacerns a =a::e which =ay resu.t ir. a significan: increase in any adverse envire=en:a1 i= pact ; evieusly evaluated ir. the Tinal Invire= ental 5:ste:en: (TIS) as =cdified by the NRC s:sff's :ssti=eny
- c the A:e=ic Safety and Licensits Icard (ASL3) supple =erts to :he FIS, envi:c=en:a1 i= pact a;;;aisal, c: in any decisicas of the (A51.1).
f) Cencerns a significan: change in af fluents or power level.-
- 3) Concerns a =at::: nc: ;;evicusly reviewed and evaluated in the docu=ents in (f) abcve, which =ay have a sig .ificant adverse envire= ental i= pact 7ar:
- d. /ana,b e4 de, cluum /W,,wM Aas dr/s,E4 M
! asis T g g La:ict: r- e 4. ndme = Ja ers. noud ==' se/ A AA- - n --
M m
. A t/ w, n, .4Li/ sa k su:mmm/ h~,1,
- m A = u n s .'1/ 6 -
r*tn esk Al,%1 end RW ts 2 se muus. e W.%er-6 aces:-, .. HA 4 ArrD .50 . A .n//el/A cawhae.%/,a/' n.mbs /hWA e/orm/\ milfh="- b n, &Le/ u wa u J .a L ,/ h n:s w e s ;- a.Ma /b KAd, -Cn~ - am.a6r. b &. .. .fh.-
/ 94+7)$
.___-.-~-_ _ _ _ _ _ _
,fi,',
_f . w ,.,,-,,, ./.pf Zf $,: - _
j y. s m
..- y I
I b 19 GES 59tR2 EeEEIY EYeLUGIIDM GDNQWR$5NGE i SAFETY REVIEW ACTION SERIAL NUMBER: PSO-84-121______
\'
ORIGINATING ORG: TECH ORIGINATOR *S DOC NO: TA B20703__ REFERENCES USED BY RVW ENGR: , ODCMI TS 3.3.7.111 TSPS-01BI DCP 82/0607._______________________ SYSTEM NO: G[7_____ ; NS&C RVW ENGR: D. R. WHITSON____________ DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE: THIS TEMPORARY ALTERATIdN'JUMPERED i OUT COOLING TOWER BLOWDOWN FLOW SWITCH (IN71-FSL-K600) AND ALSO CHANGED THE SETPOINT OF EFFLUENT LINE FLOW SWITCH (SG17-FS-K23B) FROM 35 GPM TO 90 GPM. r REASON FOR CHANGE: THE COOLING TOWER BLOWDOWN SWITCH WAS JUMPERED SINCE THE PLANT WAS IN AN EXTENDED SHUTDOWN CONDITION THE AND THE CIRCULATING WATER SYSTEM HAD BEEN SHUTDOWN. HIGHER - EFFLUENT LINE FLOW SWITCH SETPOINT WAS CHANGED TO ALLOW EFFLUENT FLOWS. I SAFETY EVALUATION: CALCULATIONS WERE PERFORMED USING THE ! OFFSITE DOSE CALCULATION MANUAL (ODCM) PRIOR TO EACH RELEASE. , THIS ENSURED NECESSARY DILUTION AND EFFLUENT FLOW CONDITIONS EXISTED AND THAT RELEASES WOULD BE WITHIN 10CFR20 LIMITS. ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS EXISTED TO TERMINATE RELEASES IF LESS THAN ONE PLANT SERVICE WATER FUMP, WHICH PROVIDES FLOW TO THE DISCHARGE BASIN, WAS IN OPERATION, THEREBY ASSURING ADEQUATE , MONITOR AND THE l DILUTION FLOW. THE LIOUID EFFLUENT RADIATION EFFLUENT FLOW MONITOR WERE NOT MADE INOPERABLE SY THIS l l ALTERATION. SINCE INSTRUMENTATION EXISTCD TO MONITOR EFFLUENT FLOW AND RADIOACTIVITY, AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS EXISTED TO ASSURE ADEQUATE DILUTION FLOW CONDITIONS, THERE WAS NO EFFECT j j ON SAFETY DUE TO THIS ALTERATION. j AMENDMENT TO WHICH RVW WAS CONDUCTED: FSAR _57 TECH SPECS .11_
- L ALL SIGNATURES OBTAINED ON F AGE 4 D 3 YES I PSRC REVIEW MEETING NO: 294-82 SRC REVIEW MEETING NO: _ __
l NS&C RVW ENGR _h. 4 _ __.
#//ft/_(j____ FORM NO: 639P_ h6 :1 !
SIGNATURE /DATE REV: 9 DATE: 11/11432 Page 1 of 4 , i
. _ _ . - . _ _ _ _PO$84121_CCS01_ _ __ ____ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ ,_ _ _ _ ,_
APPENDIX V NON-ROUTINE REPORTS V-1 J20RPT85030606
% e F~
M
] MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Helping Build Mississippi P. O. B O X 184 0 J AC K S O N. . MIS SIS SIP PI 39215-1640 o .[6'.Yl5!.sEoon November 27, 1985 i
Mr. Charles S. Chisola, Director Mississippi Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Pollu ion Control Post Office Box 10385 Jackson,IMssissippi 39209
~
Dear Mr.".'Chisolm:
SUBJECT:
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Unit 1
, _ File: 0260/15330 l Betz Powerline 3641 Discharge APO-85/1248 Attachment I is a summary report for the Betz Powerline 3641 discharge at Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS). This discharge occurred intermittently over the period October 31 to November 3,1985. The discharge resulted in a fish kill which was first observed at approximately 9:30 a.m. on November 4,1985 in onsite Sediment Basin B. The following is a discussion of the incident.
Background
Sediment Basin B intercepts a small seasonal stream on the GGNS site which discharges to Hamilton Lake and from there to the Mississippi River. This basin was constructed to reduce sediment loading of the Mississippi River floodplain during the construction of GGNS. Sediment Fasin B also receives the storm water drainage from the site and drainage from various plant structures through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Outfall 007. Sediment Basin B is NPDES Outfall 014. Betz Powerline 3641 is a synergistic blend of biocidal agents, dispersants and penetrants formulated to control bacteria, algae and fungi growth in power industry cooling systems. It is a patented blend of bromonitrostyrene and methylene bisthiocynate biocides. A concentration of 0.8 mg/l of Betz Powerline 3641 would be expected to cause death to 50 percent of a population of Daphnia magna, a water flea, within 4P hours. However, Betz Powerline 3641 hydrolyzes ncturally in approximately 36 hours and is therefore considered environmentally safe. Additional product information for Betz Powerline 3641 is provided as Attachment II. Hazard Assessment
- The first evidence of this discharge was the observation of dead fish during routine sampling of Sediment Basin B by MP&L Environmental Surveillance Program personnel at approximately 9:30 a.m. on November 4, 1985. They immediately began a survey of the stream, Sediment Basin B, Hamilton Lake and J36AP085111501 Member Middle South Utilities System
APO-85/1248 MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY the Mississippi River to determine the extent of the problem. The fish kill appeared to be limited to Sediment Basin B with bass, bluegill and shiner fishes affected. The survey also confirmed that fish were continuing to die. Visual observation and subsequent testing confirmed that dissolved oxygen levels in Sediment Basin B were satisfactory to support finfish. Based on the apparent respiratory damage and loss of equilibrium observed in the stressed fish, a toxic chemical was suspected. As a result, official notifications to regulatory agencies were initiated at 2:25 p.m. the same day. Control and Countermeasures Because fish were obviously stressed and a toxic discharge was suspected, the following actions were taken:
- All suspect discharges to Sediment Basin B were discontinued the afternoon of November 4.
- A plant walk down was initiated to try to determine the source of the discharge.
- Water sampling for chemical analysis was initiated and continued during the next 48 hours. Details of sampling and analysis results are provided as Attachment III. :
- Fish specimens and water samples were collected for analysis.
- A Betz Chemical Response Team was activated and began an onsite analysis the afternoon of November 4.
- A study of possible ways to isolate Sediment Basin B was initiated.
- Peterson Maritime Services was notified and activated to a standby status in the event their services were needed.
- A review of toxic chemicals stored on site was initiated.
Although initial actions were unsuccessful in determining the causative agent, useful information was obtained. The plant walk down did not identify an active release, which indicated the discharge had occurred prior to November
- 4. Dissolved oxygen determinations for Sediment Basin B water confirmed that .
fish deaths were not caused by lack of oxygen. A review of toxic chemicals , stored on site indicated that Betz water treatment chemicals were the only materials available in sufficient quantity which could cause this type of fish kill. Because a definite cause of the fish kill could not then be determined, the quality of Sediment Basin B water was, at best, questionable. Therefore, the decision was made to isolate Sediment Basin B and hold its contents until the safety of downstream aquatic life could be assured. Isolation of Sediment Basin B was accomplished the evening of November 4. Monitoring and sampling of . Sediment Basin B continued throughout the night of November 4 and the morning of November 5 with no significant changes observed. J36AP085111501
APO-85/1248 MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY By the morning of November 5, the results of our investigation indicated Betz Powerline 3641, a microbial control agent used in the Plant Service Water, was the likely cause of the fish kill. Since Betz Powerline 3641 hydrolyzes naturally within 36 hours to a non-toxic compound, it was felt that Sediment Basin B water was no longer harmful to aquatic life. To prove Sediment Basin B water was not harmful, a fish bioassay was conducted by MP&L Environmental Surveillance Program personnel and observed by Mr. Bob Rogers of the Mississippi Department of Natural Resources. After 24 hours of direct contact with Sediment Basin B water, no adverse effects on the test species were observed. Consequently, on the evening of November 6 the Mississippi Department of Natural Resources authorized the release of Sediment Basin B water to the natural drainage path leading to the Mississippi River. The bioassay was continued for 72 hours and still no adverse effects were observed on the test species. A detailed explanation of the bioassay methodology and results is provided as Attachment IV. The bioassay study was further supported by the chemical analysis results (Attachment III) from Betz Laboratories, Inc. and the GGNS Chemistry Department. Testing performed by GGNS Chemistry indicated the concentration of Betz Powerline 3641 in Sediment Basin B was below harmful levels on the evening of November 4. Testing by Powerline Betz showed a high concentration of bromide, a decomposition product of Betz Powerline 3641, but no active biocide ingredients. These results indicated the Betz Powerline 3641 had completely hydrolyzed and was no longer harmful to aquatic life. Cleanup and Disposal Cleanup activities associated with this discharge were limited to collection and counting of dead fish. Fish were collected and counted over the period November 4 through 11. The following is a summary: Type Size Weight (lbs) Count Bluegill < 3" 81.0 25,555 3" to 6" 226.0 2,377
> 6" 40.0 212 Shiners All 16.0 315 Sunfish All 0.3 4 Bass > 11" 127.0 41 Gambusia All 0.3 226 490.6 28,730 TOTAL Approximately 28,730 fish weighing a total of 491 pounds were recovered.
These fish were disposed of in the GGNS Burial Pit. Approximately 71% of the total weight and 98% of the total count were bluegill. Bluegill less than 3 inches in length accounted for approximately 89% of the total count. A detailed description of the fish count methodology and results is provided as Attachment V. J36AP085111501
l
" APO-85/1248 MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 1 .
Cause o
*s. l A check valve on the Betz Powerline 3641 addition system failed, allowing '
j Beta Powerline 3641 to. fill the piping system feeding the Plant Service Water i (PSW). When personnel started to pump Plant Service Water to another system, a chegical odor was noted and the system was flushed to the storm sewer until the odot was no longer present. The total amount of Betz Powerline 3641 discharged , was estimated to be between 40 and 100 gallons. i Actions to Prevent Recurrence Procedural requirements for chemical characterization of non-routine discharges before they occur have been strengthened. In addition, the Betz Powerline 3641 addition system has been redesigned to ensure a faulty check valve cannot lead to an unmonitored release to PSW. Isolation valves are also being installed on Outfalls 013 and 014 to allow quick isolation of Sediment Basins A and B. l l Conclusion j As a result of this discharge, the fish population of Sediment Basin B was i significantly reduced. It is important to point out that Sediment Basin B was never stocked with fish. Fish present in Sediment Basin B occurred through , natural means or occasional release by sport fishermen since it was constructed ! in 1974. Other wildlife present at Sediment Basin B such as turtle, alligator, l beaver and waterfowl were apparently not adversely affected by the discharge. The fish count following the discharge indicated Sediment Basin B was overpopciated with bluegill. Reduction in the bluegill population will eventually lead to a greater balance in the overall fish population. A full recovery of the aquatic system in Sediment Basin B it anticipated with no lasting environmental impact. If you have any questions about this report, please contact Dr. L. R. McKay, Manager, Radiological & Environmental Services, at 969-2432. Sincerely, gB/GOS/LRM:aly prc AkQt-Attachments cc: (see next page) . J36AP085111501 ; t
._ _ , ___ _ _._. ~ . - - . . _ _ . _ _ . ,
APO-85/1248 MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY cc: Mr. D. C. Lutken (w/a) Mr. M. L. Crawford (w/a) Mr. W. Cavanaugh, III (w/a) Ms. R. R. Jackson (w/a) Mr. O. D. Kingsley, Jr. (w/a) Mr. G. E. Anderson (w/2) Mr. T. H. Cloninger (w/a) Mr. G. W. Guider (w/a) Mr. J. E. Cross (w/a) Ms. G. R. Whitney (w/a) Mr. L. F. Dale (w/a) Mr. F. M. Lehmann (w/a) Mr. J. V. Parrish (w/a) Mr. Bob Rogers (MDNR) (w/a) File (NS) (w/a) Mr. Jim Hardage (MDNR) (w/a) File (Central) (w/a) Mr. Larry Hamil (MDNR) (w/a) Mr. Al Smith, Chief (w/a) U.S. EPA, Region IV (w/a) Environmental Emergencies and Regional Administrator (EPA) Response Branch 345 Courtland St., N.E. U. S. EPA, Regional IV Atlanta, Georgia 30365 345 Courtland St., N. E. Atlanta, Georgia 30365 Dr. J. Nelson Grace (w/a) Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission Region II 101 Marietta St., N. W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. Clarence Hickey (w/a) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission Mail Stop P314 Washington, D.C. 20555 , I
?
)
I J36AP085111501
M ATTAC10ENT I
SUMMARY
REPORT J36AP085111501
ATTACHMENT I ENVIRONMENTAL INCIDENT REPORT
- Name, address and phone number of owner or operator:
Mississippi Power & Light Company Post Office Box 1640 Jackson, Mississippi 39215-1640 (601) 969-2672
- Name, address and phone number of facility:
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS) Grand Gulf Road Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150 (601) 437-5260
- Date, time and type of incident:
- October 31 thru November 4, 1985
- Incident occurred intermittently over a 4-day period
- Betz Powerline 3641, a microbial control agent, filled the addition system piping due to a faulty check valve and was subsequently discharged to the storm sewer leading to onsite Sediment Basin B.
- Name and quantity of material (s) involved:
Bett Powerline 3641, a microbial control agent Approximately 40 to 100 gallons
- Extent of injuries (if any):
None
- Assessment of actual or potential hazards to human health or the environment (if applicable):
- There were no actual or potential hazards to human health as a result of this incident. All actual and potential environmental hazards were confined to onsite Sediment Basin B. Approximately 29,000 fish were killed in Sediment Basin B as a result of this incident. Other wildlife such as turtle, beaver, alligator and waterfowl were apparently not affected by the incident. A complete recovery of the Sediment Basin B ajuatic system is ,
expected. J36AP085111501 l l
- Estimated quantity and disposition of material recovered from the ,.
incident: -
- App'roximately 490 pounds of dead fish were recovered from Sediment
, Basin B. The fish were disposed of in the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Buriel Pit.
/ / N$
T. E. Reaves, Jr.Q (/ Date Director, Nuclear Support F J36AP085111501 l
ATTACHMENT II PRODUCT INFORMATION 9 J36AP085111501
- 7 . 8 D EM m .. . , u a . OTOCUCf 'OC"S 1 BETZ8 POWERLINE" 3641 MicrobialControl Agent e Synergistic blend of blocidalegents,dispersanta,and cha'actenstes of the system and seventy of the problem. Therefore, tNs product should be used in accordance with penetranta e Broad spectrum microbial control agervt tfn e Environmer.dt y safe-hydrofy2es naturetty POWERLINE 3641 should be fed undiluted to a point in the system where tufbulence and flow pattems will ensure ade-e Maximt.tes enoting tower and condenser efficiency quate mixing This product may be fed contouously or on an Intermrttent basis. DESCRIPTION AND USE Diaphragm pumps @ glass Skd polypropylene (GFP) or POWERLINE 3641 is a synergistic blend of biocidat spents. Teflon hquid side components are acceptable for use with dispersants and penetrants formutated to control bactena. POWERLINE 3641. Polyethytene or polypropylene feedimos , algae. and fungi growth in Power Industry coohng systems This patented blend of bromonstrostyrene (BNS) and methyt. am mcommended l ene t>sthocyanate biocides provides superor effectiveness on a broad spectrum of mcroorganisms over a wide pH GENERAL PROPERTIES J range Dispersants and penetrants m the formutaten control Appoamnce m m m m m m m m.m m clear hght yettw houid 9)e accumulation of algae masses and polysacchande de. Density (70F) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 lbs gal postts secreted by bacteria. Flash Pomt (closed c@) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140F POWERLINE 3641 effectrvety complements chlonnation pro- Freeze Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . < - 30F grams and other BETZ Merobial Control Agents by reduemg Broolcfeld Veconsty (70F) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 ces me tendency to develop mcroorganism strains which are pH (5% soluton) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 resistant to a single bioodat agent. By control' ng stime accu- (50% aceuten) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 mutatens. POWERLINE 3641 allows coohng towers and Store POWERLINE 3641 at temperatures between 40F and condensers to operate at maximum effeoency 120F. Recommended in staten storage herut e one year. It The POWERLINE 3641 formutaten and its use as a shme crystathzaten occurs, heat to > 40F and mas untd homogen. control agent are covered by U S. Patent 3.898.343. The sous. primary bocidat agent. BNS. is an exclusive sc vis.eN of SETZ Merobia! Control Agents and is not available in any SAFETY PRECAtJTIONS , competitive product. A Material Safety Data Sheet containing detailed mformaton POWERLINE 364t is registered for the control of bactenal. relative to this product is available upon request fungst. and algal shmes in furt>ne condensers. techng towers. heat exchangers, mftuent systems and water scrub- . hmg systems PACKAGING INFORMATION POWERLINE 3641 s M as a W and a W in TREATMENT AND FEEDING Weten, bung @ renatumab4 steel drums Appmp REQUIREMENTS mate not weight-440 pounds per drum. In addition. Proper treatment levels and frequent treatment for POWER- POWERLINE 364t is avaitable via buk dekvery senace sub-UNE 3641 will depend on many factors such as operstmg joct to nwwnum quantees. N escTz tasomatomes sec au moms AEsEnvtD
Sometton Road ElW I Devose. PA 19047 Tel.:(215) 355 3300 Tes:84 515e l- LABORATORIES. INC. - - - - .
., BETZ MATERIAL SAFffY DATA SHEET 'esseesseesseesse EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER 215/355-3300 EFFECTIVE DATE 8-84 F, NFPA PRODUCT g POWERLIkE 3641
- NEALTN = 2 e FI R E - 1
-----S E CT IO N 1 -----------H A Z A R DO US I N G R E DI E NTS -------------- e REACTIVITY-0 e SPECIAL - -
sesseessesseesse
! OSH A INGREDIENT PERMISSIBLE EIPOSURE LIMIT:
DIMETHYL FO RM A MI DE(SKIN)-30 MG/ M3 ACGIH INGREDIENT TLV-TWA: , DI MET H YL FO R M A MI D F. (S K I N) -30 MG / M3 ( ST EL s 60 MG / H3 ) ese CENERIC DESCRIPTION ese ; B-BROEO.B-WITROSTYRENE. METHYLENE BIS THIOCT AN ATE AND INERT INGREDIENTS. S
-----S E CTI O N 2-----------T Y PI C AL P N Y SI C AL D AT A-------------------------
PH: 505 EXTRACT (APPROI.) 33 B.PT.oF OR B. RANGE: >200 < l FL.PT.(DEG.F): 147 SETA(CC) SP.GR.(70/700F)0R DENSITY: 0 973 VAPOR PRESSURE (smHG): 8 VAPOR DENSITY (AIRS 1): >1 l VISC eps70nF: 14.8 5 VOLATILES: ND l IV AP .R AT E: (1 ETHERS 1 530LUBILITY(WATER): 0 l PHYSICAL ST ATE: LIQUID APPEARANCE: DARE GREEN TO AMBER
! ODOR: HYDROCARBON FREEZE POINT (DEG.F): <-30
-----SECTION 3-----------REACTIVITY DATA------------------------------ t THERMAL DECOMPOSITION YIELDS OIIDES OF C,N,3 OR P IF PRESEET, ;
STABLE l
-----SECTION 4-----------REALTH HAZARD EFFECTS------------------------ ,
ACUTE SKIN EFFECTsees i SEVERE IRRIT ANT TO THE SEIN. ABSORBED BY SEIN ACUTE EYE EFFECT$ese CORROSIVE To THE EYES ACUTE RESPIRATORY EFFECTSees IRRITATION OF UPPER RESPIRATORY TRACT. PROLONGED EIPOSURE MAY CAUSE DIZZINESS AND HEADACHE CHRONIC EFFECTSees
.CHR0kIC EFFECTS OF THIS FORMUL ATION N AVE NOT YET BEEN FULLT EVALUATED l l
-----SECTION 5------------FIRST AID INSTRUCTIONS---------------------- j SEIN CONTACTese REMOVE CLOTHING. WASH AREA WITH L ARGE AMOUNTS OF SO AP SOLUTION OR W ATER , j FOR 15 MIN.IMMEDIATELY CONTACT PHYSICIAN i EYE CONTACT *** !
IMMEDI ATELY FLUSH EYES WITH WATER FOR 15 MINUTES.IMMEDI ATELT CONT ACT A PHYSICI AN FOR ADDITION AL TREATMENT ,
- INH AL ATION EXP050REeee ,
I REMOVE VICTIM FROM CONT AMIN ATED AREA TO FRESH AIR. APPLY APPROPRI ATF FIRST AID TREATHENT AS NECESS ARY ] i INGESTIOyses ! OENERAL-D0 NOT FEED ANYTHING BY MOUTH TO AN UNCONSCIOUS OR CONVULSIVF VICTIM ! SPECIFIC- DO NOT INDUCE VOMITING.IMMED. CONTACT PHYSICI AN.DILUTF CONTENTS OF I STOMACH USING 3-4 OL ASSES KILE OR WATER
- OVER
]
l SIDE 2 th0 DUCT: 70WLNLIKE 3641
~ - .----SE CTION 6-----------SPILL . DIS POS AL AN D FI R E I NST RU CTIONS---------
SPILL INSTRDOTIONSese GENERAL-VENTIL ATE AREA,USE SPECIFIED PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT. CONT AIN AND. , - ABSORS ON ABSORBENT. .MATERI AL.PL ACE IN W ASTE DISPOS AL CONT AINE - CONTAMINATED ABSORBENT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A PESTICIDE AND DISPOSED OF IN AN APPROVED PESTICIDES L ANDFILL OR INCINEkATOR. , REMOVE IINITION SOURCES. FLUSH AREA WITH WATER.SPRLAD S AND OR ORIT. ACTIVE INGREDIENTS MAY BE DEGRADED BY TREATING WITH AN AQUEDUS S 55 SODIUM BYDROIIDE AND 55 SODIUM SULFITE OR SODIUM SISULFITE. AL EFFICIENT, A COMBINATION OF CAUSTIC SODA AND SODIUM TMIOSULFATE MAY ALSO BE U DISPOSAL INSTRUCTIONSees GENERAL-W ATER CONT AMIN ATED WITH THIS PRODUCT MAY BE SENT TO A SEWER,1N ACCORDANCE WITH ANY LOCAL AGREEMENT, A TREATMENT FACILITY OR DISCH ARGED UNDER A NPDES PERMIT PRODUCT ( AS IS)- INCINERATE OR BURY IN AN APPROVED PESTICIDE FACILIT FIkE EITINGUISHING INSTRUCTIONSese GENERAL-FIREFIGHTERS SHOULD WEAR POSITIVE PRESSURE SELF-CONT AINE BRE ATHING APP ARATUS(FULL F ACE-PIECE TYPE) . DRY CHEMICAL. CARBON DIOIIDE FOAM OR WATER
-----SECTION T-----------SPECIAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMZNT-----------------
TENTILATION PROTECTIONees ADEQUATE VENTIL ATION TO PAINT AIN AIR CONT AHIN ANTS BELOW EXPOSU RECOMMENDED RESPIRATORY PROTECTIONess IF TENTIL ATION IS IN ADEQU ATE OR SIGNIFICANT PRODUCT EIPOSURE IS LIKELY, DSE A RESPIRATOR WITH PESTICIDES FILTER /C ARTRIDGES RECOMMENDED SKIN PROTECTIONese G AUNTLET TYPE NEOPRENE GLOVES.CHEMIC AL RESISTANT APRON REPL ACE AS NECESS AMI RECOMMENDED EYE PROTECTIONees SPL ASH PROOF CHEMICAL GOGGLES. FACE SHIELD
-----SECTION 8-----------STORAGE AND RANDLING PRECAUTIONS------------- ,
STORAGE INSTRUCTIONSees GENERAL-EEEP CONTAINER CLOSED JPECIFIC- EEEP AWAY FROM FLAMES OR SPARES.CROUND DRUMS DURING FILl DISC,HARGE OPERATIONS : EANDLING INSTRUCTIONSese GENERAL-IMMEDI ATELY REMOVE CONT AMIN ATED CLOTHING,VASH BEFORE REUSE SPECIFIC- COMBUSTIBLE '
-----SECTION 9-----------FEDERAL REGULATIONS--------------------------
127 FIFRA(40CFR):EP A REG.No. 3 876-03H A(29CFR)-FOR RESPIRATORY PROTECTION USE PROPERLT FITTED hSH A/ APPROVED RESPIR ATORY EQUIPMENT WITHIN USE LIMIT ATIONS.0THER t AIR APPARATUS. i CV A(40 CFR) REPORT ABL E QU ANTITY : AS IS PRODUCT (H AEARDOUS SUBSTANCE) . !' TREAT AS OIL SPILL RCRA (40CFR): IF DISCARDED,TilS MATERI AL BEARS NVIf NOT APPLICABLE DOT ( A9 CFR) CL ASSIFIC ATION: COMBUSTIBLE TEIS FORM IS ESSENTI ALLY EQUAL 70 OSH A 20 PORM.WHILF THE INFORMA RE90MMENDATIONS SET FORTH NEREIN ARE BELIEVED TO BE ACCURAT DATE NEREOF BETZ L ABORATORIES,INC.MAEES NO WARR ANTY WITH RESPECT THERETO AND DISCL AIMS ALL LI ABILITY FROM RELI ANCE THEREON. MAROLD M. NERSH l ENVIRONMEFTALINFORFATIONCOORDINAT
........o.o.. . . _ _
De N1 ! Tel.:(215) 355 3300 % LABORATORIES, NC. Telen:so.sise
~
~~
.s, ,
PRODUCT: POWERLINE 3641 '., i 12/14/84e l AQUATIC T0XICOLOGY DAPHNIA MAGNA 05 MORTALITY: <0.155 NG/L , 48 MR. LC50: 0.8 MG/L ; BLUECILL SUNFISH i 05 MORT ALITY: <1.0 MG/L 96 ER. LC50: 1.0 MG/L RAINBOW TROUT i 05 MORTALITY: 0.57 MG/L 96 HR. LC50: 0.8 MG/L 12/14/83 l MAMMALIAN T0XICOLOGY ORAL LD50 - RAT : 7 86 MG/KG DERMAL LD50 - RABBIT : 1.4 GM/KG SKIN IRRITATION SCORE-NO DAT A EYE IRRIT ATION SCORE- RABBIT : 95 2NHALATION-NO DATA l l ADDITIONAL INFORMATION- . I EYE DATA:7 DAY TEST.MAIIMUM AVE.SCORF, DAY 3; IRREVERSIBLE l i l l l comana erot Prese*
- u s a )
1
t
, i Ip m.1 ;p, i. !
I! I l lliifillhlb'!sh!bil ! e m inl1 l r e !!!!!,,li l
!!!! i . .
g 11 lg
~$ !! !!!!
1 1 i
!!l i i il iI
;d ! > 8 li!!!!!i i i
,! s. Illi 'll l l0 "l! l l
= ' 'lai llihli!ll!!ilj'!!!!!! 6j'I!Llll i
IIIol1l1 lll1;il i u E. o.
- lid, I at I la 01111i inilli
ATTACHMENT III ANALYTICAL RESULTS J36AP085111501
ATTACHMENT III ANALYTICAL RESULTS The following is a discussion of the sampling points, methodology and results of the laboratory analyses performed by the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Chemistry Department and by Betz Laboratories, Inc., conducted in response to the November 4, 1985 fish kill at GGNS. Sampling Points Samples were collected from the various points described below and as shown in Figure 1:
- 1) Outfall 007 - East wing wall discharge into Sediment Basin B (Outfall 014)
- 2) Outfall 014 (Effluent) - Discharge outlet from Sedinient Basin B just prior to entering Stream B.
- 3) County Road - Point where Stream B from Outfall 014 passes into a culvert beneath county road Sample Collection The initial samples were collected employing the standard grab sample technique in both cubitainers and glass bottles. No discrepancies were noticed in the test results using both bottles and cubitainers; therefore, cubitainers were used as sample collectors.
ANALYTICAL METHODS Grand Gulf Chemistry Department The Chemistry Department performed analyses comparing various concentrations of standard solutions of Betz Powerline 3641 with the concentrations shown when a free available chlorine analysis was performed (Table I). Various dilutions of Betz Powerline 3641 ranging from 1 to 10 ppm were tested colorimeterically with the Hach DPD Free Available Chlorine Residual Test. The results were used to produce Table I which compares free available chlorine concentrations with Betz Powerline 3641. Betz Laboratories, Inc. Betz Laboratories performed Total Organic Carbon (TOC) analyses to indirectly determine the amount of biocide (Betz Powerline 3641) origiaally present in the sample (Table II). Bromide analyses were performed in accordance with American Standard Testing Method-D: 4327 (1984). Bromide was analyzed because it is a decomposition product of one of the active ingredients in Betz Powerline 3641 (Table II). J36AP085111501
CONCLUSIONS Results from GGNS Chemistry Department and Betz Laboratory, Inc. indicate some residual Betz Powerline 3641 (approximately 0.65 ppm) was still present at 2:07 p.m. on November 4. Sample results at 6 p.m. indicated a marked decrease in Betz Powerline 3641 concentration, with the active ingredient being below the toxic level of 0.8 mg/1. This is as expected due to the 5-hour chemical half-life of the active ingredients in Betz Powerline 3641. l l J36AP085111501 l
TABLE I GGNS CHEMISTRY DEPARTMENT ANALYSES RESULTS Free Chlorine vs. Betz Powerline 3641 Active Ingredients Concentration Betz Powerline Sample Date/ Time Sample Point Free Chlorine (ppm) 3641(ppm) 11/4/85 1407 County Road 0.02 0.15 11/4/85 1407 Outfall 007 0.08 0.70 1800 Outfall 007 0.02 0.15 11/4/85 1400 Outfall 014 (Effluent) 0.07 0.65 1815 Outfall 014 (Effluent) 0.02 0.15 t a J36AP085111501
TABLE II BETZ ANALYTICAL RESULTS - SEDIMENT BASIN B 11/4/85 Sample Points: Outfall 007 - Storm drain from plant, suspected of chemical contamination Outfall 014 Effluent - Sediment Basin B, from the outfall l County Road - 0.25 miles downstream of Sediment Basin B outfall I Betz Betz Powerline Powerline Sample 3641 ppe Bromide ppb PL-3641 ppe l Time l TOC ppe l i l i I l 007 l 1100 l 2.6 l 3.5 I 80 1 2.50 l l l l l l i 1.75 007 l 1500 1 1.1 l 1.5 l 56 l I I I I l ; Effluent I 1152 1 8.6 l 11.5 l 710 1 22.20 1 I I I I i' Cty Road I 1407 l 7.5 l 10.0 l 820 l 25.60 1 I I i ! i Betz Powerline 3641 values are based on the following assumptions: i
- 1. All of the Total Organic Carbon (TOC) was from Betz Powerline 3641 i
- 2. All of the bromides were from Betz Powerline 3641
- 3. Betz Powerline 3641 was 75% carbon
- 4. Betz Powerline 3641 was 3.2% bromine. l l
The difference in Betz Powerline 3641 levels based on TOC and bromides is due to the biological oxidation of carben which makes recovery of all of the carbon that was originally from Betz Powerline 3641 impossible. This l makes the TOC based numbers lower. No runoff sample upstream of Outfall 007 was available, so a blank could not be analyzed to determine background bromide levels. Actual Betz Powerline 3641 contamination was probably between the values predicted by these analyses. The estimated volume of Sediment Basin B is 4 million gallons. This value was used to calculate the estimated spillage of 40-100 gallons. l
\
l J36AP085111501 I
~
FIGURE 1 OUTFALL 007 BASIN B & EFFLUENT PATWAY , I ,.
*s.
RASIN R o
< m E 3 a
5
$ O STASTPIPE D'AIN
< r k i r i i1 1 2
k i G t~ C 2 N D 2 C d d
% r COUNTY ROAD
/ 3 s s S
f NAM 11. TON LAKE l
ATTACHMENT IV SEDIMENT BASIN B BI0 ASSAY J36AP085111501
ATTACHMENT IV SEDIMENT BASIN B BI0 ASSAY ; Scope This bioassay was designed to estimate the toxicity level of the golden shiner (Notemisorus crysoleucles) using the previously contaminated Sediment Basin B water to demonstrate "a safe" or "no effect" concentration. The test organisms were acquired from a local bait dealer and bagged in lots of 25 in oxygenated water. This same species was identified in the Sediment Basin B fish kill. Test Water and Dilution Water The test water was taken from Sediment Basin B's outfall and the dilution water from Sediment Basin A's outfall. The Sediment Basin A water was very similar to Sediment Basin B and had a healthy population of aquatic life. Water from both basins was transported to the laboratory in clearly . labeled barrels lined with plastic bags. ! Materials and Methods [ The test was conducted in static water with aeration using 25 shiners in each test chamber. Physical data on a representative sample of the shiners used in the bioassay is provided as Table III. The test chambers i were of glass and had a 10 gallon capacity. The cleaning technique used for the test chambers is described below:
- 1. Soak in tap water for five minutes and then scrub with a ;
detergent.
- 2. Rinse twice with tap water.
- 3. Rinse with 0.1N HNO3 to remove metals and bases.
- 4. Rinse twice with tap water.
- 5. Rinse with a fat solvent (full strength reagent grade ,
1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane) to remove organic compounds.
- 6. Rinse twice with tap water. -
- 7. Rinse twice with deionized water. l
- 8. Rinse with dilution water from Sediment Basin A.
The golden shiner test species was exposed to different concentrations or treatments of water as follows: Treatment 1. 100% dilution water + 0% test water Treatment 2. 75% dilution water + 25% test water Treatment 3. 50% dilution water + 50% test water Treatment 4. 0% dilution water + 100% test water J36AP085111501
After the water was placed in each test chamber, one plastic bag of shiners was placed in each test chamber to allow for temperature acclimation. Determinations for pH were made on the water in each test chamber and in each plastic bag holding the fish. The pH differences were adjusted by gradually adding water from each test chamber to the respective bag. The fish were allowed to acclimate in this manner for about one hour. The final acclimated temperature and pH were 17.8'C and 7.88, respectively. Results The 72-hour bioassay of Sediment Basin B started at 2:36 p.m. on November 5, 1985. Temperature, mortality and pH were checked every two hours for the first 24 hours of the bioassay. A log of the checks made during the first 24 hours is provided as Table IV. In the remaining 48 hours, checks were made three times per day. Dissolved oxygen levels were also monitored routinely throughout the bioassay and no appreciable changes occurred. The shiners showed no signs of difficulty during the 72-hour bioassay. No effects were observed at any of the concentrations and no differences were observed among the four concentrations. One mortality did occur in Treatment 3 (50% solution) at the sixth hour due to mechanical injury. With that one exception, all fish were in healthy condition and showed no signs of stress when the experiment was terminated. l l l J36AP085111501
TABLE III BI0 ASSAY FISH SIZE Golden Shiner No. - 1. 7.5 cm
- 2. 8.5 cm 3, 7.0 cm
- 4. 6.5 cm
- 5. 7.0 cm
- 6. 3.0 cm
- 7. 6.5 cm
- 8. 5.0 cm
- 9. 6.0 cm
- 10. 7.0 cm
- 11. 7.0 cm
- 12. 7.0 cm
- 13. 7.5 cm
- 14. 7.0 cm
- 15. 7.0 cm
- 16. 5.0 cm
- 17. 7.0 cm
- 18. 6.5 cm
- 19. 7.0 cm
- 20. 8.0 cm
- 21. 6.5 cm
- 22. 6.5 cm
- 23. 6.5 cm
- 24. 6.5 cm
- 25. 6.5 cm Total weight = 79.55 grams All fish were of uniform site with an average weight of 3.18 grams.
Average length = 6.78 cm J36AP085111501
TABLE IV SEDIMENT BASIN B BI0 ASSAY Treatment 1 Treatment 3 Treatment 2 Treatment 4 Control 50%* 25%* 100%* Hour Parameter A B A B A B A B pH 7.88 7.88 8.19 8.19 8.08 8.08 8.04 8.04 0 Temp. 18.2 18.2 18.2 18.2 18.3 18.3 17.9 18.0 Mort. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pH 8.34 8.32 8.32 8.32 8.26 8.39 8.30 8.20 2 Temp. 18.4 18.2 18.4 18.5 18.4 18.6 18.2 18.3 Mort. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pH 8.41 8.27 8.27 8.41 8.48 8.48 8.35 8.28 4 Temp. 18.6 18.4 18.7 18.7 18.7 18.7 18.5 18.7 Mort. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pH 8.41 8.48 8.27 8.42 8.34 8.49 8.31 8.27 6 Temp. 18.9 18.8 18.9 19.0 19.0 19.0 18.8 19.0 Mort. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 pH 8.43 8.49 8.27 8.42 8.35 8.50 8.29 8.28 8 Temp. 19.0 18.9 19.1 19.2 19.2 19.2 19.2 19.2 Mort. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pH 8.42 8.49 8.25 8.40 8.33 8.47 8.24 8.26 10 Temp. 19.3 19.0 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.2 19.4 19.5 Mort. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pH 8.42 8.49 8.27 8.42 8.33 8.48 8.20 8.26 12 Temp. 19.4 19.2 19.4 19.5 19.4 19.5 19.5 19.6 Mort. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pH 8.42 8.49 8.28 8.44 8.35 8.49 8.21 8.27 , 14 Temp. 19.6 19.3 19.4 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.6 19.7 l Mort. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pH 8.40 8.49 8.25 8.44 8.35 8.51 8.24 8.29 16 Temp. 19.6 19.4 19.5 19.6 19.6 19.5 19.6 19.7 Mort. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pH 8.42 8.50 8.32 8.47 8.31 8.52 8.27 8.30 18 Temp. 19.9 19.7 20.2 20.2 20.1 19.8 19.8 19.8 i Mort. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pH 8.42 8.50 8.27 8.44 8.33 8.48 8.28 8.26 i 20 Temp. 19.9 19.9 20.2 20.3 20.2 20.0 20.0 20.1 i Mort. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- Percent of Sediment Basin B water.
J36AP085111501
TABLE IV (cent'd) Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3 Treatment 4 Control 50%* 25%* 100%* Hour Parameter A B A B A B A B pH 8.42 8.49 8.26 8.43 8.33 8.49 R.27 8.25 22 Temp. 19.0 19.0 19.1 19.1 19.0 19.1 19.0 19.0 Mort. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pH 8.41 8.47 8.23 8.44 8 . 3 *. 8.40 8.25 8.23 24 Temp. 18.9 19.1 19.0 18.9 18.8 19.0 18.9 18.9 Mort. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No mortalities occurred in the next 48 hours and the pH and temperature remained stable.
- Percent of Sediment Basin B water.
J36AP085111501
O ATTAClefENT V SEDIMENT BASIN B CLEANUP i l l l J36AP085111501
ATTACHMEN1 V o SEDIMENT BASIN B CLEANUP Cleanup activities of dead fish in Sediment Basin B began on November 4, 1985 and terminated on November 11, 1985. There were no collectics activities on November 5, 9 and 10. Twelve either dead or dying largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) ranging in size from 1.5 - 4.4 pounds were collected by Environcental Surveillance Program personnel on the first day of the cleanup. Labor crews were organized on November 6 at 12 noon to begin an extensive cleanup of dead and dying fish in Sediment Basin B. Fish were collected from shore and by boat using 1/8-inch ace weave and 1-inch square mesh long-handle dip nets, short-handle fine mesh minnow nets and by hand. In addition, a k-inch screen wire box was constructed at the Outfall 014 effluent drain pipe to collect any dead fish draining into the receiving stream through the standpipe. Laborers brought the collected fish in buckets to a sorting table. Environmental Surveillance Program personnel sorted the fish into the following species and intra-species length classes (See Table V):
- Largemouth bass - all sizes
- Bluegill - > 6 inches in length
- Bluegill 6 inches in length
- Bluegill - < 6 inches in length
- Golden shiner - all sizes
- Mosquito fish - all sizes
- Green sunfish - all sizes A weight was taken on each species and intra-species length class to the nearest pound, with the exceptions of the mosquito fish and green sunfish, which were weighed to the nearest gram. A representative sample of 50 fish from each sorting class was weighed to the nearest gram and divided by 50 to determine the average weight of an individual in each sorting class (See Table V). These values were then used as the divisor against the net pounds of fish collected in that sorting class to obtain an estimated mortality value (in units. of individual fish).
The total estimated mortality was 28,730 fish weighing 491 pounds. Total weight and number of each species and intra-species length class collected were as follows: Type Weight (1bs.) % of Total Weight Count % of Total Count Largemouth bass 127.0 25.9 41 0.14 Golden shiner 16.0 3.3 315 1.1 Mosquito fish 0.3 0.0 226 0.79 J36AP085111501 l
Tm Weight (1bs) % of Total Weight Count % of Total Count Green sunfish 0.3 0.06 4 0.01 Bluegill > 6" 40.0 8.15 212 0.74 Bluegill 3"-6" 226.0 46 2,377 8.27 Bluegill < 3 " 81.0 16.5 25,555 88.9 The effluent stream between Sediment Basin B and Hamilton Lake was observed for possible fish mortality several times daily on November 4, 5 and 6. There were less than 25 dead fish found in the stream, with no dead fish observed in Hamilton Lake. All green sunfish were collected from the Sediment Basin B effluent stream just below the dam (See Figure 1). Some fish deaths in the stream occurred when Sediment Basin B was isolated and the fish were stranded on the concrete and rock just below the basin dam. Dead fish were also washed through the basin standpipe into the stream before the wire collection cage was placed at the basin discharge pipe. f
- t J36AP085111501
, TAtl.E V FISH KILL DATA I Collection Date l l 11/4/85 11/6/85 11/8/85 l 11/11/85 l TUTAL l AVG. Wr.
Common Name i l l
& I I I .I Scintific Name l l l l 11/7/85 l l i #l SiO2 Ranse . l Wt. 1 # ' l1bs./ Fish l Wt. 1 # l Wt. 1 # l Wt. 1 # l Wt. 1 #
l(Ibs) l Collected l(Ibs) l Collected l(Ibs) l Collected l(Ibs.) l Collected) l(Ibs) ICollected l 1 l 1 1 I I I l I I l l l l l l l LARGEMOUTH BASS l l l l Micropterus salmoides i 35 l 12 1 55 l 13 l 9 l 3 1 28 l 13 l 127 l 41 1 3.103 l 1 l l l l All sizes l l l l l 1 1 I I I i i l I l l l 1 l l l l B1xsGILL l l l 68 212 1 0.190 Leposis macrochirus 0 18 l 97 l 9 l 47 l 13 l l 40 l
, 1 0 l l l
l l l l l l l
> 6 inches l l I I I I I l l 1 I I l l l l l l l BL1EGILL l l l l Leposis escrochirus 1 0 l 0 l 127 l 1338 1 46 1 483 1 53 1 556 l 226 1 2377 1 0.095 l l l l l l 3 - 6 inches l l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 I I l l l l l l l BLUEGILL l l l3.180x10 _3 l l 0 l22,411 0 0 l 10 l 3144 l 81 125,555
- Leposis sacrochirus l 0 1 1 71 l 1 l
l l l l l l
< 3 inches l l l l I l l l l l 1 1
.l l l l l l l l l l l 001JEN SMINER l l l l Notemiaonus crysoleucasl 0 l 0 1 16 1 315 1 0 l 0 l 0 l 0 l 16 1 315 1 0.051 l l l l l l All sizes I i l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 l l
!s0sqUITO FISR l l l 1 226 l 1.32x10 8 cambnis affinis l 0 l 0 1 0.30 l 226 l 0 l 0 1 0 1 0 1 0.3 1 l l l l l l l l I l All sizes l l l l l l l l l l l
- l l l l I l l l l caEEN SUNFISH l l 4 1 0.077 Leposis cyanelius l 0 l 0 1 0.31 1 4 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0.3 1 l l i All sizes l l l l l I l I l l l 1 l l TOTAL 'l 35 l 12 l 287.6l 24,404 l 64 l 533 l 104 l 3781 1 491 l 28.730 l.
i j J20 CHART 85112103 $ _e. - - . - - _ - - - , . - -_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ._ _---__m . _ - _ _ _ _ .
- - - e---.- ...m - _- _ - ____ _ _+ --_
,p s:
-} ]'
MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Helping Build Mississippi P. O. B O X 16 4 0, J A C K S O N, MI S SIS SI P PI 39215-1640 April 30, 1986 O. O. KINGSLEY. JR. VICE PSEleDENT NGCLE AR OPERATOss U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, N. W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Attention: Dr. J. Nelson Grace Regional Administrator
Dear Dr. Grace:
SUBJECT:
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Unit 1 License No. NPF-29 Docket No. 50-416 File: 0260/15322 Annual Environmental Operating Report for 1985 AECM-86/0112 In accordance with Grand Gulf Nuclear Station's Facility License NPF-29, Appendix B (Environmental Protection Plan), attached is the Annual Environmental Operating Report for the period January 1 through December 31, 1985. Questions concerning the technical content of this report should be directed to Dr. L. R. McKay, Manager, Radiological & Environmental Services, at (601) 969-2432. sin r1, ODK:bms Attachment cc: Mr. T. H. Cloninger (w/a) Mr. R. B. McGehee (w/a) Mr. N. S. Reynolds (w/a) Mr. H. L. Thomas (w/o) Mr. R. C. Butcher (w/a) Document Control Desk (w/18) g U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission g
. Washington, D. C. 20555 ry
\
J20AECM86041402 . 1 Member Middle South Utilities System t}}