Text

Enclosure to AEP-NRC-2009-32 - Donald C. Cook, Units 1 and 2 - 2008 Annual Environmental Operating Report, Appendix V Through End
	ML091340525
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	04/29/2009
From:	; Indiana Michigan Power Co
To:	; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	AEP-NRC-2009-32, FOIA/PA-2010-0209
	Download: ML091340525 (245)
	v • d • e

APPENDIX V SPECIAL REPORTS 2008

August 15, 2008 EPA Acceptance of Supplemental Environmental Project

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 5 77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD 4o CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590 REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF:

SC-6J CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Lawrence J. Weber, Site Vice President Indiana Michigan Power Company One Cook Place Bridgman, MI 49106 Re: Indiana Michigan Power Company, Bridgman, Michigan- Consent Agreementand Final Order Docket No.: CERCLA-05-2004-0010, EPCRA-05-2004-0043, MM-05-2004-0003

Dear Mr. Weber:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had received and evaluated the Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) completion report from Indiana Michigan Power Company. This review compared the SEP completion report to the Consent Agreement and Final Order. Based on the terms of the CAFO and the information that you have provided, the EPA accepts the SEP completion report. Indiana Michigan Power Company has completed the SEP and the SEP completion report as per the terms of the CAFO.

If you have any questions or concerns about this matter please contact James Entzminger at (312) 886-4062. If you have any legal questions, please contact Richard Wagner, Associate Regional Counsel, at (312) 886-7947. Thank you for your assistance in resolving this matter.

Sincerely yours, ark J. Horwitz, Cief Chemical Emerge /cy Preparedness and Prevention Section cc: Richard Wagner (C-14J)

Kevin D. Mack, Esq.

American Electric Power 1 Riverside Plaza Columbus, OH 43215-2373 (certified)

Recycled/Recyclable . Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (50% Postconsumer)

February, 2008 Mexel Efficiency Study

ýMINICHIGA Aunit ol'Aimerui V,nEecticov 4 a'

olloe.;06 f. t :0.

A *.--4 Final Repor Februafy 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS REPORT INTRODUCTION ....... .. ...... ;..........*. .... *. ..... PAGE ABSTRACT.. . . . . . . . . ...................... ........ ...................

IN T R O D U C T ION .............................................................................................................................. *.............2 .

BACKGROUND ...................... ....................

ME T HO D S .. .. . ....... .................... .. . . ... ................. .. . .. . .-. .. . . . .. .. . . . .................. ...... *......... .. '....

': . ............. 12 METHODS................... . ............ . . . . . .

REPORT RESUfLTS ........ .................. ................. . . .. ...............................

ZEBRA M USSEL SAM PLING BIb .BOX DATA ..... ............... ................................................................................... 7 ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATEANALYSIS (CARBON STEEL METALCOUPONS).v. ........ 1...... .. . 9 ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE ANALYSIS (PLEXIGLASSBAFFLE PLATES) . .. ......... 10 TOTAL MUSSEL DEBRIS'COLLECTION /QUANTIFICATION ................................ . 1.1

- . .CORROSION RATE EV.ALUATION........ ........... 11..... v. ...... ............................13 INTERNAL IN"VESTIGATION AND OBSERVATIONS&.........-.............. ........ ......

.................................. 1.16

................. I ....... ..

TOTAL SUSPENDEDSOLIDS SLO GHOE RA E ............... ......... ......... :........................... ................................. ..... 17 M EXEL M ORTALITY EXPERIM ENT ................................ ................. .......................... .................

REVERSE OSMOSIS MEMBRANES ...;-;................ ................. ........ .......... IS O RG A N IC LO A D IN G .......... ................................................................................................................ ; . .............49 WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXINCITY TESTING

SUMMARY

(WET TEST) ............ ........ ...... .... 20ý REPORT CONCLUSIONS:................... .......

CONCLUSION&S.......... ...... . ......................

............ 23.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .... . .................................................................. . ........ ..............

..... 24 REFERENCES&......................................... .........

...... ... 2.

APPENDICES.......... .................... ..................... ... .................. ..............

...- APPENDIX.] -IMPACT STUDY OF MEXEL WITH CONTINUOUSFLOW RESEARCH:FACILIT.. ......

1 APPENDIX 2- CNP PROCEDURE I 2-EA6o09 6AE N -I101 ZEBR4f MUSSEL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS,.

APPENDIX 3- GLEC-WET TEST RESULTS AND CNP ZEBRA MUSSEL ANALYTICAL RESULTS .......

APPENDIX 4-MIXING ZONE'EVALUATION; .. .......................-.... w.......

APPENDIX 5- 5AST*M-PROCEDURE FOR WATER CORROSIVITY BY WEIGHT LOSS .....................................

APPENDIX 6 -AVISTA MEMBRANE AUTOPSY REPORT.;.. .........................

APPENDIX 7- H-'O`-H WATER TECHNOLOGYANALYTICAL RESULTS .........................

APPENDIX 8- ZEBRA MUSSEL MONITORING AND CONTROL ASSESSMENT REPORT;..,.;..-..... ...

APPENDIX 9WWATER & POWER TECHNOLOGIES - TECHNICAL ANALYSIS REPORT ....................

A Mexel Efficiency Study DC Cook.Nuclear Plant Final Report February, 2008

'Thomas Armon, Darius Barkauskas, Jon J. Cohen, EriciC. Mallen Abstract Mexel, a chemical. product-in the general classification of filming amines, has been'evaluated foir use as a Oreveitive molluscicide control.program at- AEP's Indiana Michigan Power.

Company Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Bridgm*an Michigan (CNP). Mexel is marketed as. a corrosion inhibitor, dispersant and control agent for cooling water systeimi fouling species. such as. muss~.1s and hydroids. A unique on-site research rfacility was constructed and operated' continuously for 365 days to, evaluate Mexel efficiency in preventing: zebra mussel infestation on cooliag Water intake tunnels at CNP. Stiandard and custom testing methods-were used to determine the performance of Mexel on modeled intake tunnels using natural popuVlations of zebra mussel trans-Iocatorsm. and larvae under dynamic conditions.

The findings~indicate that a Mexel product dosage regimen of 4 ppm, for 40 minutes/day illustrated:

Effectiveness in preventing infestation of zebra mussel colonies in: corrugated pipes patterned after CNP intake tunnels.

Reduced silt and sludge accumulation in flowing water circuits.

No degenerative fouling of reverse osmosis membranes.,

No rapid mussel detachment (sloughage) :of existing colonies from tunnel surfaces.

Minimal increase in organic loading of treated water circuits or receiving waters.

.No negatiVe impact on Great Lakes fisheries, aquatic life or wildlife when discharged, un-neutralized into Lake NMichigan as measured by whole effluent toxiAcil tests.

Fina!Repodrt - FebruAry 008 Mexel Efficiency Study Page 1 of 24 DC Cook Nuclear Plant 35

==

Introduction:==

CNP has: dealt with zebra mussel infestation since 1990 and. has employed many different treatment alternatives Three intake tunnels constructed 'of 16-foot diameter corrugated, galvanized steel pipe extend about 2,250 ft. from a comimon forebay. Corrugations in this pipe are 6 inches wide (peak to peak) and '2-inches deep. Flow patterns enable. zebra mussel attachment to,the tunnels typically in the top: and downstream side of the corrugations. Once zebraý mussels have attached to the tunnels,, they populate and grow as individuals or in "clumps"' as they attach .to one another.

Zebra mussels can accumulate to a thickness of two to four inches during peiods of -reduced flow butare typically limited Ito one to two inches at normal velocity, This is dueto-mussels sloughing off the tunnel w6lls whenrthe.-mussel layers exceed 2 iniches. Thewater velocity -in the intake tunnels is 6 to7 fps, strong enough to carry clumps of detached mussels into the intake forebay. Mussels in these clumps-will either-reattach to0 the intake forebay walls or be gathered by the traveling water screens. When sloughing rates are naturally high lor following shock 'treatments (treatments designed'to kill 'all accumulated mussel populations within a 2 to 4 day period), the traveling Water screens and'the trash removal system are challenged to remove the mussel debris at the same: rate, at 'which the debris enters. the. intake forebay. The-traveling screens have been overcome by large influxes of debris as. washing operations.

require traveling screen shutdown to allow.the trash collection baskets to be emiptied and fork.

lifted' to 20: cubic yard dumpsters for removal by a waste hauler off site. The clay 'used to detoxify shock treatment: biocides has resulted in plugging of small bore piping systems d6whstream of the traveling screens. The "effect:ofthese difficulties is, degraded operation of CNP's 'cooling water system.,

To reduce this risk, CNPreplaced the flow through traveling water screens with multi-disc6 traveling water screensin 2004,4and upgraded the screen' wash systdem to handle, higher-trash and shell debris loading rates.-in addition, the new 'screens preclude 'all carry over debris.

These 'improvements have reduced the challenges posed- by mussel debris: but have not eliminated the problem. The sloughage of shells caný potentially block flow in the safety related service water systems. Given this' challenge, CNP hasý continued ,to.search for'a zebra mussel preventive control program that does not require a shock feed cycle, prevents infestation, does not cause rapid sloughage Of 'existing populations, and does not require detoxification for safe discharge into Lake Michigan, Mexel was chosen for careful evaluation as a Water treatment additive under standard and. cuSto techniques described later In.this report.

Background

Mexel is a, proprietary molluscicide that has been used in freshwater and saltwater:systems worldwide. Kreuser. et al, (1997), wrote a review of the efficacy of Mexel in fresh iad salt water cooling systems. Mexel is a-"filming annine which,' when properly applied to a cooling system, forms a film on system surfaces that is believed to prevent zebra'mussel, settlement as the control mechanism 'rather' than creating a toxic water column as the controlling effect.

Toxicological effects of Mexel have been widely studied in both freshwater and saltwater.

(Ghillebaert; 1997 & McCaulley, 2005), Biodegradation of Mexel was also demonstrated and documented. However, prior to this study there had been little published. informatioh.

concerning the effect of Mexel on: existing zebra mussel infestations on 'corrugated pipe in freshwater applications. InformationT had been especially -limited regarding the application o6f Mexel on the CNP intake tunnels, Lake Michigan water, and the removal of a previously established population.

Final Report- February 2008 Mexel Effiqieiicy.Study Page 2 of 24 DC Cook Nuclear Plant

Power plants are complex industrial facilities that contain integrated components constructed of different materials performing a variety of functions. Any chemical product added at the intake must be compatible with all materials of construction that treated water contacts in the plant. For example, membranes in the reverse osmosis (R/O) units are susceptible to contamination by complex organic molecules. In part, the design of this study was to provide more information regarding Mexel's compatibility with plant systems and impact on corrosivity.

To provide robust modeling data, this study was designed using a modular custom fabricated continuous flow research test rig. The goal was to design and safely operate a model that assimilated tunnel conditions without interrupting normal plant operations. Continuous flow research facilities have been used to model effectiveness of molluscicide control programs on once through cooling water systems, (Ackerman/Claudi, 1994). Modular flow-through design using natural populations have previously provided robust data that enabled treatment modeling for plant systems under dynamic conditions.

Once installed, the rig was operated for 365 consecutive days to ensure accurate representation of a complete growing and larval season, fluctuating water temperatures, and dynamic silt loadings. In summary, the pilot test rig experienced a contiguous year of the naturally variable conditions imparted by Lake Michigan on CNP.

Images of the Modular Test Rip Final Report - February 2008 Mexel Efficiency Study Page 3 of 24 DC Cook Nuclear Plant 6

Methods I. Design The design Specifications, as. built diagram, and scopeof theý modular apparatus can*be found in Appendix: I. Briefly,, the apparatus was constructed with three separate flow trains of. corrugated pipes ,to; simulate the corrugation of the intake tunnels. One pipe was used as a control, receiving only untreated lake water at flow velocities comparable to thosei in'the intake tunnels. A second pipe operating at the same velocity as the control was treated with the daily Mexel dosage projected for full scale tunnel-treatment. The third pipe was operated at a lower velocity to enable zebraý mussel growth and. colonization without rapidly, moving water streams:. It is believed, the velocity within the third section accurately models the velocity: within the tunnel corrugation trough bottoms.. :Sections of thfeý growth pipes were oalso used to study Mexel's effect on existing infestations to, conmparatively evaluate sloughage under the normal dosage regimen. To acceleratethe fouling process in the growth section, several handfuls of live musSels were collected from the traveling screen trash baskets and loaded 'into this section.

I. Chemical and Biological Evaluations By Standard Procedures:

1. The efficacy of Mexel was studied using CNP procedure 12,EA-6090-ENV-101 Zebra Mussel Sampling and Analysis, found in, Appendix 2 attached. Results of these procedures can be found attached under Appendix, 3. This procedure is! based' on "Standard, Protocols for Monitoring, and Sampling Zebra Mussels'" by J. Ellen Marsden, Illinois NaturalHistory Survey 1992.

2. The method :used for determining safe, Mexel discharge concentration to Lake Michigan is based on "Mixing Zone Evaluation" by D.J. McCauley of GLEC, 2005. found in Appendix 4. Whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing was performned by GLEC in accordance with EPA/600/4-90/027 and EPA-82 1-Rm02-012.

3. Corrosion evaluation wasperformed in accordance with the Annual book of ASTM Standards. Section 11' Water. & Environmental Procedure D26889'StandardTest Methodfor Water Corrvosivity by Weight Loss found in Appendix 5,attached.

4. Water analyses were performed iri.accordance with Standard Methodsfor the Examination of Water and Wastewater 20th Edition.\

5. Total Suspended Solidsr residue: was also performed ýin accordance with Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater 20th Edition.

Final Report - February 2008 MexeLdEfficiency Study Page 4 of 24 DCCook Nuclea-rPlant

III. Custom Techniques for Evaluation

1. The test rig was.1 co~nstructed of three stainless steel corrugated pipe sections. Flow was& controlled by throttling. valve. position and flow shunting through the stantd-by water delivery pump installed in parallel to the main delivery pump. Flow velocity Was confirmed. by both paddle wheel and magnetic. type, flow meters. At the surface in the tunnels the velocities are much lower (I to 2 fps). Eddies created by the corrugations allows larval and juvenile mussels to settle on the downstream side of the corrugations (Zebra Mussel monitoring and control agsessment report

CR-033440!3 Appendix 8),

The test rig nodeled the teducedvelocity at thetunnel surface and in the troughs by two-techniques;

i. installed ig pipe.. corrugations ii. The velocity (1 to2 fps) of the-third section (grbWth).,

2 BoroscopJc inspections of the. test rig corrugated pipe, sections. were performed monthly: to. progressively evaluate settlement control and. to compare with previous remoteý operated..vehicle inspections (ROV) of.the, maintunnels.

.3. Artificial substrates. were deployed and analyzed. under Standard Procedurel above, The artificial substrate analysis included carbon steel, metal specimen- corrosion' coupons installed in a controlled velocity test rack. Plexiglass, baffle. plates installed in the bioboxes to produce more uniform flow patterns were also treated as artificial subýstrates and used to

'estimate zebrao mussel accumulation rates. After-the study was complete

'(2) 1-inch scrapings Were taken from each baffle plate and analyzed using the sameprocedure for the slides and coupons.

4. To quantify and compare total settlement during the study; a simple collection procedure was, developed. The middle pipe section of each flow.v train! (treated, control, and growth)was sayed post project and sealed to preserve collected shell and debris loads. The pipes~were pow'er Washedl at 2,200 psi aýd ar ticulated to ensure removal fromtrough corrugations, The,

water .slurry (debris loaded wash water) was. collected for.. filtration through coarse mesh filter spcreens. The: separated solids were photographed, transferred to a storage pail, dried and then weigfhed to determine. the amount. of debris that was collected !in each flow cell. The

.relative, quantities were used to extrapolate the treated reduction. of shell debris at the studied treatment regime.

Final Report - February 2008. Mexel EffiiencyStudy Page 5 of 24 DC Cook Nuclear Plant

'5. Given the risk. that rapid deihfestatiodn upon initial fil scale, Mexel treatments could challenge the screen house, two custom techniques were employed. To understand Mexel's impact on existing populations, filter baskets were ;added to capture mussel sloughage. detaching- from. the surface, of both treated and untreated pipe sections., Each week the baskets.

were removed from the flow streams,, observed, cleaned, and placed back in. service. The Volume and mass of mussel debris collected in the baskets was assumed to be an estimate of the: relative debris in :treated vs.

untreated intake, tunnels. Flow rate indicators, were used to quantify consistent volume of flow. Comparative photographic inspections- were used ýto judge rates of sloughage and overall system cleanliness. Relative mussel sloughage rates by' Mexel were made with this 'technique by comparative visual observation of the filter baskets.

6. A Mexel mortality, experiment Was devised to further understand the impact Mexel would. have on healthy colonies. it is believed that a, more rapid "die, off' of healthy mussels treated with Mexel would model a rapid detachment .of healthy colonies in the tunnels at full scale: treatment. Two hundred live healthy zebra mussels collected from screen house, trash baskets were loaded into separate, stainless steel wire cages, one for the treated ;and oneý for the control biobox. The treated. biobox received its normal daily dosage of Mexel while: the: control, received untreated lake water. Each weelk mortality was, evaluated by counting the numbrers of surviving mussels in the treated cage and the control cage.

-7. To, evaluate the impact on the. make-up plant 'system, a model reverse osmosis (R/O) system was placed on the treated flow stream.a The R/O Was.

operated continuously and received untreated.. Lake Michigan: water, as its make-up ýsource for.23 hours2.662037e-4 days 0.00639 hours 3.80291e-5 weeks 8.7515e-6 months 20 minutes :per day, and for the final 40 minfites the R/O received- Lake Michigan water treated with Mexel at thee studied dosage regimen. The: RIO membranes treated With Mexel were autopsied by H-O-H pro:cedure:#RO! 23 and compared against autopsiesý from the Avista Technologies membrane autopsy report: (Appendix 6) from July 2003, Which had. been performed to evaluate'the impact of GE Spectrus CT1300 (a competing chemical additive product), on fouled R/O miembranes.

8., To measure the impact ,of rganic, loading that a preventive treatment approach would add t' the CNP Water distribution system aswell as Lake, Michigan,, total, organic. carbon and total 'organic nitrogen were analyzed.

Organic loading iinparts unintended deleterious' effects on water. systems such as microbial. contamination and growth as well as unwanted sediment. Grab samples were collected weekly: from the test rig smfiple ports and analyses for TOC, 'TON, and general. water chemistry, were performed at H-O-H Chemicals' laboratories in Palatine, IL, Final Report - February 2008 Mexel Efficiec'4y Study Page 6:of 24 DC Cook Nuclear Plant

Results::

The analytical data gathered during thei study are in Appendices 3 and 7. This includes water and corrosion analyses: performed by H-O-H laboratories, in Palatine IL, who le effI uent toxicity testing by GLEC Labiorgatries, Traverse City M!, density and- size evaluation by CNP personnel,: collection of data from online instrumentation, field testing, and' custom techniques by: CNP and H-0-H personnel. Theo following, is a graphic 'illustrafion of the

.results accompanied by writtenr interpretation.

Zebra Mussel Sampling-Biobox Data Post-ýveliger biobox data for zebra mussel population density and, average size,:as§ measured by CNP procedure: 12-EA-6090IENV-Il 0Zebra Mussel Sampling and Analysis protocol are shown in Table. I 'for those slides exposed during the experiment. The table shows the mean value of the population density as well as:the standard, deviation for each sampling date, The final set ofslides which were exposed for one .full year is shown graphically in Figure 1.

Tabled -Post-Veliger Biobox Data

Control ;Treated, Mean"Post-Veliger standard Mean Post-Veliger Stndard Sa-mple Date Population Density Population Density Deviation (Number/m2) Deviation (Number/mn 2

).

September !13; 2006 427 754 1;067' 533 7September 28, 2006t .1,1731 911 1,813: 1,917

'October 12,2006 2,560; 3;0961 14,933 19,827 October,25,'2006 8,960- 4,453. 13,653 106966f November 9, 2006, . 40,107 8,057' 28,907 18,456 December.7,2006 85,440 40,100 60,800 12,672.

June 7, 2007 108,978, 17,804 39;289 4,473 August 23; 2007 553,600 125,2051 131,947. 41,204:

The standard deviation was determined by calculating the mean value0of each Sample date.

The' sqiuared4 difference of, ea*h sample from the mean valvie was then calculated.;, The average of the squared difference is the variance of the,-sample date. The standard deviation is the square root"of the variance. This is iIlustrated ýin Equations I and 2.below.

Equation (1): Sample Mean of Sample Date Where:

Sample Mean= x = " Ex.

e (.) is thernean of the sample date

(N)'is the numbers of samples on the sample date

(4j) Is theý sample value Ecuation.(2): Standard Deviation Where:

StandardDeviation-*r=,- .(x1 - X)r (a)'is theJ'standard-deviation Ni=I"

(N),.is the numbers of'samples on the

'sample date

(xd is the sma-ple value,

. (x,),is the mean of the sample date.

Final Report - February 2008' Mexel Efficiency Study

'Page 7 of 24 DC Cook Nuclear Plant,

Initial data from September 13, 2006 to October 25, 2006 suggests that the control slides were performing better than the treated slides. The November 9, 2006 sampling marked the first time when the treated slides were performing better than the control slides. During this same sampling date an independent observer noticed that water flow in the bioboxes was potentially short-circuiting and not getting to the surface of the slides. The observer recommended installing baffle plates to redirect the flow to the bottom of the biobox to prevent the short circuiting and direct the flow across the slides. The biobox baffle plates were installed on November 16, 2006. (See Figures 3 & 4 for baffle plate images.) All subsequent sampling dates showed a dramatic improvement in the treated slide data. This suggests that Mexel performs best when it is allowed to reach the surface of the test substrate.

AEP, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant H-O-H A-432 (Mexel) Testing Post-Veliger Density & Average Post-Vellger Size Control vs. Treated Population Reduction - 76n Avefa* Siz Reduction - 46%

60,000 2,500 ..... .... . ... . .

I, 500.000

i~r De79Oion Cotrl-W lu

>,400.000 Ta* Conro

-- -j)#1S 500 12s 41,00.0., 1000o a 300°000 500 200,000

> 100.000 i ,.ent - -

Crnultit-Ye Settset Currudetlvt I-Yewn Setttemnent I ýý ý7441"ý Figure 1 - Post- Veliger Density, Treated vs. Control (Glass Microscope Slides)

Figure 1 illustrates Mexel treated and control biobox slides. Cumulative settlement (1 year) population density was reduced by 76% as compared to the control group. Average post-veliger size, also illustrated in Figure 1, indicates a reduction in size by a cumulative average of 46%. The population and size reduction shown is based on an average of 5 slides in each biobox that were exposed for one year.

Final Report - February 2008 Mexel Efficiency Study Page 8 of 24 DC Cook Nuclear Plant ko

Artificial Substrate Analysis (Carbon Steel Metal Coupons)

Metal coupon strips were also used to determine post-veliger density and size by CNP procedure 12-EA-6090-ENV-101 Zebra Mussel Sampling and Analysis protocol and are shown graphically in Figure 2. Standard corrosion coupon racks, built to ASTM standards, were incorporated into both treated and control flow trains. Flow velocities were also controlled accurately through Dole flow control valves designed to maintain consistent velocity (6.0 ft/sec) through these assemblies.

AEP, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant H-0-H A-432 (Mexel) Testine Post-Veliger Density & Average Post-Velilger Size from Steel Coupons Control vs. Treated Population Reduction.- 77t6 1200 Average Size Reduction A SSO.000 - ----

1.000 ContStadar I Deviat8ion8~

250.000 Tr ol * (Te

-) 432 pan 400 I ' 20*

Cumulative (S6 Day) Settlement Cumulative (56Da)settlement U Conro Treated Figure 2 - Post-Veliger Density, Treated vs. Control (Steel Coupons)

Figure 2 illustrates Mexel treated and control corrosion coupons. Cumulative settlement (56 days) population densities were reduced by 77% as compared to the control group. Average post-veliger size, also illustrated in Figure 2, indicates a reduction in size by a cumulative average of 66% as measured on metal coupons. The population and size reduction shown is based on two carbon steel metal coupons that were exposed for 56 days.

Final Report - February 2008 Mexel Efficiency Study Page 9 of 24 DC Cook Nuclear Plant

Artificial Substrate Analysis (Plexiglass Baffle Plates)

Baffle plates were installed to prevent short-circuiting and to direct flow to the bottom of the biobox where the slide racks were located. Images of the baffles were taken for the record and can be seen as Figures 3 & 4. The results are shown in Figure 5.

Figure 4 - Control Baffle Plate AEP, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant H-O-H A-432 IMexel) Testing Post-Veliger Density & Average Post-Veliger Size from Blobox Baffles Control vs. Treated Population Reduction- 8206 -0%

1400-35,000 ________ ..

301M Cor.trol ( 14,257 Can"roi- (+/-) 3.232 Treated- 6/-)4S80 I Treated- +-/-179r -

20,000... .+

ISC-300 V 10.00

> 200 0-10 Month Exposure 10Month Exposre EContra Tr.t'd Figure 5 - Post Veliger Density, Treated vs. Control (Biobox Baffles)

Figure 5 illustrates Mexel treated and control baffle plates. Cumulative settlement population densities were reduced by 82% as compared to the control group. Average post-veliger size, also illustrated in Figure 5, indicates a reduction in size by a cumulative average of 80% as measured on baffle plates. The population and size reduction shown is based on two baffle plates that were exposed for ten months.

Final Report - February 2008 Mexel Efficiency Study Page 10 of 24 DC Cook Nuclear Plant

Total Mussel Debris Collection / Ouantification Flow to the test rig was established after installation on August 30, 2006. Other than periodic maintenance and inspection outages (2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months max.) flow to the rig ran uninterrupted until project completion on August 29, 2007. Upon completion, the center section of each of the flow trains was sealed to capture mussels and debris. Each cell was carefully disassembled off-site and the debris was collected by Custom Technique #4 above. This sample represents the expected difference between treated and untreated intake tunnels.

Figure 11 - Final Mussel Debris Collection Amounts Final Report - February 2008 Mexel Efficiency Study Page 11 of 24 DC Cook Nuclear Plant

Total Mussel Debris Collection / Ouantiflcation. continued The mussel debris was collected and transported to H-O-H Chemicals to determine volume and weight collected from all three spool pieces. Table 2 illustrates that a total reduction of 98.7% in mussel shell debris by weight in treated vs. untreated and 95% reduction by volume. Figure 12 displays this data graphically.

Table 2 - Total Mussel Debris Collection / Quantification Data Table Sample Weight Collected, (g) Volume Collected, (mL)

Treated 1.72 <10 Control 136.26 200 Growth 1764.50 4000 Treated vs. Control Weight Reduction, (%) 98.7 %

Volume Reduction, (%) 95.0 %

AEP, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant H-0-H A-432 (Mexel) Testlni Mussel Debris Harvest Quantification Growth, Control, & Treated 1600 L/

Iw 1400 I Iwo a00 0 400-,"

ZO' I-Yea A~curulat~a I *Grwtdh *CadmUc ~ Tteaftd I Figure 12 - Mussel Debris Collections Quantification Graph Final Report- February 2008 Mexel Efficiency Study Page 12 of 24 DC Cook Nuclear Plant I-

Corrosi6n Rates'Usine Mexel Table. 3 sh6ws corrosion rates for -steel coupons exposed to Mexel treated water versus untreated. water. Mexel treated coupons had-a 23% reduction in corrosion. rates. This. is based on the Weight loss differential intreated vs. untreated. Corrosion rate evaluations in tmils per.

year (MPY) are established by H-O-H guidelines for. cooling water- systemns and are listed in Table,4.

Table 3 -. Corrosion Coupon.Results, Treated Coupons, Cumulative, Coupon No. Material Days Treatment Weight: Corrosion Evaluation Exposed Loss,(g) Rate,.(MPY)

T-75K, Steel 43 Mexel 0.2989 3:89 Fair T.-75J Steel 43 MeXel 0.2947 3.84 Fair T-80P1 Steel 56 Mexel 0.4109 4.11 Fairý T-80R. Steel 56 Mexel 06.190 6.19 Poor T-83K' Steel, 200 Mexel 04594 1:29 Good Average Steel' 100 Mexel* 0*4166 3.86 Fair Control Coupons, Cumulative, Coupon No.: Material Days Treatment Weight Corrosion Evaluation Exposed: Loss, (g). gate, (MPY_)

T-'75I Steel 43 None 0.6537 8.51 Unacceptable T-75L Steel, 43 None *0.6093 7.94 UnriAdeptable T-80Q Steel 56 None 0.3446 -3.45 . Fair T-80S. Steel' 56, None 0.3594 3.59 Fair T-83L Steel 200- None 0.4761. 1.33 Good AVerage, Steel. 100 None 0.4886 ] 5.00 1 Poor Table 4-- Corrosion': Coupon Evaluation Standards (MPY)

Evaluation Steel Excellent 0.00 - 0.99.

Good 1.001- 2.99 Fair 3.00 - 4.99 Poor 5.00-6.99 Unacceptable -7.00 - Over Final Report-ý February 2008 Meixel Efficiency Study Page [3 of 24 DC Cook Nuclear Plant

)G

Internal Investigation and Observations Video boroscope evaluations of treated, control, and growth flow trains (pipes) were performed at regular intervals during this study. Figures 13, 14, and 15 illustrate typical results of the internal investigation of the spool pieces.

Final Report - February 2008 Mexel Efficiency Study Page 14 of 24 DC Cook Nuclear Plant I 'o

Internal Investigation/Observations, continued Figures 13, 14 & 15 are still photographs captured from boroscopic video inspections near the completion of the trial. The video inspections indicate the test rig compares well with observations made during previous remote operated vehicle (ROV) inspections of the 16-foot diameter tunnels. The untreated control and growth sections of the test rig reveal similar fouling patterns. The mussel attachment is observed in the upper portions (9 o'clock to 3 o'clock) of the tunnels and flow trains while the bottom sections are cleaner. This is believed to be the result of the scouring effect suspended solids and debris have on the bottom sections of the tunnels as well as the control and growth sections of the test rig.

Also, the mussel attachment is found on the downstream side of the corrugations. Colonies up to several inches thick have been observed in the 16-foot diameter tunnels as they attach to the metal within the corrugation troughs. This pattern is clearly observed in both the control and growth section of the test rig. Figure 14 shows colonization within the corrugation troughs and Figure 15 illustrates clumps of zebra mussels thriving in the low velocity environment. The velocity in this section is believed to be parallel to the downstream side of the corrugation troughs and trough bottoms in the 16-foot diameter tunnels.

In the test rig the dimension of the trough limits the numbers of colonies in the control section. However, the attachment and infestation mechanics are the same. The growth section confirms similar behavior as the tunnel corrugation troughs illustrated by colonization and clumping.

Figure 13 is a snapshot of a Mexel treated section of the flow train. Infestation patterns are not found in this section. The trough bottoms are free of attached zebra mussels and only widely scattered individual mussels were observed in this section of the test rig.

Figures 16 and 17 show the bioboxes after completion of the study. The orifices shown are the biobox outlets. From a visual inspection, the difference in population density and size is apparent.

DSOtAAOewDClaG ftFc Figure 16 - Treated Biobox Figure 17 - Control Biobox Final Report - February 2008 Mexel Efficiency Study Page 15 of 24 DC Cook Nuclear Plant I-]

Total Suspended Solids Suspended Solids in any water system typically contribute to flow restrictions, plugging and debris loading. In an effort to understand solids loading, each week water samples were collected from both the treated and untreated flow circuits of the test rig. Total suspended solids were measured on each sample as the residue on a 0.22 micron filter in accordance with Standard Methods. The results show a reduction in suspended solids in the treated samples. These results are shown graphically in Figure 18 below.

AEP, Donald C.Cook Nuclear H-O-H A-432 (Mexel) Testint Percent Reduction of Total Suspended Solids Treated vs. Control 0%

0 ,

Z7014

~30143 0%-~

I ~IIIRtIIIIRRI

~qk' ~-~- - '~b *~* *@.b ~ -

Thre Figure 18 - Total Suspended Solids Reduction Figure 19 shows the visual difference of a treated vs. control sample in water clarity photographically. This potentially impacted the cleanliness of the bioboxes and test rig. It seems safe to conclude, that for reasons undetermined from the sampling, Mexel causes the rate of settling of particulate matter in the lake water to pass through the bioboxes and the test rig. Mexel will likely have a similar affect on the particulate matter passing through CNP's cooling water distribution system.

Figure 19 - Water Clarity (Treated vs. Control)

Final Report - February 2008 Mexel Efficiency Study Page 16 of 24 DC Cook Nuclear Plant

Figure 20 is a typical picture of two filter baskets during a weekly inspection, one from the Mexel treated flow train and one from the control flow train. Based on visual observation, the filter baskets from the Mexel treated flow stream consistently showed fewer mussel trans-locators, less mud, and less silt in the treated filter baskets compared to the untreated filter .tCr,,, C, baskets.

Figure 20 - Sloughage Filter Baskets Slouahaae Rate Figure 20 also illustrates that the Mexel treated circuit caught fewer mussel debris and trans-locators. No increase of debris was found when fouled pipe sections of the growth flow train were installed in place of clean pipe sections on the treated flow train. Under this line-up healthy attached colonies were exposed to normal treatment dosage.

Mexel Mortality Exneriment

................. iI ---- F ........

To quantify potential impact on sloughage, a zebra mussel mortality experiment was devised.

Two hundred live healthy zebra mussels collected from screen house trash baskets were collected and placed into the treated and control bioboxes. The treated biobox received the daily dosage of Mexel and the control received untreated lake water. Live vs. dead mussel counts were made each week for five weeks. Zebra mussels exposed to Mexel illustrated a mortality rate equal to those not exposed to Mexel in the control biobox. Table 5 illustrates the relative mortality rate over a 5 week period. Therefore a massive sloughage of zebra mussel debris would not be expected should a daily application of Mexel at the 4 ppm dosage be initiated on a pipeline infested with zebra mussels.

Table 5 - Zebra Mussel Mortality Study Live Treated Mussels Live Control Mussels Start 100 100 I Week 81 76 2 Weeks 80 75 3 Weeks 80 75 4 Weeks 78 73 5 Weeks 74 70 Final Report - February 2008 Mexel Efficiency Study Page 17 of 24 DC Cook Nuclear Plant

Reverse Osmosis Membranes (R/O)

Zebra mussel chemical control agents can severely damage R/O membranes within the CNP make-up plant. (Water & Power Technologies, Technical Analyses Report, 2003 Appendix

9). As part of this study water from the Mexel treated flow stream was fed through a small R/O unit that contained the same membrane material that is in the CNP R/O system, Dow Filmtec Polyamide (PA) thin-film.

AEP, Donald C. Cook Nuclear HUO-" A432 (MaxerL T i..na Fouled RO Membrane Deposit Analysis other 4.3%

40.1% 53.2%

UCuIcim scaboeame *iiagnelwm i Figure 21 - Fouled Membrane Analysis R/O membrane autopsy results are shown in Figure 21. The test rig model illustrated no contamination with Mexel. Calcium and magnesium carbonates were analyzed to be 95.7%

of the deposit material on the R/O membranes. Autopsy results from the membrane failure in 2003 were determined to be deposits of clay and biota. The membranes installed in the test rig make-up plant model are the same as those operated by CNP, Dow Filmtec Polyamide (PA) thin-film. PA membranes are a thin layer of aromatic polyamide extruded onto a polysulfone substrate. The PA membranes intentionally have a negative (anionic) surface charge and are commonly fouled by cations. Highly charged cationic surfactants and cleaning chemicals are typically not recommended for contact with PA membranes. The fouling that occurred during dosage of GE Spectrus CT1300, a cationic quaternary ammonium compound, is theorized to have conditioned colloidal particles to attach to the membranes or impacted the surface charge of the membrane itself to attract colloids. This mechanism increased the normal fouling rate by rapidly depositing particles on membrane surfaces reducing salt rejection while increasing differential pressure. (Water & Power Technologies, Technical Analyses Report, 2003 Appendix #9) Mexel is non-ionic and did not illustrate the same behavior as Spectrus CTI300 in this test. These results illustrate typical membrane fouling by the insoluble salts of unconditioned positively charged cations.

Final Report - February 2008 Mexel Efficiency Study Page 18 of 24 DC Cook Nuclear Plant d2o

Or2anic Loading Total organic carbon (TOC) and total organic nitrogen (TON) were monitored to determine what affects Mexel may have on organic loading, both as the effective biocide and byproducts. Increased concentrations of organics by more than a factor of 10 over the control condition can have adverse effects on microbial fouling and in this case may be indicative of excess residual Mexel concentrations.

TOC and TON results are found in Figures 22 and 23. Concentrations of TOC and TON were comparable in treated and control flow samples. As any TOCiTON concentration increases due to Mexel were less than a factor of 10 over the control condition, there were no adverse effects on organic loading. This suggests that Mexel does not significantly contribute to TOC or TON in bulk water solutions.

A". Donald C. Cook Nuclear Control vs. Trat 1

1

'~:

.e oe sampift Da" Figure 22 - Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Results from Lab Samples AEP, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Icu Organic N~menpl "rON Control vs. Treated 3.0 Saml OaOp ~.

ob4 Fo wt. TaedFlwTd

~~4~

Figure 23 - Total Organic Nitrogen (TON) Results from Lab Samples Final Report - February 2008 Mexel Efficiency Study Page 19 of 24 DC Cook Nuclear Plant

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing Summary' Two AEP Cook Nuclear Plant cooling water samples were collected by HOH and AEP/CNP plant ermployees on November: 29-30, 2006 for whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing'by Great Lakes Environmental Center (GLEC).

The first sample, was a 24-hr. composite samnple collected using an automatic composite sampler. Effluent samples Were collected

'every hour beginning on the morning of Nov.

29th. Sample collection- continued for 24-hours with the last sample collected the next day, Nov. 30th, during the 30-minute, Mexel treatment period. The 24-hr. composite sample was collected: toý represent the effect, if any, on aquatic life during a typical 24-hr.: Mexel treatment regime. Figure' 24 shows collection Of wet test samples at CNP.ý Figure 24- WET Test Collection The second sample' was a grab, sample collected on the morning of Nov.30th-during the 3*0-minute treatment period. This sample- was collected to represent the plant discharge.

conditions at a maximum Mexel concentration and the. effect, if any, on aquatic life. if the treatment were to be run continuously for .24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months , which is' not the recommended dosage regime for thills product.

The two, samples and a sample of untreated- lake water- for dilution and laboratory control were packed on ice immediateiy after collection in c0oolers on the morning of November 30th and delivered that day to the GLEC laboratory in; Traverse City, MI. The toxicity testing wasi initiated following sample delivery to the laboratory. GLEC conducted a 48-hour Daphnia magna and a 96-hour fathead minnow acuteAtoxicitytest on each of the 24-hr. composite and 30, minute-grab samples following standardized USEPA testing protocols, The 24-hour composite -sample,was not acutely toxic to D.rmagna or f'athead minnows, (See Figure 2ý5). There* was 100 percent survival of both D. magna and -fathead minnows in this

,sample. The 48-hour D. magna ,LC50 (median lethal toxicant concentration) and EC56 (median effect. concentration). estimates were both greater than 100 percent in that sample.

The 96-hour fathead minnow LC50 was also greater than 1.00 percent in-that sampler The 301-minute sample was acutely toxic to both.D. magna and fathead minnows. The acute toxicity, tests that, were, initiated with the 30-minute sample had an estimated LC50 of 35.4 percent sample. in the D., iagnatest and 2737 perceit'sample-hin0 the fathead: minnow test. If we assume an estimated concentration of 2.5 ppm Mexel residual, in the sample, these. LC50 estimates equate to estimates of 0.88 mg/L Mexel for D. fiiagnq and 0.69 mgIL Mexel for fathead minnow respectively.

Final Report.- February 2008 Mexe Efficiency Study Page 20.of 24 DC Cook Nuclear Plant

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing Summary, continued AEP, Donald C. Cook Nuclear H-OH A432 (Mexel) Testing Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Test Results "10 log%

90%

j30%

j20%

10%

0%

24 Hour CWW06ft (11MM- IVJOM61 I CDwdsoIa4c0=) 0UHW~eWoW~L)

Figure 25 - WET Test Results The toxicity tests with the 24-hour composite sample demonstrated that the recommended treatment regime of 4 ppm dosage Mexel to obtain a 2.5 ppm residual concentration for 30 minutes per day caused no negative impacts to the aquatic life using the indicator organisms D. magna and fat head minnows. The toxicity tests with the 30-minute grab sample demonstrated that a hypothetical continuous treatment regime of 4 ppm dosage Mexel to obtain a 2.5 ppm residual concentration would exceed the threshold toxicity for these indicator organisms without a 3:1 dilution credit (0.83 ppm) for the plant's high velocity discharge diffusers.

Based on this data, it is logical to hypothesize that given a 3:1 dilution factor (GLEC Mixing Zone Evaluation 2005) the Mexel treated effluent sample would not be toxic to aquatic life within the discharge mixing zone in Lake Michigan. To confirm the hypothetical treatment regime described above, another (WET) test was conducted using the same indicator organisms with a Mexel treated sample. On August 28, 2007, a one gallon sample of Mexel treated cooling water was collected from the pilot test rig and mixed with two gallons of untreated lake water to simulate a 3:1 dilution. That sample and an untreated lake water sample were packed on ice in coolers on the same day and transported immediately to the GLEC laboratory in Traverse City. The toxicity testing was initiated following sample delivery to the laboratory.

The August 2007 diluted 3:1 Mexel treated effluent sample was acutely toxic to both D.

magna and fathead minnows. The 48-hour D. magna and 96-hour fathead minnow LCs0 (median lethal toxicant concentration) and D. magna 48-hour EC 5o (median effect concentration) estimates were all 65.9 percent effluent.

Final Report - February 2008 Mexel Efficiency Study Page 21 of 24 DC Cook Nuclear Plant

Whole EfflUent Toxicity Testina Summary, continued A direct comparison of LC5 o estimates between the two tests cannot be made. A, relative comparison of the. two sets of WET tests may .be possible by eqtrap0lating.the toxicity test; results to simulate a 3:1 dilution with. the November 2006 results or to simulate. no dilution using the August 2007 results. Using that comparisonr, the. results of the Auguist: 2007 Mexel treated cooling.water toxicity tests after a 3:1 lake water dilution are similar to the November 2006 toxicity test results in that the :results are Within the expected variability of whole effluent toxicity tests. In interlaboratory comparisons, EPA determined that: WET test results may vary by one test concentration between laboratories and over time; Likewise, in single chemical toxicity tests with. Mexel against Dgphnia nagna and fathead minnow, a similar degree. of variability was observed. In: the Mexel toxicity database, the toxicity of Mexel to Daphnia magna' varied betweeif 0.120 mg/L and 0.595 mg/L. The 'toxicity of MeXel to fathead minnow varied between 0.360 mgL and 0.660 mg/iL. However, these comparisons should also take ifito consideration the differences in the physical and chemical attributes that may affect the toxicity of Mexel in: different water types or treatient' scenarios, because of" seasonal changes in water quality, or because of different.sources of test organisms.

Final Report- February 2008 Mexel Efficiency Study Page 22 of 24. DC'CookNdclear Plant

Conclusions Zebra mussels were probably introduced into the Great Lakes in 1988W Since then many water intake facilities have been affected and have initiated a control strategy.

The continuous§ flow research facility has enabled an on-site evaluation of a zebra mussel control technique to test the, effect of Mexel on natural populations of veligers and trans-locators. Corrugated pipe sections, accurately 'simulated the plant's intake tunnels :as confirmed by the observation of sinilar fouling patterns. Robust data have beenocollected to predict the,impact Mexel will have, on plant systemfis; and the environment without the cost of a full scale. application. The insight provided by this evaluation enables a better understanding of the proposed.Mexel application while mitigating risk and failure.

.1. Mexelf treated circuits illustrated an aggregate 78%. reduction in post-veliger population density anda,64% reduction in. post-veliger size compared to. untreated

-circuits as evaluated by CNP procedure l2-EA-6090-ENVV-I!01 Zebra Mussel Sampling and Analysis.

2. Mexel' treated circuits 'illustrated no discernible pattern of infestation, colonization or clumping. Rather the mussels exhibited a pattern of isolated individuals compared with the controiwhere mussels formed, clumps and were abundant.

3. Mexel treated circuits realized a 95% reduction by volume in mussel- and total debris compared to untreated circuits as measured. by the total material removed fromthe flow circuit piping at the end of the pilot test experiment.

4. Mexe reducedsilt accumurlat ion in the treated biobox and test rig.componentS when compared itothe untreated'biobox and comporients.,

5. Mexel treated circuits did not illustrate a mortality- or sioughage rate greater than.

control circuits, thus im proving the understanding that normal product application, to0

.a fduled'tunnel will not iresult in a.massive release of mussel debrisor oqerload .of the, traveling screens and debris' handling systemrs..,

6. R/O membranes, were not fouled with colloidal particles, conditioned :by Mexel or' Mexel molecules.

7 Whole:effluent toxicity testing illustrates speciessurvival 'ini 100%:of the effluent of a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months composite indicating no impact to indicator organisms under- studied' treatment regimen,

8. Whole effluent toxicity tests using. Mexel treated' Water,'showed. a48 hr Lc 5 0 toxicity of 35,.4% to Daphniamagna and 27.7% to, fathead minnows for an undiluted acute sampling and 65.9% for both species for a3"1 diluted acute sarmpling.,

The results of this'study indicate, that Mexel is effective at preventing infestation and. can be safely applied at the prescribed dosage regimen without negative consequence at CNP or the biotain Lake Michigan.

Final Report- FebruarY 2008 Mexel Efficiency:Study IPage 23 of 24 DC'Cook Nuclear Plant

Acknowledoement.

H-O-H Water Technology would like to thank the following contributors:,

1. American Electric Power (AEP)

Eric Mallen,- Environimental Specialist John Carlson - Environment Safety & Health Manager

> Jon Hamer-Environmental Manager Alan Gaulke - Consulting Environmental SpeCialist

> AEP Cook Nuclear Environmental DepartmentStaff

2. RTKTechnologies.

> Rick Kreuser

3. Ecotox. Inc.

Francois Ghillebaert - Aquatic Toxic0logist, PhD

4. Great Lakes Environmehtal

> Dennis McCauley - Operations Co-Manager/Principal Research Scientist

5. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEO)

> Sylvia Heaton%-Aquatic Biologist, Senior Level I

References

1. Ackerman, J.D., Claudi, R., Spencer, FS., Si, B, Evans D., .A Continuous Flow Research Facility for Zebra Mussel' Research & Control ptesented. at the 4At international zebra mussel confertence Maidison Wisicnsir1994.

2. Ghillebaert,,F. 1997Toxicological File of Mexel 432, Summary of the'Studies.

3. KreuSer, R., Vanlaer, A., DamoUr, A. 1997 A Novel Molluscicide. Corrosion Inhibitor and Dispersant, Corrosion 1997,, Paper No. 409.

.4.. McCauley, D.J. , Endicott, D.,. 2005 Mixing Zone Evaluation for the DC Cook Nuclear Plant Discharge PlUme in Lake Michiguan.

5. Mexel Skid Baffle AnalySis 2-15-07, E..Scott Rose-AEP.

6.: Water & Power Techn1oogies, Job #7574,. Technical Analyses Report, JUly2003.

Final Report.- February 2008 Mexel Efficiency Study.

Page 24 of 24 DC Cook Nuclear Plant

APPENDIX 1 Project: .mipct S*ydy of lllexel on Zebra Mlussei Infesta.tion Continuousv-FiowY Resear1ch1 Facility Athorse- Jon J. Cohen, Tom Armon, Dave Jlinge, DariuS Barkauskas, Henr A.Becker Rikk Kreuser, Francois Ghiltebaet Su mmnry Mexel, a filming 'amine proposed for zebra musselcontrol, will be-studied using nativ, colonies and plant intake water at. the Cook Nuclear Facility,, A UiqUe continuous-f1Ow re§earch- facility built to moodel Cook fP o and ope rati-Inal concditions is proposed for this prtqet. Data wll be deyeloped to test the effectiveness of Mexetunder realistic conditions using natural populations of larvae and translocators. It is belieVed that this acility will provide valuable insight' into the uie.of Mexe, as a preventive molluscicide as -well as teclýt-iq*es:for optimization arid ptotection of critic,91tplan't water systbms., -Control of ner zebra mussel infestation, injection of Mexel; affects ofMexeil on e xisting mussel infestation and Mexe deposition on-pipe will be examined.

-Continuous Flow Research Facilities have een used:toi'model effectiveness:of molluscicide control programs on once tIhrough, cooling water systems.

(Ackerman/Claudi 1994). Modular flowbthrough design using natraltpopulations have previously provided rob .ustdata that enabled treatment xnodeling for plant Systemrs under dynamic conditions.

I'kgst is a filming amine used in many freshwater and :saltwater systems dn Mexel worldwide. Todcologica effects of Mexet have been-widely studied in b6th freshwater.

and saltwater (Ghillebaert; 1997), While there is little published dataconcerning Mcxcis.

affectfon. existing zebf": fniissei infestations§, depositinnocortugate4 pipe with exiscing infestation and effecfiveness in freshwateir applications. An.overvie-w-study of Mexel's, use as a molhusci ide, inhibitor and dispersait (Kreiuser etal, 1997), demontrated efficacy in fresh and salt water when proper film formation was acchrhpliShed.

Biodegradation of Mcxel -wasi also demnostiated and documented.

Specifically with respect to Codk Nuclear Facility, intake tunnel modeling, use with Lake Michigan water and infestation currently within their water intake tunnels must be studied before continuous application can be initiated. Application of Mexel at Cook must~be:accomplished without interkrptidn-of plant opetation including plant water intake and plant water pretreatment equipment.

Cook Nuc lear Facility has dealt with zebra mu;ssel infestation for seval years and has' employed many differeait treatment alteriunaiytis. Three intake tunnels construcedof16

ýfoot diameter crn-ugated, galvanized steel pipe extend out one half mile: fiom a forebay.

Corugatlions in.this pipe,are six,inches wideaand two inches deep. Preventative and shoe-k

,zebraimussel chemistry has: been-discntinued for mul1tiple spawiing seasons,.allowing colony growth along.,all three intake tumnels; with acumulation contanedý within the cormgatignS.

I

Cliheical, injec.tion p'ping, wihckh had-previopsly run.from inside the plant to injection assemblies at the tunnel entrances,. has been dam agecl and will be replaced prior to continuous Mexel.injection, Injection assembly design is critical-to Mexel,effectivenesg and results of this sitdy due to the fi lmiing natufe. of this prodiict.

Contct between Mexel and pipe surface must be ensured to. allow a uniform film along the intake tunnels. Film formation on ýclean and infested pipe: nibst be studied-with near in-situ flow and distribution characteristics to model effecjivehoess in the Cook iblant.

Redesigned traveling screens. in place at Cook haveproven to be more:,effective at

_handling debris and dislodged mussel colonies-priorlto, plant watei distribution to condensers and sfrvice water systems. HoWever, a stidden or massive release ofý colonies and shell debris in theory have the potential- to oyer load the travelinmg screens As-well, as compromise the plants abilitylto dispose of shell.debris. While it is desirable to.remo-ve existing colonies in part the goal :of this study i'srto. exfrapolate a rate of sloughage at

-recommended normal Mexel dosage. regine.

Experiment: A novel experimental apparatus is proposed for study of zebra musselsiat the Cook Nuclea Farcility 'This.apparatusis comprised of horizontal corrugated spool pieces acting as a substriate for zebra mussel 'growthý. tranislocation andMexel deposition.

Spool.pieces will be mahufactured from.stainless. steel pipe and four feetiirhlength.- Pipe diameters: will be four inches: Two identical piping trains will provide a cpnirol'scenario in which Mexeli will no tbe introduced and one-where Mexe!'s effects will be studied.

The tr*in wI be provided .a service flow, of 750 -gpm.with a sikty ho'rse power pump. The flow train manifol diverts flow to service a total of three trt and mihmaintan velocity consistent -with normal tunnel velocity. Thisflow rate will allow a velocity range of 6 to 7fPs in the treated and control pipes, while the growth flow pipe will runat"I .1 ..

Varying flo-w velocity will allow.forPchanges in.shearstresses mad contact time between.

'the flow stream -andsurface. Sihce Cook',S ithtake tunnels are 1.6 foot diameter:corrugated pipe with zebra mussel infestation, calculating boundqry layer depth, actual flow velocitýy within the boundary layer and shear. forces at surfaces is difficult -andunreliable.

Through. studying various flow streams multiple scenarios *will be evalUated to ensui ethat any worst case circumstancecan be determined ekpetirmientally before introducing product into Cook's intake turinel.

Our experimenta apparatus is comprised of thrxee sections a treated, control and growth..

Make-up plant modeling is also included. The attached drawingdetails the entire experimental apparatus ,ith diagnos&c equi*mentesectins, pui'mps and plat pretteatment etilipment. A branch with a booster purmp will proyide wvater through pretreatient etuipment, for make-up plant modeling.

Experimental design allows several configurations of both horizontal trains providing a means, tO test all four main paramneters. Sppql piece sections are twelve feet long, consisting of three.four foot sections. Section lengths provide eniough axial lehgth.to normalize flow characteristics. Foreach length, the third spool piece will provide.'best data available for each flow train due to projected achievement of lanunar.

Precise flow measurement will provide, accurate llow/ velocities-in: spool piecO bections.

All other monitoring equipment for meaisbren-ients in the horiz ttal experimental section will be loeated in.a pipesections.ubsequent..to the final .spool section. A detailed list of monitoring-equipment is attached.

In addition to on-line instrumentation weekly grab samples will evaluate gen.eral.

chemnisty, Mexel concentration;. Total organic carbon (TOC);, total organic nitrogen (TON) and :turbidity will provide information on degradationAof organic material.,

Turbidity will be usefbl in determining macr.oparticulate, released from colonies and mussels after Mexel addition. TOC and TON will provide.data onibore finely released material, metabolic byproducts and a measurement of Mexel! in the water. Corrosion coiipons will measure potential differences:onr metal sirfaces and are commonly used to determine corrosion rates.

Spool.pieces can be rearranged lto pkovide altete .exPerimentai configurations. Spool pieces with well developed grvowh will, be relocated to treated sections-to understand isoughage and cleanup rates.:

Plant :pretreatment eq~ipment isa criticaltcomponent to plant operation at: ookNuclear, Facility. Previous zebra mussel treatments. have caused: significant damage to reverse osmosi s menibranes:amongother equipmentdifficulties. Multimedia filtration, carbon-filtration,.particle filtration and reverse osmohsis will be, fed by a ten gallon per minute booster pump. Effects ofMexel On each piece of pretreatment equipment will be determinied to prevent imtpedimentsto operation of plant eciuipment and :plan-tishutdown.

Concllusi ns will: provide plantspecific information forcontinual use of Mexel at Cook Nuclear, Facility. Data collected will detail: how Mexel should be injected, effeets. on existing infestation in Cook's intake ttnn*l*s, prevefttion of ffitdtre gtowth and.effects on:

pretreatment equipment. Experimental data will also provide a roadmap to circumvent obstacles to proper plant operation.

1. Ghillebaert, F. 1997 Toxicblogical File of Mexell 432, Summary of the Studies

2. Kreuser, R., Vanlaer, A., Damour,. A. 1997 A Novel Molluscicide. Corrosion.

inhibitor and, Dispersant, Corrosi on' 1997, Paper.No. 409

3. Ackerman,a.J.D., Claudi, Ri., Spencer, FP.S., Sim,. B.,Evans'D., A Continuous Flow Research Facility for-Zebra:Mussel Research.& Contr.ol peserited -at the 4-'

international zebra riissei, cdnfereiice Madison. Wis.consin .994

APPENDIX 2 REVIEW AND APPROVAL TRACKING FORM Section 1- ProcedureIiiformati6n:.

Number: 12-EA-6090-ENV -.11 Rev. 3

Title:

Zebra Mussel Sampling and Analysis Section 2. -Alteration Category:- "

lMinor Edit6rial`Coirection .. Canceflation I Major Editorial* Correction -(Full Review) Superseded by (1ist -I superseding procedures):

Mnor Re vision_____________________

mi El Major Re.'ision ,(Full:Review) E- New Procedure (Full Review),

Section 3.- Temporary Procedure/Revision: ........

SN/VA. El TemporaryPrbcedure El Temporary Revision, AR No.:. _________

.Expiration Date / Ending Activity: N/A Seciion 4ý- AssociatedConfigurationImpact Assessments:.

Change Driver,/CD Trac.king No(s). . N/A, Section 5-- Reviews:

7a 0 Department U~3a tz O- (U (Refer to :Figure 6,: Determination 6f Requtiired Reviews),

Environmental 0 El El El Environmentl:. El El El

_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [E El E E

_ _ El ED El I]El E El El El El El

- Section 6- Tech~nical Review:

Updated Revis'ioan'SummnIar~y andfmpemientation Plimi (ifapplicable) attached? 0 Yes. ...

Impneomentation Plan developed? If yes, AR No.:;'El Yes: N/A

.Are ihere implementation actionsIt be c6mipleted prior tO 'the effective date? [I Yes S No, 10 CFR 50.59Requirements-complete?. Tracking;No.:_n_[-'E Yes :09 N/A Technical Reviewer: . ,'. - <" '. Date: __06

..Section 7',- Ready*fr A . .rov:. .

Administrative Hold Status:: Eleleased.. j]Reissued .0 N/A CR No.: -_... ............

Writer: .Date:

El Ops ManageI Concurrence:ý N/A Date:

Section 8 - Approvals:..

,P0.RC IReview -Required: ElY \)4 No Mt& No.

Approval Authority Review/Approyal: Date: _________"

Effective Date:

Section 9- Follow-uY Actions: .

Commitment Database'update requestedd n acrnce wlth pM-2350-CMS-0Ol?,] Yes 0 N/A NDM notified of-new records or changes to records that could'affect record retention?' . Yes N/A

Office Information.For Form.Tracking Only - Not Pant'ofForm

-"This form is denied from the inr-f, mtiion-rin PMP-2010-PRC002,.

Procedure Alteration, Review., and Approval; Rev. 19, Data Sheet 1, RReview and Approval Tracking Form, "Page I of I

ES 12-EA-6090-ENV-101 Rev. 3 Page 1 of 10 Zebra Mussel Sampling and-Analysis Information Marcia Strefling John Carlson, Environmental Writer Document Qxvner, cognizant O*dgni.ation TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE, ................... ............ ....... ...... ,;2 2i.

2 PREREQUISITES.... . ,... ....... ,....... ....................................... 2:

3. PRECAUTIONS AND LIMITATIONS ........... ..... ....... 2 4 DETAILS.... ......... .,..... ........ ..... o.. .............. 3 4.1 Whole Water Veliger Sampling .3 4.2 Whole Water Veliger Analysis. ............. 4 4.3 Artificial Substrate Sampling..,.......................... 5 4.4 Artificial Substrate Analysis - Micros*ope Slides..................... 6 4.5 Artificial Substrate Analysis - PVC Substrates.. ..................... 7 4.6: Impromptu Sampling & Evaluations.................................. ........ ..... 8 4.7 Reporting .............................................. 9 5 CORRECTIVE MEASURES ........................................ 9 6 FINAL CONDITIONS ........................ .......... ,....... .9 7 R FEREN S .............. .............................. 9

Information 12-EA-6090-ENV-101 'Rev-' 3- Page 2 of 10 Zebra Mussel Sampling and Analysis 1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1.1 To establish the-proper methods formonit6ring Zebra Mussels in the Donald C.

Cook Nuclear Plant in support of NRC commitments, Zebra Mussel Monitoring-and Control, and the GenericLetter 89-13 Programs.. Wr. 7.2:.1b, 7.2.ad, 7:2.Jl) 2 PREREQUISITES 2A Environmental develops a sampling schedule for work. Deviations'maybe made at the discretion of Environmental.

2.2 The following sampling and analytical tools are available for evaluating zebra mussel densities in the whole water and, settlement on substrates.,

" bio-nonitors

plastic barrel

pump

" test tube racks . floW meter or bucket and timing

.device

" microscope. slides

1 literplastic collection jars

" plankton net withcod-end bucket PVC pipe sampler

stereo-microscopewith

.I ml Sedgewick-Rafter counting polariiing.filters cell

magnetic stirrer pipette 2.3 Access the D. C. CookPlant Zebra Mussel Monitoring Program Worksheet ExcelTM spreadsheet from: the Environmental "S" drive ait ESRIZebra Mussel Data/Zebra(year). X!s: Thiks:is a non-QA record and is noftfiled in the, Nucle:r Document Management'.syystem.

3 PRECAUTIONS AND LIMITATIONS 3.1 Technicians are versed in standard practices for sampling and monitoring Zebra.

Mussel counts in whole water and artificial sbstrate samples. I1ef. 7.1.11 3.2 Use ground fault interrupters or ground faulted outlets when plugging in sample:

pumps; 3*.37 Use faillprotection when working over openings inhdecking :or grating:

Information 12-EA-6090-ENV-101 Rev. 3 Page3' of 10 Zebra Mussel Samplling and Analysis' NOTE: The use of the Personnel Tool and Material AccountabilityLog (PMAL) is not required for the artificial substrates attached to a weighted rope at the screenhouse intake forebay location as they are designed to be installed/removed at this location.

3.4 When:installing/rernoving sampling equipment at the screenhouse intakel forebay location(s), use the FME Task Plan established'for Environmental Sampling activities in the screenhouse. Sampling equipment adjustments and repairs should be made using tools outside of the FMEA whenever possible.

4: DETAILS

4. L Whole Water Veliger Sampling NOTE: Whole-water sampling may be conducted in the plant's intake, forebay or.off of plant'sidestreams or bio-monitors to determine velliger density in the lake water being drawn into the circulating water system or service water systems.

Collect two replicates (approx. 2,000 liters or 528 'gal. each) within an 8-hr period on each sampling date (determined by the sampling schedule).,

In the event a flow'meter is not available, a 2,000 liter samfple-can be estimated using a bucket and timing device to determine, the, flow rate.

1 gal. = 3,785L 4A.1. Direct a measured. flow into a plankton net that is suspended'in a partially filled plastic barrel to minimize organism abrasion.

4.1.2 Direct the flow from the barrel back to a-floor grating or floor drain-to minimize the flow of water onto the floor.

4.: 1. 3, Stop flow to net w.hen approximately 2,000.L/528 gal. has been pumped thru net.

4.1.4 Gently wash down the plankton net nto the cod-end bucket,.

4.1.5" Use filtered water to transfer the sample into a 1-liter plastic jar.

4,. 6 IF needed, THEN add filtered water to the jar to ensure that a full liter is collected.

Informationi [ 12-EA-6090-ENY-101 Rev. 3 Page 4 of 10 Zebra Mussel Sampling'and Analysis 4.2 Whole Water Veliger Analysis CUIN;The sharp edges on the cov-er slip arecapable of injuring peronl Handl

[CAUION:with .care,.

4.2.. Obtain and. stage the following pieces of analytical equipment.

stereo-micoscopeý with polarizing filters

Sedgepwick-Rafter cell (S-R-C) or equivalent With cover slip

pipette capable of delivering. a 1 ml. :ample

magnetic stirring plateýwith stir bar copy of "'Standard Protocols for Monitoring a4d Sampling

'Zebra Mussels'" by J. Ellen Marsden 4.2.2- Stir sample slowly prior to withdrawing I ml. sub-sample for analysis; 4-.2.3 Load S-R-C with 1 ml. sub-sample and cover.

4.2.4 Read S-R-C.

NOT: Use "Stahdard Protocols for Monitoring and Sampling Zebra Mussels" as a guide for identifying' viable Veligers. Do not include broken or, dead veligers in the count.,

4..5 Dbetermie wheter dilution of 21-liter sample is necessary. per the' Whole Water Density Dilutibn Table maiintained on the Whole Water Veliger and Artificial Substrate, Post-Veliger Density Counting Form of thel D. C. Cook Plant Zebra Mussel Monitoring Progrtam Worksheet.

4.2.6; Dilute 1-liter sample as needed.

Information 12-EA-6090-ENV-101, Rev. 3 Page 5 of 10 Zebra Mussel Sampling and Analysis NOTE: Size measurements may be taken simultaneously with counts.

4.2.7 Count number of li've:veligers per I hil. sub-sample.

4.2.8 Record counts for WW Sample Sets #1 & #2 on the WWholeWater Veiiger and Artificial Substrate Post-Veliger Density Counting:

Form.

4.2.9 Measure the breadth (widest part) of up to 50 veligers (chosen "at random"), but not more than 10 from each sub-sample.

4.2.10 Record micrometer reading on theService.Water Systems Veliger Size Calculation, Sheet for each veliger measured.

4.2.11 Remove an.d .carefully clean slide and cover slip.

4.2.12 Repeat steps:4.12 2, 4.2.3, 4:2.4, and 4.2.7 u 4.2.11 Until 10 (or'ah appropriate number of) -separate sub-samples have 'been analyzed, 4.2,.13 Enter "Multiplier"used" from the Magnification Factors Table on the Whole Water Veliger andi Artificial Substrate Post-Veliger Density Counting Form to. auto-calcuilate sizes.

4.3 Artificial Substrate Sampling NOTE: To determine postveliger settlement in the circulating water, essential service water, non-essential, service water, and miscellaneous sealing and cooling water systems, artificial substrates may be placed in designated ocation(s) in the circulating. water intake forebay, and'in bio-monitors placed on plant system side-streaims. Artificial substrates 'measurecumulative settlement over time. The sampling of the bio-monitors will be determinediby the sampling schedule.

4.3.1' Artificial 'substrate samplers will consist of'slide holde'rscontaining microscope slides placed in side stream bio-monitors or, as' for the4 circulating, water intake forebay, specially designed cages attached to a rope and weighted by a suitable weight. These substrate samplers are modified test tube racks-or holders specifically designed to hold microscope slides.

Information 12-EA-6090-ENV-101 Rev. -3 Page 64ofo0

,Zebra,Mussel Sampling. and Analysis 4.3.2 Artificial substrate samplers, used for the circulatingwater intake forebay study, may also consist.of a section of PVC pipe ctut in half length-wise and

'held .together by alhose clamp(s) and attached in a vertical orientation to.

rope or cable that is anchored via a concrete block or other suitable weight.

4.3,3 Obtain and stage the following pieces of equipment:

e empty test tube/slide collection rack or equivalent 4.3.4 Remove the bio-box or cage cover.

NOTE: Handle slides by the edges and transport them carefully so that no Zebra Mussels are inadvertently damaged,.6or removed.

4.3.5 Carefully remove the appropriate number of glass slides (typically 6-10) fromdinstalled slide rack&.

4.3.6 Place slides i.ncollection rack.

4.3.7 Replace cover on bio-box or cage.

4.3.8 Restore flow thru bio-box as riecessary.

4.4 Artificial Substrate Analysis - Microscope Slides.

4.4.1 Obtain and stage the following' pieees of analytical equipment:

stereo-microscope with polarizing filters.

"Standard Protocols for Monitoring and Sampling Zebra Mussels" by J. Ellen-Marsden single-edge razor blade or similar scraping device 4.4.2 Carefully remove a slide from the collection.:rack being careful to

ýtouch only the edges.

4.4.3 Carefully scrape clean one side of the slide.

4.4.4 Place slide, on microscope stage clean side downu; 3ý

Information 12-EA,6090-ENV401 Rev. 3 Page.7 of 10I Zebra Mussel Sampling and Analysis 4.4.5 IF density is > -60 organisms per slide; THEN refer to the; Artificial Substrate Density Dilution Table maintained on the Whole: Water Veliger and Artificial Substrate Post.Veliger Density Counting Form for sub-sampling to determine the number of organisms per slide.

NOTE: Size measurements may be taken simultaneously with counts.

4.r4,6 Count number of settled veligers/adults.

4.4.7 Record-counts on the Artificial Substrate Size and Density Calculation Sheet and sizes on theService Water Systems Veliger Size Calculation Sheet.

4.4.8 Measure the breadth (widest part) of up to 50 organisms (chosen.

"at random") but no more than 10 veligers/adults per slide.

4.4.9 Record micrometer reading on'the Service Water Systems Veliger Size Calculation Sheet for each organism, measured.

4.4.10 Repeat steps 4.4.2,thru 4.4.9 until 10 (or an appropriate number of) slides have been analyzed.

4.4.11 Enter "Multiplier used" from :the Magnification Factors Table on the Whole Water Veliger and Artificial Substrate Post-Veliger Density Counting Form to auto-calculatesizes.

4.5 Artificial Substrate Analysis - PVC Substrates 4.5.1 Pull PVC sampler from the intake forebay:

4.5i2 Remove the clamp(s) and openup the two halves.

4.5.3 Scrape a representative one square inch section and transfer it to a.

S-R-C.

4.5.4 IF there is too much settlement that al! mussels will not fit into the S-R-C, TH EN smaller portions of scraping may be; transferred to the S-R-C.

'Iiformation i i2,EA-6090-E NV-01 7, Rev. 3 Page 8`4 10 Zebra Musisel Sampling and Analysis NOTE: Size-measuremenis may be taken.. simultaneously with counts..

,NOTE: Number of zebra mussels:per square meter (density) is determined by the following formrulla and is~automaticlly calculated on. the PVC Substrate Section:of the Artificial Substrate Size and Density Calculation 'Sheet.

Density (Zebra Mussels/mr) [(#Sample 1 + #Sample2)/2] x 10,000/6.4516 Where: 6.4516 cm2 = 1 inch' 4,5.5 Count the'number of zebra musselsand record on the PVC Substrate section of the Artificial Substrate Size and Density, Calculation Sheet.

4.5z.6 Measure breadth of 50 randomly chosen zebra mussels and record Mmicrometer readings on the PV SubstrateSsection of the Artificial'SubstrateSize and Density Calculation Sheet.

4,5.7 Repeat steps 4,5.3 thru 4.5.6 fora,second sample.

4.5.8 Enter "Multiplier used"7 from the Magnification ýFactors Table on.

the Whole Water Veliger and Artificial Substrate .Post-Veliger Density Counting Form to auto-calculate siz&s.

4.5.9 Clean and return PVC gamplerto0 intake forebay if sampling is to be continued for the coming year.

4.6 tIpromptu Sampling & EvAluationS 4.6.1 Oecasionally, Environmental may perform additional studies, which may include evaluations of biocides on Zebra Mussel settlement and mortality.

The sampling protocols and scheduleswi1i be developed as requIired by, the

,ýstudy.

4.6.2 This procedure does not preclude the detection:of other' bi-o fuling species.

IF other bio-foulers are detected that could' cause problems in-piping

systems, THEN report; the results to the Environmental Zebra Mussel' Monitoring and Control Program owner.

tl t

Informatidn 12-EA-6n90-E 4-101 Rev. 3 &9,f 10 Page Zebra Mussel Samp.ing and Analysis:

4.7 Reporting 4.7.1 Environmental technicians develop and maintain all field-sampling records pertaining to these activities and report,the results to. theEnvironmental Zebra Mussel Monitoring and- Control Program owner.

4.7.2. An annual report is prepared by Environmental,, which-details thexesults of the"Zebra Mussel Monitoring Program.

4.7.3 Environmental proVides a draft for comment and a final copy Qf thpe annual report to the Generic Letter 89-13 Program Manager. [Ref. 7.2.1c!

5 CORRECTIVE MEASURES 5,.1 None.

6 FINAL CONDITIONS 6.1 An annual report on the methods employed and results of the zebra mussel monitoring has been prepared and submitted to Environmental and. thed Genetic Letter 89-13 Program Manager. [Ref:.7.2.1c]

7 REFERENCES 7,1 use

References:

7.1.I Stardard-Protocols for Monitoring and Sampling Zebra Mussels, JI Ellen Marsden, April 1092.

7.12 Writing

References:

T72. I Source

References:

a. NRC JE Bulletin No. 8i-03

b. NRC Generic Letter 89413

c. CR-991 1280

d. NRC Commitments- ! 199; NRC Generic Letter 89-13, Service Water system problem ýresponse.

Information [ 12-EA-6090-ENV-101 Rev. 3 Page 10 of 10 Zebra Mussel Sampling and Ahaysis

e. NRC Commitments 1223; NRkC Generic Letter 891:3,.. Service Water system problem .response.

f. PMP-2220-001-001,.Foreign Material Exclusion (FME) 7.2.2 General References

a. PMP-2010-PRC-001, Procedure Writing

b. PMP-2010-PRC-002, Procedure Alteration- Review, and Approvals

REVISION

SUMMARY

Number: *12-EA-6090-ENV-101 Rev. 3

Title:

Zebra Mussel Samling and Analysis Alteration Justification As a result of aprocedure periodic review, Periodlic review of procedure.

(00800020-02)', the changes listed below were made. The changes involved removing the reference to using a concrete block to weight the artificial substrate sampler,, and using the FME Task Plan established for the Environmental sampling: activities for FME.

concerns.

10 CFR 50.59Applicability This procedure qualifies, as a "Maintenance Activity" as described in: Section 4.2.2 of the 10 CFR 50.59 Resource Manual. It is a procedure for -"implementing surveillances and inspections", thus it is not subject to review under 10 CFR 50.59. There are no manipulations to SSCs in this procedure.

Step 2.2 - "Concrete blocks" Were revised The use of a concrete block as a-weight -for out of the list of sampling and analytical the rope that holds-the PVC. artificial tools available for evaluating zebra mussel substrate sampler in the intake fotebay has densities. been discontinued. The block disintegrates over time and can become an FME issue. It stainless steel has since been replaced by a weight. (CR-m5259060) Change I NOTE Before Step 3.4 -'Mention of a A concrete block that was formerly. used asa concrete block being used as aweight was weight for the rope has been replaced by a

..revised out of the NOTE& more robust stainless steel weight. Change.

Step 3.4 - Mention of '"FME Area, The FME Task Plan directs What, FME Area Standard" and "PMAL sheet" were removed Standard applies and if a PMAL sheet is from the step. needed per PMP-2220-001-001, Foreign Material Exclusibn. (FME) Change Reference 7.2.2b for PMP-2010-PRC-002 Updated reference with correct procedure title changed from '"Procedure. Correction, title. Editorial Correction Criteria n'.

Change and Review" to "Procedure Alteration, Review, and Approvals".

Office Information ForForm Tracking.Only -Not, Partof Form .

ThisiiSa free-f6rm as called obt in PMP-2010-PRC-002, Prc6edure AWlteation, Review, and .Appioval. Page.._ of._._ j

APPENDIX 3 GL!E'C December 15, 2006 Mr. Eric Mallen.

-American Elecqtii power

.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant GOreat4 Lakes One Cook Place E,inVronmenltal Bridgman, M1 49106 Center RE: ACUTE TOXICITYTEST REPORTS FOR SAMPLES' APplijed. COLLECTED FROMAMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER, COOK Environmental NUCLEAR PLANT ONNOVEMBER 29/30, 2006 Sciences

ýYwmgl~onhfinax:ohl Dear Mr. Mallen; Great'Lakes Environmental Center (GLEC) has completed our analyses of the 48-hour Daphnia jraverseiIty magna and 96-hour fathead-minnow acute toxicity tests performed ontwo different samples 739 Hastings St. collected by American Electric Power (AEP) personnel ofi November 29/30, 2006. The two Traverse City samples analyzed were; a 24-hour composite sample that included a 30-minute Mexel dbse:at 4 MI 49686 mg/L (GLC Number: 7010) and a 30-minute samblecollect.ed in conjutnction with a 30-minute dose at 4 mg/L? ofMexel (GLC Number: '7009)t Lake Michigan water-collectediby AEp

. 231 941-2230 231"9412 2240 fax personnel-was used as the ,diluti6n water, for theD. mnagna and fathead minnoW tests_.

The 24-hour cormposite:samplewaS- tacutely toxic to D.. magnaorfathead minnows. Ther was 100 percent survival of bothD., magna and fathead minnow in this sample. The 48-hour D. -

1295 king"Ave -,

Columibus magna.LCo, 5 (median lethal toxicant concentratmin) and EC5 o(median effect concentration)-.

-OHA 43212 estimates were,both greaterlthan-100 percent sample. The 96-hour fathead minnowLC was, 5

also greater than 100 percent sample;."

614 487-1040 61-4 ý8 7'12 920 laý The 30-minute sample, which hadcan estimated residual Mexel concentrationi-of 2ý5 mrg/, was acutelyjtoxic to both D. inagna and fathead'minnows. The acute toxibcity tests that were initiated withfthe *0-minute sample had an estimated LC* 0 of35-4,percentsample in tie.m. inaga test anid

,27.7 percent samlple in the fathead minnow test, ,Ifwe assume an estimated e&oncentrat on of 2.5 rmg Mexel/L inrthat sanple,.these LI and 0.69 ig MexelI/L, respctively.

J estimates equate to LC:estimatesofQ88mgMexel/L I Asa comparison, in 2004- L-EC ,e-asured a D. inagna LCso of 0.20 mg Mexel/L and a fathead mimnowLC 50 of 0:45 mgMexel/Linlaboratory toxicity tests. The differen'edbet&Weenthe curfent and 2004 LC 0 estimates may-befexplained by-the difference in dilution Wateriused for theftests and that we have no way'of knowing the true concentration of Mexel in these samples.. -However, we do know. from the toxicity, database for Mexel that the LC50 for D. mdg-na ranges between 0.120 mg/L and-0.595 mg/L, andbetween 0.360 mg/L and 0.66 mg/L for the fathead minnoWs.

Consequently, the differences observed between the laboratory measured 1iC 50 estimates and,the

_fieldbased measurements reported-here are not that great or unreasonable.

composite toxicity test data demonstrate that at this.level of treatment, a resulting I

iposite sample used in, whole effluent toxicity testing f6llowing a Mexe! tteatment "toxic.

?

ffi§LJ

Mr. Eric Mallen AEP-Cook Nuclear Plant 2 - December 15, 2006 I

A summary of the test conditions forthe toxicity tests are included in Tables I through 4; Thel 48-hour and 96-hour LC50 and EC50 estimates andto~xicity test result* are imcluded in Report, Forms 1 thfough 4. The raw data are included in Appendik A.

if you have any questinso1r comnments concerning theresults of these toxicity tests ,please contact either me or Dennis McCauleyat (23.1) 941-2230. Thank you"for the.opportunity to provide this servi.ce.to American Electric Power-I :DonaldC. Coo0k Nucleirr Plant.

Sincerely,,

Mailee W. GOaton Dennis J. McCauley Laboratory Coordinator Principal Research :Scientist/

Senior Operations-Manager MWG:mng Eclosures

-1

.1% . .

AI

TABLE I-FATHEAD MINNOW TOXICITY, TEST CONDITIONS 24 Hour Composite Lake Michigan sample dosed with 4 mg/L Mexel in one30-minute Interval Summary of Toxicity Test Conditions Pirnepbales proinelas, (Fathead minnow)

L. Test Species and;Age: Pimieplhaespromnelas, (Fathiead :minnowj 6 days-November25,2006

2. Test:Type and Dtirationi 96-hour Static, with renewal at48.hours

3. Test Dates: December 01,-05, 2006

,4. Test Tempetature:(°C):. 25 +1

'5. Light Quality: Ambient Laboratory, 10-20 [tE/m:/s

6.1 Photoperiod

16 h light, 8.h darkhess

7. Feeding.Regime: None.

.8. Size ,of Test Vessel: 250 mL glass beaker

9. Volume and Depth of Test.Solutinfis: 200 mL,65 mm Vo.No. of Test Organisms per Test Vessel: 10 11*.No. of Test.Vessels.pef Test Solution: 2

12. Total No. of Test Organisms per'Test Solutibn: 20

13. test Concentrations (percent): 100, 50, 25, 1,5,; and 6.25

14. Renewalof Test Solutions: 48-hour-renewal

15. Dilution and Primar Control Water Lake Michigan GLC# 7008;

16. Secondary Control Water: Synthetic Laboratory (ModeratelyHard) 17.

Aeration:. N one 118.. Endpoints Measured-Mortality (LC50)

REPORTING FORM i FATHEAD MINNOW ACUTE TOXICITY TEST 24 Hour Composite Lake Michigan sample dosed with 4 mg/L Mexel'in one 30-minute Interval Facility Name: .AEP Cook- Nuclear Plant NPDES Permit No.-:

Receiving Water: Lake Michigan Outfall: RWC: N/A Test-Dates: 12/061/06 - 12/05/06 Test Species: Fathead minnows Age Range: 6 daysold, Test Laboratoryv Great Lakes Environmental Center (GLEC) Repoil Date: December 15, 2006 SBULK SAMPLE INFORMATION

.SAMPLE DATE ARRIVAL DATEOF ARRIVAL. DECHLORIN ARRIVAL, ARRIVAL ARRIVAL COLLECTION RECEIVED TEMPERATURE FIRST USE, TRC ATION? PH, DO AMMONIA DATES

1. 11/29730/06- 11/30/06 0.9°C 12/01/06: NM No 8.07 12.0 NM

-What test methods*.were used: EPA/600/4-90/027 and EPA-821,-R-02-012.

Describe any deviations from test methods: None Source.of testorganisms:; In house, lot #11/25/06 TEST. DESCRIPTION.

Fed/Un-fed: Fed Food/Feeding Frequency:. Artemla naupli. 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months prior to 48-hourrenewal No. Replicatesper No.-Organisms per Concentration:22 Replicate: 10 Effluent Filtered? No EffluentSample Typpe: SampleA.: Composite -Sample 2::

Dilueant-(o*): Lake Michigan Water (GLC#.7008) SecdndarY Cotntro0!(02): Syhthetic Laboratory Water (Moderately Hard) MH# 1479

SUMMARY

OF:RESULTS4 48-hour LC,,:>00P%

96-hour LC o >100%

Percent Mortalityper Concentration.

(Percent Effected per Concentration).

'-Controls- _-Effluent Coincentratiohisý- -....

Day 010 ,0, 6.25 Piercent .

-i. Percent 25 Percent. so Percent 100. Percent Perceht 1 o.o) I0(b) ,),0) 0(0) 0(0) . 0(0) 0(0o

..2 0() a(0) 0(0), 0'(0)- 0(0) 0(0)' 0(0) 3 00(0) a O(0)CO) 00).

0(a)11 1 O _O) 4 b(o)

M ;00(o 0ý(o).o 0(0oi 0.(6)! 6(6)

Raw data sheets are included in Appendix A.,

0. Synthetic "Labr-toryWater (Moderately Hard)

,Inv*,s tor: Mailee W. G rton Contact, Dennis McCauley P hone No.: (231 1941-2230,

-s-X 1-- - Principal Research ScientIst/Manaqer of Oberations,

... . Jr Jr Signature - Title Date

,1

TABLE 2 DAPHNIA MAGNA TOxICiTY TEST CONDiTION.S 24 Hour Composite, Lake Michigan sample dosed with.4 mg/L Mexel In one 30-minute. Interval Summary of Toxicity Test Conditionsý.

Test Species and Age: Daphniathagna, <24 hours old,

2. Test Type anid Dutation: Static,:481hours Test Dates: December,01-03, 2006

4. Test Temperature (*CC): 25 + 1 5!, Light!Quality: Ambient Laboratory; 10.420 glEim-/s.

6.1 Photop'eriod

16 h'light,8 hdarkness

'7. Feeding Regime: None

8. Size of Test Vessel: 30 mL plasticdcup

9. VolumeandiDepth of Test Solutions: 15 mL, 20,mm

10. N6o, of Test Organisms per Test Vessel:

No* of Test Vessels per Test Solution: .4

'12:. Total'No. of Test Organisms perTest Sotlution: 20

13. Test Cncentrations (percent): 160, 50, 25, i12.5, and 6.25

14. Renewal of Test Solutions: None:

Dilution and Primary Control Water:, Lak.e Michigan GLC# 7008 16'. Secondary Control Water: Synthetic Laboratory (Moderately Hard)

17. Aeration: None Endpoints MeasUired: Mortality (LC,) and Effedt`(EC,)

REPORTING FORM 2 DAPHNIAMAGNA ACUTE TOXICITY TEST 24 Hour CompositeLake Michigan sample dosed with 4 mgIL Mexellin one 30-minute InterVal FacilityName':AEP Cook Nuclear Plant- NPDES Permit No.:_ _

Receiving Water: Lake Michio,an. .Outfall: RWC: NWA Test Dates: 12/01/06*- 12/03/06 Test Spedies:'.Daphnia maqna Age Range: <24 hours:

Test Laborat6rym` GireatLakes Environmental Center (GLEC) Report Date: December 15, 2006 BULK SAMPLE INFORMATION'

ýSAMPLE DATE ARRIVAL DATE OF ARRIVAL DECHLORIN ARRIVAL ARRIVAL ARRIVAL COLLECTION RECEIVED TEMPERATURE FIRST USE: TRC ATION? pH DO AMMONIA DATES.

1. 11/29-30106 11/30/06 0.9°C* 12/01/06 NM ýNo, '8.07 12.0 NM

'ND: Not Detected What test methods.weie used:- EPAI600/4-90/027 and EPA-821-R-02-012 Describe any deviations"fiom test methods: None Sourcerof test organisms: In House: BD 11-20-06 TEST DESCRIPTION

'Fed/Un-fed: Un-'Fed Food/Feeding Freqeficy:N_*e NO1Replicatesper No. Organisms per Condcentiration: 4i Replicate:,5, Effluent Filtered? No Effluen.t SramplebType: Sample 1- Composite Sample:2:

DiIuerit (0,)i Lake Midhiaan Water (GLC# 7008) Secondary Control (0'): Synthetic Laboratory. Water (Moderately'Hard) MH#'1479

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS 48-hour LCo: >100 48-h'our ECs;:'> 100 Percent Mortality per Concentration

.- ,- (Percent Effected per Concentration) a .Cntrols.-

-Effluent Concentrations-2

2. _o;(o)

((0 0,

(o) 0_,

.0(o0oo)0:0 j 6.25 Percent 00(

12.5 o

Percent.

I 25 Percent 0'(0) 0o)-

'5sPercent o"(0) o (000

%100 Percent:

0(0) 00L-Percent "Rawdata sheietsqei a icluded

' in Appendix Al 02: Synthetic.L'aboratory Wate'r (Moderatey Hard)'

velq tonr MaieeW. Garton

Contact:

DerinislMcCauley PIhone No.:. (231) 941-2230, 8 .

Principal Research Scientist/Manaa-er.

of Oberations:

. I I Signatu-e: Title

/ Date 5-I.

TABLE 3 FATHEADMINNOW TOXICITY TEST CONDITIONS 30 Minute Lakei Michigan sample dosed at 4 mg!L Mexel (2.5 mglL residual concentration)

Sunmmary of Toxicity Test Conditions; Pimephalespromelas, (Fathead minnow)

I. Test Species and Age: Pimeýphijlesipý0melas, (Fathead'minno~w) 6 days-November 25; 2006

2. Tegt Type and Duration: 96-hour Static, with renewal at 48 hours5.555556e-4 days 0.0133 hours 7.936508e-5 weeks 1.8264e-5 months

3. Test Dates: December 0105,' 2006

4. Test Temperature.( 0 C):: 25 +/- I

5. Light Quality: Ambient-Laboratory,10-210 i+/-E&m-/s 6.. Ph6toperiod: 16 h light, 8 hdarkness

7. Feeding Regime:

None 8:. Size of Test Vessel: 2"50 mL glass beaker

9. Volume and Depth of Test Solutions: 200 mL, 65 mm

10. No: of Test Organisms per Test Vessel: 40 1I. No. of Test Vesselsper Test Solution: 2

12. Total No.-ofTest Orgai'sms per Test-Soluiion:

13, Test Concentrations (mg/L):: 1.00; 50, 25, 12.5, and 6.25

14. Renewal of Test Sojutions: 48-hours renewal:

15..ý Dilution and PrimaryControl'Water: Lake Michigan GLC# 7008

.16. Secondary.Control Water: Synthetic Laboratory (ModeratelyHard) 17.. Aeration: 'None

18. Endpoints Measured: Mortalit (LCk,)

REPORTING FORM 3 FATHEAD MINNOWACUTE TOXICITY TEST 30 Minute Lake Michigan sample dosed at 4 mgIL Mexel (2.5 mgIL residual concentreatin)

Facility Name: AEP Cook Nuclear Plant NPDES Permit No,:

ReceiVing Water: Lake Michigan Ouffall: RWC: N/A Test: Dates: 12/101/06 -12/05/06 Test Species: Fathead minnows, Age Range: 6davs old Test Laboratory: Great Lakes Environmental Center (GLEC) ReportDate: December 15; 2006 BULKSAMPLE INFORMATION SAMPLE DATE ARRIVAL DATE OF ARRIVAL DECHLORIN ARRIVAL ARRIVAL ARRIVAL COLLECTION RECEIVED TEMPERATURE FIRST USE TRC" ATION? pH DO AMMONIA.

DATES7 1;. 11130(06 1v130106 1.0°C. 12/01106 NM' No i8.12 12.2 NM What'tesf methods were used: EPA/600/4-901027 and EPA-821-R-02-01 2 Describe any deviations from test methods: None Source of test organisms:.. In house lot # 11/25/06 TEST DESCRIPTION Fed/Un-,fed: Fed. Food/Feeding Frequency: Artemia naup/iii 2 hour2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months soprior to 48-hour renewal.

No. Replicates per No. Organisms per Concentration.?, Replicate: 10 Effluenit Filtered? No Effluent Sample Type: Sample 1:,Composite. Sample,2,:

Diluent (0,): Lake Michi-gan Water (GLC#7008) Secondary Control (02): Synthetic LaboratoryWater (Moderately Hard) MH# 1479

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS*

48-hour LCso: 28.72%.

96-hour LCo:6 740 LC5 95%*o.LoWer Confidence: 23193%

LC-o0 95% Upper Confidence. 32,16 %

Pedrcent Mortality per Concentration (Percent Effected perConcentiration)

-DControls- "-Effluentconcentratidns--

Day 0, . '0' :6.25 Percent 12.s Percent 2s Percent so Percent 100 Percent Percent 1 *0(0): o (b) 0:.o 0(0)o 0(0) 10*0 (1,00 100( 100):o.

o Z 0(60) 0(0) . o'() 6.(0) 30(35) 100 (100*Yo :

io oboi_:_ ,,

3' 0'(0) 0(0) -0(0) 0(0)' 35(35). 100(100) 100:(100): .I_

4. 0(0) 0(00) 0 o()* 35(50)..

o 10 160o (0) fib& i (ioo)

"Raw~data-sheefs aie included in Alpperol! A,.

0p: Synthetic Laboratory Water (Moderately Hard)

Ivestiqator Mailee W. Garton-

Contact:

Dennis McCauley P1hone No.:. (231) 941-2230 Principal Research ScientistJManaae'r of OnDer~tions Signatultei Signat.) Re..s .. " f 0.. "-t "_n ate........

T itle Date.:

TABLE 4 DAPHNIA MAGNA TOXICITY TEST CONDITIONS 30 Minute Lake Michigan sample dosed at 4 .mg/L Mexel (2.5 mgIL residual concentration)

Summary of Toxicity Test Conditions Test Species and Age: Daph!nianiagna,- <24'hours old 2." Test Type aiid Duration: Static, 48 'hours

3. Test Dates: December 01-03, 2006

4. Test Temperature (°C):: 25-+1

-5. Light Quality: Ambient Laboratoryj 10-20 .iE/mVs.

6. Pliotoperiod: 16 h light,* 8 kdarkness

7. FeedingRegime: None Size of Test Vessel: 30 mL plastic cup Volume and Depth of Test Solutions:

15 mL, 20rmm, j10.

No. of Test Organisms per Test Vessel: 5 No.:of Test Vessels per Tesf Solution: 4

.1.3, 12.

Total No.. of Test Organpisms per Test Solution: 20 Tesst Concentrations (mg/L): 100j,50¢25, 12.5,:and 6.25 14.

Renewal ofTest.Solutions: None

15. Dilution and Primary Control Water: Lake Michigan GLC#'7008

16. Secondary ControlrWater: Synthetic Laboratory (ModeratelyHard)

17. Aeration: None

18. Endpoints Measured: MOrtality (LC50) and. Effhct (EC50)

__________________________________________________________ +/- __________________________________________________________

SLt

REPORTING FORM 4 DAPHNIA MAGNA ACUTE TOXICITY TEST 30 Minute Lake Michigan sample dosed at 4 mg!L Mexel (2.5 mgIL residual concentration)

Facility Name: AEP Cook Nuclear Plant NPDES Permit No.:

Receiving Water: Lake.Michigan Outfall: RWC: N/A Test Dates: 12/01/06 - 12/03/06 Test Species: Daphniamagqna Age Range: <24 hours Test Laboratory:. Great Lakes Environmental Center-(GLEC) ,ReportDate: December 15, 2006 BULKSAMPLE INFORMATION

-SAMPLE DATE ARRIVAL DATEzOF ARRIVAL DECHLORIN ARRIVAL ARRIVAL ARRIVAL COLLECTION RECEIVED TEMPERATURE FIRST USE TRC2 ATION?! pH DO AMMONIA DATES

1. 11/29-30/06' 11i/30/06 09°Cl 112/01/06 NM No 8307 12.0 NM ND: Not Detected What test methods'were used: EPA/600/4-90/027 and EPA-821-R-02-012 Describe'any deviations. from test mhethods' None Source of test organisms: In House: BD 11-20-06 TEST DESCRIPTION1 Fed/Un-fed: Un; Fed Food/Feeding Frequency: None:

No. Replicates per No. Orgahnsms per, Conceritration: 4 Replicate::5 EffluentFiltered? No Effluent Saimple Type: Sample 1: Composite, Samplee 2:

DilUent (0*): Lake Mihilaan Water (GLC# 7008) ,SecondaryControl (04): Synthetic LaboratoryWater (Moderately Hard) MH# 1479

SUMMARY

OF! RESULTS' 48'hour LC,: 35;36 %

48-hour EC5: 35.36 %

LCP5 95% Lower Confidence: Not reliable LC /95%

UpperConfidence: Not reliable PercentMortallty per Concentration

_ _ _- (Percent Effected per Cohcentration).

--Controls"-. -Effluent Concentrationse-.

0

.0i ... 0i 6.25 Percent 125 Percent 25 Percent: so Percent 10o Percent Percentf 0(0) o0(0) o(0) o0(0) 0o0) '2o f2O) i6100(100 2 0o 0o(o)o 0o .00o100 lao; 100100o

'Raw*data shfeets ai'e included in Ap'pendix A.

0,: Synthetic Laboratory Water (Moderately Hard)

Qlnvestigator: Mailee W. Garton Coritact: Dennis McCauley P hone No.: (231)94,1-2230 P~rincinai Resear'ch Scienti~t/Man~ner AfOn~ntionnR' T Rtleac SignatureTitle: Date~t~ngeo'neain Signature:, Date

AppendixA Raw Data Sheets Ehlfioni~ehtal Center 5(e~

K)

CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD (TO BE COMPLETED ONSITE AND SUBMITTED WITH SAMPLES) 739 Hastings Street Traverse City, MI49686 Phaone: (2.31)i941-2230X Fax: (231) 941-2240

,Facility: 0O 60 -. QU*C*eAr r-, " Collector:

Location::.. "oCjzse_ Date: t~~3

~N/~('(vk~J ~ a c260c, Contact Person: !r,- , .1 Witness:v O'- .A ls -

Phone&' Numer: 'LkoES- ScA1o '\-ky OL0 Date:.- LeC 3) 9~

.I

For 24-Hour Composite samples, please:

TRANSFER OF SAMPLES:

(Firstsignature is sampler, last.sigrnature .is authorized, laboratory represeiOntative,.)

SHIPPER. - RECEIVER DATE. TIME TEMPERATURE 2.

_,J, Condition of-Sample Upon Receipt: X. Received on Ice:

ok it I~fcx~

GLEC EFFLUENT AND RECEIVING: WATER

CHECK-IN FORM Grdat -kes Env'lronmental Cenier CLIENT: C C3. -k )-I C_0CQo, .4. PROJECT NUMBER: I, ) 0 (-D INVESTIGATORS:

INITIAL WATER CHEMISTRY (UPON RECEIPT)

L.&\,*, *Mo, .. *:, t, , 2q.k&ýLA*,

DATE.RECEIVED: INITIALS M 'IS ,w

____ __I" _ i________ qj__ 0&'- 1- wl *o GLC NUMBER: "%.___ "o- "i0O*1 "-)-O0 COLLECTION DATE: (Time Interval) i.__ l,/3o a, ° 21-,ý0 '

TEMPERATURE: .

EFFLUENT DESCRIPTIO N: O/tiA WATER CHEMISTRY AT TEST TEMPERATURES DATE RECEIVED: INITIALS '3Dfr\J GLC NUMBER:

7'.Qi o3i9 a. o.Co TEMPERATURE L. - c-

,pH k,1I~3 ca1u DISSOLVED OXYGEN. (mg/IL) , 3'- .. .l . lI )

CONDUCTIVITY (gmhos/cm), "f5.kLr. & k HARDNESS (mg1/L) *,3iAo .LLL .. A.. "*..

ALKALINITY (mq/L) ..

TOTAL CHLORINE (mg/L)-

TOTAL AMMON IA.(mgIL) ______ ______ ____________

Check with project manager to'see if necessary.

Hardness:> Alkalinity: "

S10.

End mL: L3 End mL:. (4.o( f,0 EndmL:- EndmL:

mL:1)

Start mL: 3"1. Sta.rt mL: 4j§ ik.*J .Start mL:. Q Start mL-'; s'.' 14, [o Sample Volumi*e:.___ Sample Volume:. Sample Volume: S) Sample-Volume';5 5g*

FISH 96-HOUR STATIC ACUTE TOXICITY TEST WITH48-HOUR RENEWAL TEST MATERIAL:_______ NO.'FRYtCHAMBER:. 10:

10* P'HOTOP.ERUIOD (L:D0),

PROJECTNHUMBERI.__1 2.Q 00- AGE/SOURCE OF FRY: .Itl:tlc.i, LIGHT INTENPSITY (lux):

VIA k!'P in t

/-ILC TE-STSPECIES:. I II . . ...

WATER: C 0A-i "iCUTION .y..... CX", - T"ESTTEMPER'ATU1RE ('C):

0

______________ .o1

' c g -.. P.T

. '2 .. t*- 213+

DAYIPiAL - ~ i *e~

________-. *

.REPLCAT E C 2 IW

_ _ __-_ _,W I ___ _ _o _" . ... _ _... ...

_,_ _-,,r _ _,_,_3** _ _ __. _--_ :* i _ __.. i

~~~~~~~~ Cz I_ _ ~I_ ' _ _

__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ £4- 4-

- 7"- I PH

.74.7

.....N++* . ...

_...._...._______LA+°

-. T :Y I_ _ _.,,_

___* +

++.

-I I .../' , '°-__

____;0

'°, f Ik * .i,*

j - /,

1\-KC

____:0*T ,b

__ ___l' ,_1_F L+! _

+

++

+

I Q+>

1% 1 17 ,.'_ _ _

=,+..

>,__,__.______,++,,.

ON LL N+:

3, +,

%;I_,__ < 1 1- 10 / ___ 1't ___, I j,

-10

____ -JQ" __

11

) _

_________,0, "* __ ,i" ___ . __ * [. ,!. ___ e _ _ _ .+ _ I 9 ~i Obiervstio.n Key Dale: I SI lNOl I N - Norm~al PM:-Particulati Malter I " Imnobilized /

EAR."~aicS~nvi FS'- Film on Surface Reviewed By*.,

'"*1 ' t*.]+* y ,%AA LVo-J

DAPHNID 48-HOUR STATIC ACUTE TOXICITY TEST Great Upes Efronrnntal Center f)

TEST MATERIAL: . c... TYPE OFTEST: bILuTIONWAtER: \P.ke C, 1 0 PROJECT NUMBER:- 9-- 1 * ) 0.( NUMBER OF DAPHNIDS4HAMBER: 5 GLO ANDIOR BATCH NUMBER: .10A \u

~ ibvry o TE4ST TEMPERATURE:

Cc TEST-SPECIES: NUMBER OF CHAMBERS:

INVESTIGATORS:. = AGE OF DAP.HNIDS: e> \\V]Lijo INCUBATOR #:L .PHOTOPERIOD.112.

CONTROL A,] 1.6.7-590 1..*oqLCONTROL.. F ~ *& 0*:,:

DATE DAT TREATMENT LEVEL ŽLiL2J 0 2 '1 3 1 2 1.. 21 1 TEST TECH. ..

1.. 1 3 "i .4 L TIME .. DAY ,. INIALS REPLICATE NUMBER

_:::_:_ C>,___

TEMPERATURE 0 ,5'.

,C) J _.

pH O* ~ _ _ I Ž _ _ _ _

DO(gL) _ _ _ __

(pmnhoslcm)

NUMBER LVE j~V11 1_ _I 1~~ f SooPH % L - T . . . _.,_

DO (mgJL) ___ (a, _ ; __ p_:3_ .9

___ ___ ___ TEMPERATURE (-C) q _ (

, /.,.....OBSERVATIONS 0

DO (mg/L) 3L(. 1L Ž -

S.ONDUCTANC __ _T__ 2 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,3 c ~ f ____

TEMPERATRE (C) _ _ _ _ _

Observation Key:

PM Particulate Matter REVIEWED BY. i I DOB1- Dried Out opn Beaker ERR - Erratic Swimming FS - Film onSurface

'DATE:

C F- Floater IMM . *Immobile t- I, t

FISH 96-HOUR STATIC ACUTE TOXICITY TEST WITH 48-HOUR RENEWAL NO. FRY/CHAMBER:; :PHOTOPERIOD (L:D}: L..1 T ESITmMAT

- E

.1 A.

AGE/SOURCE OF *FRY: ,LIGHT INTENSITY (lux):.

PROJECT NtUMpEpk: I...b-1 DO:.2

ýTESTSPECES: F 1 OiCUTION WATER: iZ&~ DH~Y~ .TE-TTEMPERATURE P'C lJ-I yr.,

,aQ"

+--+0..M"°WE . +oCI' 2: 1: 7 1* I-

° 1'°I

I 1' L,-- ,+ " _-._, ID I

________ S . SOOq (C)~d Ds T..P.t.C ____.__ _____, . .. __,,____

PH go I.,o IL

-7 -- -7 ?

P.

'+ +,2L," _ 1I_.. _...

_____Il-____

hoI/II' ... Vd __jw4 j I__ VC ll __'

}

Obse,+aI'o' Ke+ ... . .___..._____________________________________l N - Nomal -PM - Particulate Matler FS- Film n' SuJrface I, Irroabilized ,.I a(-I ReieU ERR - Erratic S~winoin If (J

i TRIMMED SPEARMAN-KARBER METHOD. MONTANA STATE UNIV FOR REFERENCE, CITE:

HAMILTON, M.A., R.C. RUSSO, AND R.V. THURSTON', 1977.

TRIMMED SPEARMAN-KARBER METHOD FOR ESTIMATING MEDIAN LETHAL CONCENTRATIONS IN TOXICITY BIOASSAYS.

ENVIRON. SCI. TECHNOL. 11(7): 7i4-7.19;*

CORRECTION 12 (4) :4i7 '(178)

DATE: 12/1/06 TEST NUMBER: 1861-00 DURATIONi: 48 HOURS CHEMICAL:ý 30 MINUTE MEXEL 4 MG/i g1c3009 SPECIES: FHM RAW DATA-:

CONCENTRATION(PERCENT) 6.25 12.50 2'5. 00 :50.000 100.00 NUMBER EXPOSEDý: 20 20 20 2.,0 20 MORTALITIES: 0 0 6 20 20 SPEARMAN:-KARBER TRIM: .00o%

SPEARMAN-KARBER ESTIMATES: LC50: 28&.72 95% LOWER CONFIDENCE: 24.91 95% UPPER CONFIDENCE: 33.10

TRIMMED SPEARMAN-KARBER METHOD. MONTANA STATE UNIV FOR REFERENCE, CITE-HAMILTON,, M.A.i, R.C. RUSSO., AND R,.V. THURSTON,, 1977.

TRIMMED SPEARMANA-KARBER METHOD FOR ESTIMATING MEDIAN LETHAL CONCENTRATIONS IN TOXICITY BIOASSAYS.

ENVIRON. SCI. TECHNOL.. 11(7): 714-7"19, CORRECTION 12(4)1:417 (1978)1.

DATE: 12/1/06 TEST NUMBER-: 18.61-00 DURATIN: 9,6 HOURS CHEMICAL:. COOK NUCLEAR 30 MINUTE SAMPLE SPECIES: FHM

RAW DATA:-

o).16"d" C71r.yj o.0 -i. -,* ,.

CONCENTRATION (PERCENT), 6.25: 12.50. 25.00' 50.00 1oQ.00 NU.MBER EXPOSED.: 20 2.0 20 20 20 MORTALITIES: 0 .0 7 20 2.0' SPEARMAN-KARBER TRIM: .00%

SPEARMAN-KARBER ESTIMATES:; LC50: 2 7 . 7 4- 6 95% LOWER CONFIDENCE:

95%ý UPPER CONFIDENCE<: 32.1 42e. I 6.2

TRIMMED SPEARMAN-KARBER METHOD'. MONTANA STATE UNIV FOR REFERENCE, CITE:

HAMILTON, M.A.,. R;C. RUSSO, AND R.V. THURSTON.,, 1977.

TRIMMED SPEARMAN-KARBER METHOD FOR ESTIMATING MEDIAN LETHAL CONCENTRATIONS IN TOXICITY BIOASSAYS.

ENVIRON. SCI. TECHNOLt. 11.(7): 714-719; CORRECTION 1,2(4) :417 (1978).

DATE: 12/1/06 TEST NUMBER: 1861-00 DURATION:: 96 HOURS CHEMICAL: COOK NUCLEAR GLC#,7009'2..5 M'G/'l SPECIES:' FHMK RAW DATA:

.CONCENTRATION:(MG/L) . 16 .31 .63 1.25' 2-.506 NUMBER EXPOSED: 20 20 20 20: 20 MORTALITIES: 0 0 7 2o 2.0 SPEARMAN-KARBER TRIM: .00%:

SPEARMAN-KARBER ESTIMATES: LC50:* .669 95%. LOWER CONFIDENCE:: .60 95% UPPER CONFIDENCE: .80

-'~ ,~

DAPHNID 48-HOUR STATIC ACUTE TOXICITY TEST Gr.Fat Lakos Envlronmontpi.Cdntcr

.?;o-PAIV r" All I~ANWATFR~ ~ZP( lA- 1 ()

TEST MATERIAL: Ine~ TYPE OF TEST.; ~ 1 NUMBER OF DAPHNID HAMBERFL GLC ANDIOR BATCH NUMBER:

001 nO PROJECTNUMBýR:

TEST.GSPECIES: NUMBER OF CHAMBNERS: I4I- +- 1 r &V" ew TE ST-TEMPERATURE:

INCUBATOR #9 INVESTIGATORS: AGE OPOAPI-NIDrS: 1 2.Q 0L PHOTOPERIOD:

rK I t~**I ~. at 15- Ake, I LAS

_________ I.f) , )t= 11.0In. (J ~.)I

-->. C?'

5 DATE TREATMENT. LEVEL CONTROL- 251 TEST :TECH. r-rF I 14 3 4

TIMIE DAY INITIALS REPLICATE NUMBER i1 +/-2J2j3+/- 1r12 t3 1 40 L4, pH 76____

_____3_ 015 -0 - - ýA OBSERVATIONS-----------------------

DO0(MgIL Z i_ _ -L iLf q~L/

5 .,

_ _ TEMPERATURE ("C)

NUMBER LIVE,!. 511 "15 IIIII1 ~

11f_U~I~

L 0 ~~~~~OBSERVATIONS iu..I=L.. .

S, 2 1 2: pH DOm Z"ir . s SP.CONDUCTANCE C0'f0 30-3(4 TEMPERATURE (Cp). ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _L9 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-Obs.ervation Key:

REVIEWED BY:,~Qk n' r Y93~12 DOB-- Dried Out on.Beaker PM - ParticulateMatter

_..ERR -- ErratIc SwImmIng :: MM -f IlmmoiSUrface DATE: dAi F - Floater 1MM - Immobile

TRIMMED SPEARMAN-KARBER METHOD. MONTANA STATE UNIV FOR REFERENCE, CITE:

HAMI.LTON, MA., R.C. RUSSO, AND RIV. THURSTON, 1977.

TRIMMED SPEARMAN-KARBER METHOD' FOR ESTIMATING MEDIAN LETHAL CONCENTRATIONS IN TOXICITYý BIQASS8AYS.

ENVIRON. SdCI. TECHNOL,.. 11(7)_: 714-7,19;1 CORRECTION 12(4).:417 (1978).,

DATE: :121/1/066 TEST NUMBER: D MAGNA DURATION:' 48 48 CHEMICAL: COOK NUCLEAR 30 MINUTE SPECIES: D MAGNA RAW DATA-:

CONCENTRATION (PERCENT) 6.25 12.50 25ý.00 50.00 100.o00 NUMBER EXPOSED: 20 -20 20 20 20 MORTALITIES,:ý , 0 0 2.0 SPEARMAN-KARBER TRIM: .o00%

SPEARMAN-KARBER ESTIMATES: LC50: 35.3ý6' 0,743 95% CONFIDENCE LtMIT.S h~WL ARE NOT RELIABLE,

TRIMMED SPEARMANý*KARBER METHOD;. MONTANA STATE UNIV FOR REFERENCEi CITE:

HAMILTON, M.A., R.C. RUSSO, AND R.V-. THURSTON, 1977.

TRIMMED: SPEARMAN'-KARBER METHOD FOR ESTIMATING MEDIAN LETHAL CONCENTRATIONS IN TOXICITY BIbQASSAYS.

ENVIRON.' :SCI. TECHNOL., 11 (7) ' 714 -719; CORRECTION i2(4):417 (1978)

DATE: 12/1/06 TEST NMBER:]i 18861-00 DURATION,: 4A8 HOURS CHEMICAL:ý COOK NUCLEAR 2*.5ý MG/L gle6#7009 SPECIES-:, D. MAGNA RAW DATA-:. ,

CONCENTRATION (MG/L) .16 .31 *63 P.2 5 2.50 NUMBER EXPOSED: 20 20 20' 2o 20 MORTALITIES: 0 0 0. 20 29 SPEARMAN-KARBER TRIM: .00%

S PEARMAN-KARBER ESTIMATES: LC50.:' . 88 9.5:% CONFIDENCE LIMITS ARE NOT RELIABLE.ý V1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

GuEC

,September 17, 2007 Mr. Eric Mallen, American*Electric.Power -

Great Donald C. Cook Nuclea'r Plant '

takes, OiieCdok Place Enuironmental Biidgman, Ml 49106

.Gentei:

RE: ACUTE TOXICITY, TEST REPORT FOR A SAMPLE -

Applied COLLECTED FROM AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER, COOK Environentals NUCLEAR PLANT ON AUGUST 28, 2007, -

ScienCes" -

Ww~wwglec-onlinecmm

DearMr. Mallen:

Great. Lakes Enviroiamiental Center (GLEC) has complted.61 .ui"analyses of tle 48-hOui Dcap ic/i.

,dperationr* ,m"g' .ahd 96rid urfatlead minnow acute toxicity test performed-on.a sample collected by 739 Hastings St. American Electric Power (AEP) personnelon August 28,2007. The toxicity tests were initia'tod Traverse Clty- Onl

-. August 29, 20Q.;7.. The~sample analyzed was a Mexeltreated effliuent samplethalt was diluted, M)49686 3: [(GLC Ntiniber: 7160) at the AEP Cook Nuclear Plant. Lake Michigan water(GLC Number 231 941-2230 .7-16.) Ccollected by¢ AEP personnel was usedasjthe dilutidn waterfor tlih D. 1)agna a6id.fathead "i231941-2240 fax . linil ow tests'.

TFhe-d iluted Mex.eljtreated effluenit samnple was acutely toxic. to~both iD. Incighca.dn'd fatlead ,

bpcratiels; 1295 KingAve. minnows-. The 48-1iour .D . agntland96-howrfathead mminow L(Q (median lethal toxicant, Columbus concentration) ,rnc D ,)4agncI 48,:hour (median efwfrctconcetratin'o)'01" estiiiies eie all o59' OH 432,12 .. perceftefflLient, or 1:5 TIU,, (,acite toxic units) 614 A87-1040 -

614A487-1920 fax A summary of the tdstrcdditions forithie txicity tests ariiiCluded in Ta.bles land 2. The 48-,

hour and 964hour LC'0 and;EC, estimates and toic ity:test results are. ilcluded'in Report Forms I and 2. The'raw data :are included iii Apperdik A.,

If you have any.questions or-comnilents coicerning the.esultsý0ofthese toxicity, tests,,pl'ease contact either me or Dennis McCauley art(2.3 1) 94-1ý-2230:' Thinik you for the.pporttuity to provide this.selwvice to Americ Power-.D6naldC*. Cook Nuclear Plant:

i&ElectiPic sincerlely; Maileeý W. Gairton. . ~Deninis J. M6Caule-y

'Laboratdry Coordinator Principal :Research. Sc i'e.nist/

-'--a, Sen iorOperation's Manager a'-

TABLE 1, FATHEAD MINNOW TOXICITY TEST CONDITIONS Mexel treated effluent diluted 3:1 Summairy of-Toxicity Test Conditions 1.. Test Species and Age: Pinhephales promelas, (Fathead minnow),

4 days-Augugst 25, 2007 2>. Test Type. and Duration: 96-houre Static, With. renewal ai 48 hours5.555556e-4 days 0.0133 hours 7.936508e-5 weeks 1.8264e-5 months 3.Test Dates: August 29-September 02, 2007

4. Test Temperature (CC)-.

2

.5. Light Quality: Ambient Laboratory, 10-20 jiEI'mIs-

6. Photoperiod: 1.6h light, 8.h darkness

7. Feeding Regime:. 48 hours5.555556e-4 days 0.0133 hours 7.936508e-5 weeks 1.8264e-5 months

8. Size of Test Vessel:. 250 imL glass beaker

,9; Volume and Depth of Test Solutions: 2N0 mL,,65 mm

10. No. of Test Organisms per Test'Vessel: 10;

11. No. of Test Vessels'per Test Solution: 2

12. Total No. of Test Organisms per Test Solution: 20

13. Test.Concentrations (percent): 100, 506,25, 12.5, and 6.25

14. Renewal'of Test Solutions: 48-'hour renewal' 1:5. Dilution and PrimaryControl Water:: Lake Michigan GLC# 7161 16.. Secondary Control Water; Synthetic Laboratory (Moderately Hard MH# 1543)

17. Ae.ration: None Mortality ([050)*

18. Endpoints Measured:

--10.

REPORTING FORM I FATHEAD. MINNOW ACUTE TOXICITY TEST Mexel treated effluent diluted 3':1 Facility Name: AEP Cook Nuclear Plant NPDES'Permit No.,:

Receiving Water-: Lake Michigan Outfall__ RWC: N/A Test'Dates: 087/29/07"- 09/02/07 Test Speci.es'. Fathead minnows Age Range: 4 days old TestLaboratory: Great. akes Environmental Center.(GLEC) Report Date: September 18, 2007 BULK SAMPLE INFORMATION SAMPLE, DATE, ARRIVAL DATE OF ARRIVAL DECHLORIN ARRIVAL ARRIVAL ARRIVAL COLLECTION RECEIVED TEMPERATURE FIRST USE TRC ATION?. pH DO AMMONIA DATES-

1. ý08/288/07 08/28/07' 06.C 08W29/07, NM No 8:.35- 10.1 NM What'test methods.were used: EPA/600/4-90/027 and EPA-821-R-02o01i Describe'any deviations from test-methods: None Source aftest organisms: In-house lot.# 08/25/07 TEST ,DESCRIPTION Fed/Un'-fed:, Fed Food/Feeding Frequency: Artemia naunlii.2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months prior to,48-hour renewal No. .eplicates per. Nd..O'rganis~ms per Concentration:: 2 Replicate: 10 Effluent Filtered? No.

Effluent Sample Type!: Sample1:.l. Composite Sample 2:,

Diluent (0i): Lake Michiqan"Water (GLCW#7161) Secondary: Control:(02): Synthetic Laboratory Water (Moderately Hard) MH#'1 543

SUMMARY

OF RES.ULTSt 48-hour LC5o: 68.3%

96-hou r LCgo: 65.9%

Percent Mortality perrConcentration (Percent Effected p'er Concentration)

--controisý- Effluent Concentrations--

Day 01 A-.25 Percent 12,5. Percent i62Percent soPercent, _i6o"Percent Peroehtn 1 0(0) 0 (0 0:(0) 0o0o 5 (5) 100 (100) 2 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) :0(0) 0(0) 5(5) 100 (100)

.3 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)' .5(5) 0,(0) 5(5) 100 (100)

, 0:(0) 0(d) 0(0) 51(5) 0(0.

0) 5(5) 10 (.. 00) ____0 Raw datasheets are inctuded in Appendix A, Synthetic Laboratory-Water (Moderately Hard)

.02:o

!nr'ettigato0: MaileeW. Garton 'Contact:

IennisMc~ aule, PIhone No.: (231) 941L2230 Principal Research Scientist/Manaoer-of Operations Date Signature Title

_Titlei Date,

TABLE'2' DAPHNIA MAGNA TOXICITY TEST CONDITIONS Mexel treated effluent diluted 3:1 Summarv of Toxicitv Test Conditions Summarv of T oxici tv Ttest ConIditions 1 ,, Test Species and Age: Daphnia magna, <24 hours old; 2.

Test Type and Duration: Static, 48.hoursý 3: Test Dates: August 29-3:1, 200.7' 4;,

Test'Temperature (C): 25+/- 1 2

5. Light.Quality: Ambient Laboratory, 10-20 1aEIm 1s

6. Photoperiod: 16 h light, 8Bh darkness

7. Feeding, Regime: None:

8 .

Size .ofTest Vessel: 3OraL plastic cup, Volume and Depth of Test Solutions:- 15 rL, 20 mm 10:. No. of Test Organisms per Test Vessel:. 5

11. No. of Test Vessels per Test Soiution: 4 12.ý Total No. of TestQrganisms per Test Solution: 20

13. Test Concentrations (percent): 1:00, 50, 25, 12.5. and 6.25

'44. Renewalrof Test Solutions: None 1:5. Dilution and Primary Control Water:;. Lake Michigan GLC# 7161 1.6. Secondariy Control Wate: Synthetic.Laboiatory (Moderately Hard MH# "1543) 1:7. Aeration: None

18. Endpoints Measured: Mortality (LC") and Effect,(ECo)

REPORTING FORM 2 DAPHNIA MAGNA ACUTE TOXICITY TEST Mexelrtreated effluent diluted 3:1 FadilityNarhe: AEP Cook Nuclear Plant NPDES Permit No.:_

Receiving Water: Laeke Michigan Outfall:. RWc: N/A Test Dates: :08/29/07 - 08/31/07 Test sPecies: Daphnia.mana Age Range: <24 hours Test-Laboratory: dreatLakes.Environmental Center (GLEC) Reppo .Date: :September 18, 2007

-BULK SAMPLE INFORMATION SAMPLE DATE ARRIVAL DATE"OF ARRIVAL DECHLORiN ARRIVAL ARRIVAL ARRIVAL COLLECTION RECEIVED TEMPERATURE FIRST.USE TRC, ATION? pH DO AMMONIA DATES

1. 08/28/07 08/28/07, 046CC 08/29/07 NM No, 8.35 101 NM ND:, Not Detected.

wha~t testmrethods'were used: EPA/600/4-90/027 and EPA-821-Rý02-012 Oescribelany deviations from test:methods: None Source of test organisms: In House: .MH'08-17-07.

TEST DESCRIPTION Fe,dIUn-fed:' Un-Fed Food/Feeding FrequencyNone No. Replicates per No.,Otrganisms per Concentration:.4 Replicaite: 5 Effluent Filtered? No Effluent Sample Type: 'Sample -1:,Composite, Sample2:.

Diluent (0)--Lake Michigan Water (GLC# 716t1) Secondary Control (02): Syhthetic LaboratoryWater (Moderately Hard) MH#.1543

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS*

48-houf LC56d65.9%

48-hour ECso: 65.9%

Percent Mortality-per Concentration

_ -(Petrcent Effected ýper Concentration)

I

-controls-- ... -EfttluentýConcentraoions--

bay

..... ._____d_ .6.25 Percent i z: Perc:enht 15Percerit 'd Pecent _io Perceh _ Perdeht b'010) 0() o-(o) o.(o): 0o(o) 0:(0) 95 (95) 2 o (0) 0(0q 0(0) 0(4) op() 10(10y 100( 100)

"awdata snheets are included in Appendix AW Investigator: Mailee W; Garton

Contact:

Dennis McCauley Phone No.: (231)941-2230',

Prinidoal Research Scientist/Mainaner; nf;iOneations ScientistIM6naage of;Oh6rations Signaturet Title Research Principal Date 13.

Appendix A Raw Data Sheets 44 ~ J ~ 4

CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD (TO BE COMPLETED ONSITE AND ISUBMITTED WITH SAMPLES) 739 Hasilngs Street Traverse CityMI 49686, Phone:' (231)j941-2230 Fax: ý(231) 941'-2240 Facility:-~~ '--~~Q~~ Collec tor ~~444%/ ~~~L/I'~~/aJLL*

Location. * .1 &x0, Z , le' . , Date / 7

9~~/-,

Contact Person: t U P-'c llc,. . Witness IT-f ~ f"K)~f t/( -,~

Phone*-Number: 6Sl- 'AG5,ý 5-'7ID 'X,/.lI D Date: 'e-k'- /6,'-

GLC NUMBER (Lab ID)

SAMPLE IDs DATE/TiME OF SAMPLE*

VOLUME COLLECTED SAMPLE CONTAINER DESCRIPTION.

(Type.of sample, source, physical PRESERVATION 1 ANALYSES-REQUIRED Additional Parameter.s, Measured atCCollection

, characteristics) Ammonia Chlorine

.... __ __I,/,.LmgIL

____ ___ ___ ___ __ __ J

, cY->o7. S/i,~gW 1L. / ,,,.//a.. .*t.* *L *4Ar ,__,___,M__-__

or 24-Hour Composite sampl.es,'please indicate time~s and. dtates thee sampling :start~ed :ahd ended.

TRANSFER OF SAMPLES:

(First::signature is samn-pler, last signature: is *authorized Iabgeatory ep.resentative)

SHIPPER RECEIVER DATE TIME ' /df TEMPERATURE

2. 1/*iz. ~,,.l ?.*

-j Condition. of Sample Upon Receipt: . 2 " 0 , Received-o Ie.

G I.EC EFFLUENT AND" RECEIVING WATER CHECK-IN FORM Ukes Envikompenia Center Gre-it Lv CLIENT: CcOS: . )- ; Y --\r PROJECT NUMBER:,~ \(-

INVESTIGATORS:

INITIAL WATER CHEMISTRY (UPON RECEIPT)

WATER CHEMISTRY AT TEST TEMPERATURES SDATE RECEIVED:- 167 INITIALS Z GLC NUMBER: ~?U_____

'TEMPERATURE.257e. c)O _ _

pH:~6J I ~ I _ _ _

DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mIL) (0. I .. .

CoNDUCTIVITY (Mumhos/cm), '_, 07 HARDNESS (mglL)-

ALKAUiNITY (mglL).______

TOTAL CHLORINE (mg/L)'. to 1__A TOTAL AMMONIA (m/ L) _ _ _ ___ A"i"J "_*

Check with project manager to see if necessarY.

7 ( ... Hardness:

i Alkalinity:: 7t End mm"L >'7 End mL: End mL_:____ End m*":____

Start mL:I Start mL:js71 , Start mL: Start mL: O .

Sample Volume:. ý/&17L Sample Volume:! L Sample Volume:

Sample: VoIume;_Q. L-

GLECE )APHNID 48-HOUR STATIC: ACUTE TOXICITY TEST Grot: bLkes EnIronmital: Con tur TEST MATERIAL: (00h Atehrue- TYPE OFTEST.j~e~\ChS DILUTION WATER:'k4 ý F, 'ZLe' c)

-PROJECT.NUMBER:- - .NUMBER OF DAPHNIDSICHAMBER:_ _ _ _ GLC AND/OR BATCH.NUMBER:

TEST SPECIES: - ,, NI.UMBER OF CHAMBERS: / - TEST TEMPERATURE: P O ,( !

INVESTIGATORS:% 2L - . .. . AEO.FDAPHNIDS:-t'.. [IfI,,h k' 'l(f INCUIBATOR #:i PI-ITOPERIOD:/

DATE TREATMENT LEVEL CONTROL P\G.k 2.% c z-7 (citij.

TIME1 OY iIiL REPLICATE NUMBER 1 ý1 1'2 3 4 1 3 F2 1112FFT F .

TEPRATURE (*C) '2j- __ _ _ 2-'s -s 0 0 (m g /L) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ I i c kO_

, q_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_______1 (moslcm)

NUM13ER LIVyE >

s1I~6 1 ~~i ~ .5 OBSERVATIONS _____ - F J Ji __I 1 ~~~~~pH:f$ (1_ _ _

____ ~~~~~TEMPERATURE (C)______ 7 t __~12 NUMBER LIVE _ -j 11 1Z 0 YZs14 AOBSERVATIONS __W I____f_-

_DO (mgL __ __ _ _ _

SP. CONDUCTANCE 32 3zaa.

___ ~ ~ __ ~ EMEATR _ _ DH__

_ -I__

_ 1 ~ ~ '4X _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

'Observation Key:

DOB .Dried Out on Beaker PM Particulate Matter REVIEWED I ERR - Erratic Swimming ,FS - Film on Surface

-J F- Floater IMM-- Immobile

TRIMMED SPEARMAN-KARBER METHOD. MONTANA STATE UNIV FOR REFERENCE, CITE.:

HAMILTON, M.A.. R.C. RUSSO, AND R'.V. THURSTON, 1977.

TRIMMED SPEARMAN.-KARBER METHOD FOR ESTIMATING MEDIAN LETHAL CONCENTRATIONS IN TOXICITY BIOASSAYS.

ENVIRON. SCI. TECHNOL. 11(7).: 714-7-19; CORRECTIQN412.(4)A:417 . (1'978).

DATE: 58/29/027 TEST. NUMBER:. 1861-00 CHEMICAL: ,COOK NUCLEAR-AEP 'SPECIES': D. MAGNA RAW DATA:

CONCENTRATION (PERCENT 6.25. 12.50 25 .;00 50.00 lOO..00 NUMBER EXPOSED: 20 20

20 20 20 DURATIIN (HOURS LC5O LOWER 95% LIMIT UPPER, 95.% LIMIT PERCENT TRIM 48 -65. 98 60 .12 72:-.41

.00

FISH 96-H.QUR STATIC ACUTE TOXICITYITEST WITH 48-HOUR RENEWAL TEST MATERIAL: /V A a.L K, NHO. FRY/CHAMBERl: 10 PHOTOPERION (i ) .Am16_;8 i PTOJECTPE N HUMEER:__

_____ GLCII_ -' 1r(1 AG°ISOURCE OF FRY: 7 qI, . , c- L C?2 ,LIGHT. INTENS1ITY (lux): . Am~bient TEST-,SPECIES: I:FHM DILUTION WATER M"Had ~lq~ ?c..-I TEST TEMPERATURE (!C): 25°+/- 10C TEST TECH. TREATMENT LEVEL, _____ ______Q A 'ýi1 /z~5tý 1 ____ eL " ci '"r DATE OAT, PMEL REPL. CATENUMBER, 1 2

-250 25.0 250 2s50 25 25.0 T.-p.e.-IIC) 25.0

, , - _ __o 35o I ___o 0.....

'I _ _ , __lsrl _Sp. Coow*G, 0n* ) " _,-" ",7_ _

4______ur___"_,, ___.'

- 'I~ ( 0'"t ___

7 48-Hour. -1

DO

" bs*a o* tCli .

77 2520 t ._ I ....0 12.01 11 25,0

_1 no

)~Lj7 I/ ...

),1J I_ _

Chem1ý1Tries.0 DOVýg&)

mIS I

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

__________-,;,I ___

1__)I- _

IC 1 J_ .I _ _ _

H- KI F flCI > _____ _

2 IT~~.I~I SoIICn,, I ,.I , ...

_Hlg_1____

I [1_ý O"Z fIT .WoI.I0.IC Nw5be, 1:14 I__

(S'.

IX-

"Y' 1____

PHrvI~n __33__

ObnSUIaNI Ken.

Dawl: Lj~q~Q')

Ne.,I,2I

E,.nIn,Sa.nwxno M.- P2Iicui2ltR M.1D1W F'S TIiln,,on Sw"lacý I- Imnwe&h1ed By. ~~~,) cu rJ

TRIMMED SPEARMAN-KARBER, METHOD.. MONTANA STATE UNIV FOR REFERENCE, CITE:

HAMILTON,ý M.A., R.C. RUSSO, AND R.Ve. THURSTON, 1977.

TRIMMED SPEARMAN-KARBER METHOD FOR ESTIMATING MEDIAN LETHAL :CONCENTRATIONS IN TOXIClITyBIOASSAYS,.

ENVIRON. SCI, TECHNOL. l(,7): 714-719; CORRECTION 12:(4) :4-17 '(1978).

DATE: 8/29/07, TEST NUMBER: 1861-00:

CHEMICkL:,COOK NUCLEAR. GLC7Ei60 SPECIE'S, FHM:

RAW DATA:

CONCENTRATION(PERCENT 6.25. 12.50 25._00 50.00 1O0.o00 NUMBER EXPOSOED: 20 20 20 20' 2'0 DURATION (H Y LC50 LOWER 95% LIMIT UPPER 95% LIMIT PERCENT TRIM 48- 6.8.30 63.84 73.08

.00

TRIMMED. SPEARMAN'-KARBER METHOD. MONTANA STATE UNIV FOR REFERENCE, CITE:

HAMILTON, M.A., R.C. RUSSO, AND R.V. .THURSTON, 1977.

TRIMMED SPEýARMAN-KARBER METHOD FOR ESTIMATING MEDIAN LETHAL CONCENTRATIONS: IN TOXICITY'BIOASSAYS.

ENVIRON. SCI. TECHNOL. 11(7"): 714-719:;

CORRECTION 1:21(4)':4.17 (1978),.

DATE: 9/4/07 TEST NUMBER: 1861-00

ýCHEMICAL: COOKNUCLEAR-AEP SPECIES:: FHM RAW DATA:'

CONCENTRATION'(PERCENT 6.25 12.50 25.010 50;.00, 100.00 NUMBER EXPOSED!: 20 20 120 20: 20 DURATION (HOURS. LC50 LOWER 95% LIMITý UPPER ý95% LIMIT PERCENT TRIM 72 64, 96, 65.'98 59 .!93

.00

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

D. C. COOK PLANT ZEBRA MUSSEL MONITORING PROGRAM WORKSHEET Mexel Test - Art. Sub. Size and Density Calculation Sheet Date: 9/13/2006 Sample Mexel - Untreated Mexel - Treated Mexel - Untreated Mexel -Treated VeliQer Micrometer Size Mrter Size # of veligers # of veligers Number Reading (u) Reading (U) per slide per slide 1 2 78 2 78 Slide # Subsample 3 2 16 627 2.5 98 1 1 1 1 3 3 118 4 157 2 2 1 4 4 157 2 78 3 3 2 5 2 78 4 3 4 3 6 6 235 5 5 7 9 353 6 6 8 3 118 7 7 9 2 78 8 8 10 3 118 9 9 10 10 T12 12 _______

Avg. Avg.

13 #I slide 0.8 # / slide 2 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Avg. 245 103 Min. 78 78 Max. 627 353 Dens. 427 1067 E. Scott Rose / 9-16-06 ?A i~4~ 6 Analyzed ba Date Reviewed by Date

r; i~. ~~

EII1 LIi 6.6 OA l2 IJ!

MWIASl b

~iIF-.l rI 0

tf.,lMl, am nO1' D'

"'dLV.

D~ Ul~ilrllh AMIOVOUEC*T tAI- i .I ,

Mexel Test - Art. Sub. Size and Density Calculation Sheet Date: 9/28/06 Sample Mexel - Untreated Mexel - Treated Mexel - Untreated Mexel - Treated Veliger MicroMeter Size Microaeter Size #tofveliers #of velgers Number Readig (U) Reading (u) Per slde per side_

1 12 470 10 392 Slide # Slide #

2 6 235 8 314 1 5 1 1 3 11 431 8 314 2 2 5 4 10 392 13 510 3 2 3 9 5 14 549 2.5 98 4 1 4 2 8 9 353 2.5 8 5 T 2.5 98 6 235 6

-7 7 8 8 314 8 314 8

§ 2 78 11 431 9

10 2 78 3 118 10 10 11 8 314 7 274 12 8 314 Avg. Avg.

13 2 78 # I slide 2.2 # / slide 3.4 14 7 274 15 9 35-116 3 118 17 9 353 18 19 Samples pulled from Mexel test equipment 20 on 9-28-06.

21 22 23-24 25 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 35 30 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Avg. 301 270 Min. 787 Max. 549 510 Dens. 1173 1813 Analyzed by I /A4~t93 Date c*A~Ž~~

Reviewed by 7/4;~,

Date 3Lf

D. C. COOK PLANT ZEBRA MUSSEL MONITORING PROGRAM WORKSHEET Mexel Test - Art. Sub. Size and Density Calculation Sheet Date: 10/12/06 Sample Mexel - Untreated Mexel - Treated Mexel-Untreated Mexel-Treated Velicer Micrometer Size Miomar Size # veligers # veligers Number Reading (u) Reading (u) per slide per slide 1 9 353 8 314 Slide # Slide #

2 13 510 7 274 4 1 7 3 6.5 255 10 392 2 1 2 94 A.

4 10 392 2 78 3 2 3 7 5 21 823 2 78 4 -2 4 15 B 6 8 314 2.5 98 5 15 5 17 7 2 78 9 353 6 6 8 3 118 11 431 7 7 9 28 1098 9 353 8 10 20 784 2.5 98 9 9 11 30 1176 18 706 10 10 12 57 2234 12 470 Avg. Avg.

13 14 549 9 353 # I slide 4.8 # I slide 28 14 8 314 8 314 A 15 2.5 98 21 823 Found 2 "clumps" of vellgers. One with 65-75 Individuals 16 3 118 8 314 ranging in size from 10um and the other with 8-10 17 2.5 98 12 470 Individuals in the same size range. This total of 94 18 25 98 2 78 includes 70 and 9from the "clumps" as well as 18 others found on the slide 19 3 118 2.5 98 20Td_ 10 392 B 21 19 745 This total of 15 includes 2 smaller "clumps" of 5 veligers 22 12 470 plus 5 others found on the slide 23 14 549 24 8 314 25 15 588 Mexel Carbon Steel Samples 26 2.5 93 One Test and one control carbon steel coupons were removed from 27 2 78 the treatment system and analyzed. The coupons are 1/2Iwide X-6" 28 3.5 137 long. 3 ( 1/2' sections (.75 in2 total area) were viewed under the 29 6 235 scope. Settled veligers on these 3 sec Dlons were counted and 30 9 353 measured 31 2 78 Untreated Coupon Treated Coupon 32 2 78 33 2.5 98 Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 34 2 78 #post-veligers 71 14 30 18 3 5 35 8 314 1,497 1,449 725 725 676 290 36 9 353 483 676 531 242 290 290 37 2 78 386 821 966 483 290 193 38 10 392 386 580 869 386 386 39 11 431 Randomly chosen p 1,449 628 386 290 24-242 veliger size 40 2 78 725 918 measurements(um) 41 2.5 98 628 435 42 3 118 580 531 43 3.5 137 676 773 44 2.5 98 918 580 45 Avg. Size (um) 773 831 671 425 419 280 46 47 Density () 440,200 58,800 188,000 111,600 18, 31,000 2

48 Avg density (#/M ) 237,667 53,733 49 2

50 Densities based on 1550in /M2 Avg. 501 284 Min. 78 78 Max. 2234 823 Dens. 2560 14933 E. Scott Rose//jf,'/ 10-12-06 Analyzed by Date Reviewed by Date

D. C. COOK PLANT ZEBRA MUSSEL MONITORING PROGRAM WORKSHEET Mexel Test - Art. Sub. Size and Density Calculation Sheet Date:

Sample Mexel - Untreated Mexel - Treated Mexel - Ireatea Veliaer _____ ____ ____ ____ Mexel - Untreated (all omi nisms) mbmer Size Mkcrmeler Size # of veliger Sof veligers Number Re*ding (u) Reading (u) per side per slide 1 11.5 555 2 97 Slide # Slide #

2 22 1063 15 725 1 10 1 58 3 7 338 2 97 2 31 2 12 4 32 1546 8 386 3 17 3 20 5 21 1014 1.5 72 4 12 4 6 5 1f4 5 32 6 9 918 3 145 7 8 386 2 97 6 11 531 2 9 7 9 23 1111 2 17 821 1.5 72 9 9 11 15 751 2 10 12 46 2222 11 531 Avg. Avg.

13 13 628 6 290 0 1 slide 16.8 # I slide 25.6 14 2 97 5 242 is a 386 7 338 16 2 1014 19 918 17 15 725 14 676 Mexel - Treated 18 14 676 16 773 (settled o _anisms) 19 19 918 6 290 # of veligers 20 1i72s8 7 per slide 21 F 386 14 676 Slide #

22 17 821 16 773 1 10 23 1I 918 11 531 2 12 24 13 628 17 821 3 19 25 9 435 18 869 4 5 26 12 580 22 1063 5 11 5

27 93 4492 18 869 28 15 725 11 531 7 1014 11 531 8 29 21 30 9 435 22 17=3 9 31 7 T9 15 72- 10 32 7 338 8 386 Avg.

33 1 531 25 1208 # / slide 11.4 34 18 869 5 242 35 14 676 2.5 121 Density 6080 36 5 242 29 1401 37 45 2174 8 388 38 20 966 18 869 >half of the organisms on the treated 39 6 290 56 2705 slides were less than 170um in length, 40 14 676 15 725 i.e. still considered trans-locators 41 51 2463 10 483 42 21 1014 11 531 Additionally, 2 "clumps" of translocator-43 19 918 22 1063 sized veligers were found on one slide-44 21 1014 25 1208 one "clump" of 14 (72-145um length) and 45 16 773 2.5 121 another of 31 (72-t70um length).

46 39 1884 2 97 47 37 1787 48 35 1691 49 20 966 50 22 1063 Avg. 968 595 Min.

Max. 4492 2705 2

Dens. or/ 8960 3 Analyzed by Dite Reviewed by Date

D. C. COOK PLANT ZEBRA MUSSEL MONITORING PROGRAM WORKSHEET Mexel Test - Art. Sub. Size and Density Calculation Sheet Date: 11/9/06 Sample Mexel - Untreated Mexel - Treated Mexel - Untreated Mexel - Treated Veliert Mmboneter Size MirMa Size # of veligers # of veligers Number Reading (u) Reading (u) per slide per slide 1 45 2174 18 669 Slide # Slide #

2 8 386 16 773 1 72 1 36 3 7 338 9 435 2 87 2 39 4 7 338 5 242 3 55 3 116 A 5 8 386 19 918 4 69 4 48 6 5 242 6 290 5 93 5 32 7 6 290 15 725 6 6 8 7 338 6 290 7 7 9 7 338 7 338 8 10 6 290 8 386 9 9 1932 10 10 1 9 435 40 12 36 1739 12 580 Avg. Avg.

/slide 75.2 # I slide 54.2 13 9 435 8 386 14 5 242 25 1208 Is 6 290 10 483 16 10 483 10 483 A 17 15 725 8 386 2 "clumps" of translocator-sized veligers 18 10 483 18 869 were found on one slide- one "clump" of 19 11 531 15 725 45 (97-170um length) and another of 12 20 8 386 14 676 (97-145um length).

5 242 15 725 22 7 338 17 821 23 6 290 26 1256 24 5 242 25 1208 Mexel - Treated 25 4 193 18 869 !settled organisms) 26 7 338 10 483 # of veingers 27 16 773 23 1111 per side 28 11 531 11 531 Slide #

29 5 242 14 676 1 35 30 10 483 6 290 2 39 31 7 338 21 '1014 3 59 32 6 290 11 531 4 48 33 7 338 23 1111 5 32 34 7 338 16 773 6 35 6 290 9 435 7 36 6 290 44 2125 a 37 6 290 1 48 9 38 6 290 15 725 10 39 5 242 9 435 Avg.

40 48 2318 11 531 # I slide 42.8 41 33 1594 12 580 42 19 918 8 386 Density 2282(,6667 43 6 290 20 966 44 6 290 12 580 45 7 338 12 580 48 7 338 16 773 47 6 290 6 290 48 5 242 10 483 49 5 242 10 483 50 8 290 7 338 Avg. 488 683 Min. 163 48 Max. 2318 2125 Dens. _40,107 28,907 E. Scott Rose /<w l 11-9-06 Aolzdb_ aeReiwdb Re-viewed by Analyzed bf" Date Date

D.C. COOK PLANT ZEBRA MUSSEL MONITORING PROGRAM WORKSHEET Mexel Test - Art. Sub. Size and Density Calculation Sheet Date: 12/7/06 Sample Mexel - Untreated Mexel - Treated Mexel-Untreated Mexel-Treated Veliger Micieornet Size Nmaer Size # vellgers # ve.igers Number Reading (u) Roatn (u) per slkis per alle 1 25 980 14 549 Slide # Slide #

2 22 862 10 392 1 75 1 134 3 9 353 20 784 2 214 2 94 4 20 784 9 353 3 202 3 114 5 8 314 31 1215 4 228 4 141 6 25 980 15 5s8 5 82 5 87 7 22 862 29 1137 6 6 8 63 2470 30 1176 7 7 9 13 510 27 108 8 8 10 14 549 15 588 9 9

.. 13 510 13 10 10 10 12 10 392 18 706 Avg. Avg.

13 28 1098 16 627 # I slide 160.2 #Islide 114 14 83 3254 16 627

-- 81 3175 341 18 56 2195 9 353 There was, for the first time, no evidenco of 17 13 510 43 1886 "clumping" on the Moxol-treated slldes.

18 7 274 37 1450 19 8 314 16 627 20 7 274 7 274 21 7 274 2 1058 22 26 1019 29 1137 23 31 1215 9 353 24 310 392 25 21 823 12 470 Mexel Carbon Steel Samples 26 8 314 10 392 One Test and one control carbon steal coupons were removed from 27 14 549 10 392 the treatment system and analyzed. The coupons are 1/2" wide X-r 28 8 314 13 510 2 long. 3 Q 1" sections (1.50 In total ares) were viewed under the 29 19 745 13 510 scope. Settled vellgers on these 3 sections were counted and

..... W0 353 12 470- measured 31 a 314 6 235 Untreated Coupon Treated Coupon 32 7 274 22 862 33 7 274 15 588 Section I Section2 ction3 Section I Section2Secion 3 34 57 2234 12 470 # post-vligers 90 87 134 40 14 is 35 9 353 17 566 918 242 2174 103 1014 36 8 314 17 666 2,483 1352 338 1014 1159 435 37 35 1372 15 588 878 1159 290 725 821 580 38 12 470 14 549 1,258 889 531 1258 1846 1401 39 14 549 14 549 Randomly chosen po 1 1654 628 531 1063 531 40 27 1058 10 392 veoiger Sze 918 580 242 580 918 58 measurements(urn) 41 60 2352 80 3136 1,014 1014 1,787 483 678 1449 42 8 314 37 1450 1,304 725 531 580 89 986 43 6 235 30 1176 2,029 1083 11,401 1111 531 1739 44 12 470 24 941 483 918 388 988 725 725 45 19 745 8 314 Avg. Size (urn) 1,492 1,189 638 942 937 942 48 8 235 27 1058 47 9 353 57 2234 ,Density,(VW) 27,000 260,700 416.400 124,000 43,400 48,500 48 15 588 9 353 Avg denslty (UW/) 321,367 71,300 49 6 235 15 588 50 8 314 16 627 Densities based on 1550trn/M" Avg. 1073 749 Min. 24 23 Max. 3254 3136 Dens. 85440 L 8 1000 /ý E.Scott Rosed b 41 12-708 Reviw 6b Analyzed bf - Date Reviewed by Date

Date: 6-7-2007 2007 k'exel Control GO,!T PROL TREATED Densitv (ml Sample 2007 Nexef 200Q6 (Wre), 2007 Mexel 2006 Mexel Subsample veliQers/mO Veliger _______l _____ _________ I___ ______

Micrometer Size Micrometer S"zo Micrometer Size Micrometer Size Number Reading (u) Reading (u) Reading (U) Reading (u) 1 11 1 2.5 121 20 966 2 97 38 1835 2 22 20.0 2 7 338 30 1449 3 145 73 3526 3 7 3 2 97 39 1884 2 97 28 1352 4 15 4 2.5 121 35 1691 4 193 30 1449 5 45 5 2 97 112 1 5410 1 2 97 1 44 1 2125 6

- e I -~ t -. .~. I - I ~. I -. I e 1 I 2037 Wrax~el G~trol t 1.5 72 j 54 1 2608 1 3 14U5 4 1 4057 7" 7 4 193 30 1449 4 193 28 1352 8 10er,36y

(#1ma3) 8 2 97 59 2850 31 1497 53 2560 9 72 41 1 1980 2 97 37 17871 10 10 2 97 30 1449 2 97 58 2801 ýUua Iwetel '07-777

.. T.i 2 97 342 16519 10 483 31 1497 Drnsil i#

12 2 97 44 2125 2.5 121 25 1208 13 3 145 25 1208 2 97 28 1352 Subsample 14 3 145 30 1449 1.5 72 63 3043 1 166 15 3 145 72 3478 2.5 121 30 1449 2 227 204.3 16 2 97 31 1497 2.5 121 13 628 3 220 17 2.5 121 52 2512 3.5 169 70 3381 4 18 3 145 40 1932 2 97 52 2512 5 19 3 145 31 1497 2 97 61 2946 6 20 2.5 121 97 4685 2 97 17 821 7 2CO06 IC O 2 3 145 87 4202 3 145 55 2657 8 22 3 145 30 1449 2 97 40 1932 9 23 3.5 169 50 2415 2 97 22 1063 10 24 2 97 74 3574 3 145 35 1691 25 2 97 39 1884 2 97 21 1014 2007 Mexel Treated 26 2 97 55 2657 2 97 17 821 Densiy (#1m 2) 27 2.5 121 28 1352 3 145 77 3719 # of 28 2 97 40 1932 2 97 31 1497 Subsample vellgers/ml 29 2 97 21 1014 2 97 11 531 1 23 30 3 145 25 1208 2 97 43 2077 2 14 31 4 193 2 97 3 14 13.0 32 2.5 121 2 97 4 6 33 3 145 2.5 121 5 8 3 145 3 145 6 35 3 145 2 97 7 603exel Treated 36 5 242 4 1 193 j _ 1 8_ _

37 2 97 2 1 97 9 38 2 97 2 97 10 63,933 1 39 3 145 2 97 2006 Mexal Treated 40 2.5 121 2 97 Densil (#lm2) 41 2 97 2 97 # of 42 4 193 2 97 Subsample velgers/ml 43 4 193 2 97 1 78 44 2 97 1 2 97 1 2 64 45 2 97 3 79 73.7 46 2 97 4 47 2 97 48 1 6:ý 5 -

49 7 2006 Mexal Treated 50 8 9

Avg. 129 2677 154 1956 10

________ I 39,289 Min. 72 966 -T272 531 I*j:Io AA7 Dens. ( REF #REFI 1#E I

.__._7k

Date: 8/23/07 2007 Merel Control Sample

[EXEL-CONTROL I MEXEL-TREATED Density (#fm )

2

o Valiaer 2007 terel 2003 lexel 2007 Mexel 2006 Mexel Subaample velliher Pconw Size hU*Ju Size Mkrorew Size b Size Number Reading (u) Reding (u) Reading (u) Reading (U) 1 1 5 267 4 214 2 2 8 427 163 8704 3 3 5 267 8 427 4 4 4 214 17 908 5 5__3 1 1 5_1 320 10 534 6 DIV/O! Avg 6 17 1 908 12 1 641 7 2007 tvre),a Control Control 7 121 11211_ 7 374 8 1 Density) a8 280 114952 1 17 374 9 1 (#!rn3) 9 157 1 8384 15 1 801 10 #D!VIO!]

1 -1* t -- ,~ - - t - 1* -- 9 ,... - ~ I-.

1U It 1 4UM l1 i tU1 L-Oillzrc-l 11 5 267 1140 7476 Density (#I/m 2) 12 7 374 112 641 Sof 13 4 214 10 534 Subsample veratsslde 14 8 427 10 534 1 1204 3 fT 427 2 872 1038.0 Avg./slide 16 8 320 10 534, 3 Due to heavy and mature 17 a__ 320 41 2189 4 settlment only 2 lidn were 18 9 481 10 534 5 analyzed, Visually the moat-19 127 6782 1-0840 13 12 694 641 s

7

__ and the l_ pulated 20 23

-0 -FV 7 200 14exel Control 21 1-T MM_ . Density 22 11 587 9 1 (#lm3) 23 -- 10 '534 10 _53,600 25 8 427 2007 Mexol Treated 26 - 13 92 27 9 481 # Of #

28 .... 10 534 Subsample veIld8 -100um 29 6 320 1 3a 8 427 2 31 18 961 3 32 12 641 4 33 10 534 5

_4 10 534 8 #DIVI0! Avg.

35 27 1442 7 2007 Mexel Treated 36 12 641 8 Density 37 118 6301 9 (#Im3) 38 9 481 10 #DIV/01 39 _ 11 587 2008 Mexal Treated

-40 9 481 Density (#/m2 )

41 14 748 $of 42 19 1015 Subsample ve*i4W&rde 43 34 1816 1 324 44 183 8704 2 338 45 17 908 3 174 247.4 Avg./slide 46 6 320 4 198 47 '_14 748 5 203 48 13 694 6 1 49 12 6411 7 1 AVVQ ID 4 I + 4 4 4 4 .4 I 1~

50 46 2456 8 i nrn-itw 9 3#4m3)

~4~I~ b C -4 4 Avg. 2561 13831 t 131,947

- a- I Min. 214 Max. 14952 OQAA Dons. #FF WlVTOT -i

- C- &- I ~1. - a.- &~ &~ J. -

,Date 7I-Analyzed by Z -' aTwe Analyzed by DaleReviewed by Reviewed by Date Clio

THIS" PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Analysis of Mexel Test Blo-box Baffles U U.......

Date: 9/6/07 2007 Ittexel Control

['EXEL-CONTROL MEXEL-TREATED Density (91I)

Sample # of vewigewr Veliger Subsample 1 in2 scrping MWirometer Size Micrmete Size Number Reading (u) Reading (u) 1 16 1 5 167 4 193 2 29 2 8 266 8 386 W 3 3 19 633 4 193 1 4 4 7 233 6 290 5 5_ 12 400_ 5.[~ 242~ __ 6_ 22w JA___

6 22 733 7 338 7 Z007 Mclixel Control 7 13 433 5 2421 a Dansity 8 14 456 8 3861 9 9 12 400 10 ( 34,875 .

- 1 ~,. ...... I I I 1 t 1- - -

10 10 333LI I- -~ + ~ I I 4

4-11 304 1483 12 52 2512 13 11 531 14 5 242 15 7 338 16 68 32842 17 18 9 10 435 483 ___

2 @ 1 in scrapings 19 0 4290 were taken from each 2T 9 __ 435 baffle - one from a 2122 _-sparsely populated 23 area, one from a 24-25 -densely populated 2007 Meeil Treated 2T area. Density (#/m 2) 27 # of vellgers/

28 Subsample I1n2 =raping 29 1 7 3021 31 3 32 4

___ _ I 5 34 L I & ~ I J I &-..--...&

4.0 35 7 20c )7 Mexel Treated 36 8 _ ensity 37 9 3 38 10 ( 6 I. + 4 4 I 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 48 _____

Avg. 1365 2864 Min. 167 I--

Max. 14683 386 Dens. _9:9 -f#

bj"ý Piw E. Scott Rose/$Sd / 9-6-07 , ?T/o7 Analyzed 09-" Date Reviewed by Date

APPENDIX 4 FINAL REPORT Mixing Zone Eval'ation for the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Discharge Plume in Lake Michigan Prepared for.

AEP Cook Nudear Plant One Cook Place Bid man, MI49106 Prepaied by:

Gre La*s E ,rk).nsntIe-Great Lakes EnvAronmental*Center Traverse Cty, MI 49686 Phone: 231-941-2230 Facsimile:- 231-941-2240 Principal Contact Persons:

Dennis ..McCauley dmccaulevy@giec*com Doug Endicott.

dendieOtt@,gecjconm April 20,2:006 iiq

AEP' Cook Nuclear Plant fixing Zone Evaluation April.20, 2006 EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

The Indiana Michigan Power Company's Donald Q. Gook Nuclear Plant located onthe' southeastern shore of Lake Michigan is seeking to modifyi-ts NPDES Permit toalloW the use, of the proprietary molluscicide, Mexel 432, to'control the settlement and, growth of zebra mussels and quagga mussels 0on..the:intake tunnels of the circulating water sysem.

The Michigan Department. of Environmental Quality has calculated a waterquality criterion for Mexel. If this criterion is applied to the Cook Nuclear Plant as an end-of-pipe limit, the limit will be exceeded. The objective of the mixing zone evaluation,was to summarize the existing data in: a .reprtto .theMichigan Department of Environmental Quality (M4DEQ) to determine whether a mixingzone is acceptable and protective of the designated uses andiwaterquality of the receiving water (Lake Michigan). Ultimately; the, goal of the dernonstration is to achieve compliance for future. Cook Nuclear NPDES discharges with Rule 51 of the Michigan Wafer Quality Standards, specificalIly, Rule 323.1082 (Rule, 82, Mixing zones); Sub-rule 7.

The State of Michigan water quality standard alloWs dischargers to meet waterquality criteria at the edge of amixing, zone. Michigan's regulation defines mixing zone as, "'that portion of a water body allocated by the department'where a point sourcedor venting jgroundwater discharge is mixed with the surface waters of the state."(Water Quality.

Standards Partf4, R 323.1082(j1)) IfidianaMichigan Power Company was asked by the,;

MDEQ.to-determine the dilution ratio of the Mexel discharge concentration with Lake Michigan water. Michigan Surface: Water Quality Standards rule defines the' edge of the mixing zone as theqpoint where discharge nduced mixing ceases to .occur.

A computitional fluid dynamics model (FLUENT v6.2)-was used to determine the dilution. ratio :of Mexel in the :discharge from Cook Nuclear Plant, at, the edge of a miixing Zone, using Michigan water quality standards definitions and procedures.

Theimodeling results demonstfated thatf the dilution factor at theedge of the near-field

mixing;zone'wi!! be approximately: 3.0 at the,2 ft./sec. (fs) isopleth. 'The modeling results also demonstataedd that thetwo cooling water discharges, do not overlap and that

'tle area:of the near-field mixing zone! foreach outfall'is relatively smal! And contained within seve'ral hundred square feet.

A review of theypotential impact on designated uses of Lake Michigan Water, concluded' that there was- no impact on Any designated use., Of particular concern, will be the impact of the application.of a molluscide Mexel A-432 to. the cooling water discharge' on Gteat Lakes fisheries: and'aquatic life. Cook Nuclear had previously developed a Tier Iwater quality criterion of 0.1 ing/ (100 ptg/L) for Mexel. No other water quality criterion is of concern at:this:time. The expe6cted'.maximum concentration of Mexei A-432 at the edge of the near-field mixing zone, with one unit treated at a time: is approximately 0.1 mg/L.

,The expected maximum concentration of MexelA-432 at'the edge of'the near-field mixing zone, with .two units treated ýs'imultaneously is approximately 0.2 mg/L.

U J.~

AEP Cook. Nuclear Plant Mixing ZoneEvaluation April 20, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMAR, ................ .............

Introduction .... ...... .............. . . . ........................................... ........................... .

Desciiption of theStudy Area and Intake and Discharge Configuration ........................ 2 Lake Bathymetry and Water Currents ............................... . ............... ,...2 Intake Configuration: Discharge Configuration ...................... . . .. ....2.

Discharge Configuration ............... ....................... 3 Review of Previbus M ixing Zone'Studies ..... ..- ............................................ 4 M odeling Objectives...... ...................................................... .................... 5 Mixing Zone Definition ..................................... .....,,., . . 5 FLUENT Model ..................................................... 6

'Model Boundary Conditions ............ ,.. .......... ................................ . 6 FLUENT Model Results.......;.......... ...... ... 6..

Impact on Designated Uses ............................................. i21 Great Lakes.Fishery, Aquatic Life and Wildlife ....................... 2 Review of Water Quality Standards and Toxicity-Test Data ................ 13 PublicWWat aterr.........

Supply .................

S ........ .S....... . .... . ............. ......................... 16 1.6

SUMMARY

ANT )CONCLUSIONS ...... .................. 21 REFEREN CES .............................................................. ............ .......

ii q;3

AEP Cook Nuclear Plant Mixing.Zone Evaluation April 20,200k6 FIGURES Figure 1. Plan View of D.C. Cook Condenser Cooling'Water System Figure 2. Two fpslsopleth, Figure 3. Three. fjs Isopleth.

Figure 4.. Visualization of effluent. dilution within the discharge-inducedmixing, zone (plan view). FLUENT modeliprediction of ambient lake water fraction (i e.,

1/DR) on 2 f~s plume, surface velocity isopleth for zero ambient velocity, 2 discharge units: operating and treating simultaneously.

Figure 5'. Visualization of effluent dilution within.the dischargeqinduced mixing zone (plan view);.FLUENT model prediction of ambient-lake water fraction (i.e.,2.

ambient velocity, l/DR) on-3 f3ps plume surface velocity isopleth for fps discharge units operating and t-eating s.'imultaneously.

Figure 6. Visualization of stream paths for particles injected into the plumezat-the discharge point(s)

Figure 7.9 Map Indicating Location of Lake Township PublicWater. Stipply.hitake and CNP'Dischrge Structures in LakeMichiganr The distance betweenthese points'was measured as 3$,220, feet using survey methods and GPS controls TABLES Table 1. Predicted Average Dilution:Ratios (DRs)For Different .Abient Current Velocities, Plume Boundary Velocitiesi, and OperatingITreatment Conditions.

Table 2. Summary of the Designated Uses and the Impact of Cooling WaterDis'charge

-onLake Michigan Offshore of the DC Cook Cooling Water 'Discharge.

Table 3. Summary of Acceptable @Mexel Toxicity TestiData (December 2004)

Table* 4. Mexel A-,432 Median Lethal Toxicant Concentrations (Lc50) Based on Daily Intermittent Exposures of 20Minutes EachDay APPENDIXk Appendix A. Current-Meter Data from NOAA/GLERL EEGLE Project.. Data Measured

ýat Station: C4; Mooted'in 11 Meters of Water Offshore of the D.C. Cook Nuclear. Power.Plant.

iii

£4.

AEP Cook Nuclear Plant Mixing Zone Evaluation April ,20, 2006 Introduction The IndianaMichigan.Power Company's Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant located on the southeastern shore of Lake Michigan is seeking to modify its NPDES Permit to allow the use of the proprietary molluscicide,,Mexel 432,.to control the settlement and groWth of

.zebra,mussels and quagga mussels on the intake tunnels of the circulating water system.

PlantfoperatorS. plan to inject Mexel into the circulating Water'system at the intake structures out in the lake. The Mexel would be circulated through the plant cooling system, and discharged back out int0 the lake through the cooling water: discharge:

structures.

The objective ofths mixing zoneevaluation is to smtimarize the existing data in a report toý the.Michigan.Department of Environmental Quality MEQ) to determine whether a mixing zone is acceptable.,and protective ofthe,designated uses andwater quality of the receiving water (Lake Michigan). Ultimately, the goal of the demonsti-ation:is to achieve compliance. for, futureCook Nuclear NPDES discharges WIith Rule 51 of the Michigan Water Quality Standards, specifically, Rule. 323.1082 (Rule 82, Mixing zones);-

Sub-rule 7.

The MDEQ has calculated a water quality criterion1fr.Mexel. If this criterion is applied to the Cook Nuclear Plant as an end-ofrpipe limit, the limit will be exceeded-. For theý treatments to: be effective, Mexel will need to be injected in. the intake at concentrations that will' not be degraded and diluted to a concentration less than or equal to the water quality criterion by the time the cooling water is discharged to Lake Michigan.In .other words, thedosage of Mexel 432.required to control zebra and quagga musseis will result in the discharge of cooling, water to Lake Michigan that exceeds, the water quality, criterion.

The State of Michigan water quality standdard allows dischargers to meet water quality criteria~at the-edge.of a mixing zone. Michigan's regulation defines mixinig zone as,, that portiOn of a Water body allocated by the department where a point. source or venting groundwateir discharge is mixed with the surface. waters of the state."' (Water Quality, Standards Part 4, R 323. 1082(1)) Indi-ana Michigan Power Company was asked by the MIDEQ to determine the dilutiontratio of the Mexel discharge concentrationwith Laked Michigan water. Michigan Surface Water Quality Standards rule definesý the edge: of the mixing zone as the point where discharge-induced mixing ceases to occur. According to General Rule, Part 4 R 323.1043 Definitions;. A to L:

"Discharge-induced mixing" means the mixing ofa discharge and receiving, water that occurs due to dischar'ge momentum and buoyancy up to the point where mixing is controlled by ambient turbulence."

A computational, fluid dynamics, model (FLUENT v6.2) was used to determine the.

dilution ratio of Mexel in the discharge ffromi CookNuclear Plant at the edge of a mixing zone, using-Michigan water quality.standards definitions and proceduires. The dilution ratiowas applied to the,expected miaximum end of pipe concentration of Mexel A-432 :to determine; the' expected nmaximum ctonc entration .of.Mexel A-432 in LakeMichigan inder.

I

AEP Cook Nuclear Plant Mixing Zone Evaluation April.20, 2006 varying operational.scenarios. That concentration was compared to the calculated Michigan Tier I water quality criterion for Mexel A-432.

Description of the Study Area and Intake and Discharge Configuration Lake Bathymetry and Water Currents The bottom of Lake Michigan off shore of the Cook Nuclear Plant is fairly smooth and featureless. The bottom slopes gradually' ata uniformn angle from the shoreline out to .a depth of 50 feet at approximately one mile off shore. At that point, the slope of thedecent decreases and the,depth increases only 10. feet, from 5.0 feet to, 60 feet, over the next half-

.mile off shore. From there the, slopebecomes shallower and the depth increases only 15

,feet, from 60 to 75 feet, over the next two miles off shore.

The major surface water currents in the southern basin of Lake Michigan are generally in a counterclockwise directionq, giving the prevailing current past the.Cook Nuclear Plant a south: to north direction. North to sbuth currents occurs ihfrequently depending upon the wind pattern. Acoustic currentmeter data ifrm the.National Oceanic, and Atmospheric.

Administration (NOQ AA)/Great Lakes EnvironmentalResearch Laboratory(GLERL)

Episodic Events in the Great Lakes:Experiment. (EEGLE) Project was acquired. to characterize current velocities in the vicinity of the plant outfall structures. Water veloibtiesmeasured, in the fall of 1998, at.Station C4, moored in 11 rmeters of water offshore of the power;plfant outfalls', are presented as an appdendix to,this report. Positive u-components .ofvelocity (the second line 0on the data graphs, counting from the'top) correspond to south-to-north longshore currents. Examination of this time series, shows that current velocities are usually smaller than I0-20 cm/s (0.3-0.6 fps). Current velocities exceeded 40 cm/s (1.3 fps) twice during this period; these high velocities persisted for several-hours to aboutbone day. Given that the November-Jaanuary time period is particularly energetic in terms of wind, waves, and currents in the Great Lakes; ambient current velocities 'near theý power plant outfalls will tend to. be smallerjin other seasons.-

Intake Configurationf The design intake flow'is 1,645,0Q0 gallons per minute, (gpm)for the condenser cooling water flow, 16,000 gpm for the essential service water, andg9000 gpm for the nonessential -service.water system,: forua total 'intake of approximately

,1 .67 million7 gallons per minudte. All cooling waterand service waterni's drawn into the plant throughmthree intakeltunnelý'sthat extend about 2;250 feet-offshore.,Each tunnel begins With.an octaggnal-shape*d steel structure and velocity cap crib that protects the upturned elbow that is connected to the intake tunnel: Each intake tunnel is 16 feeft in diametetratd the tunnel carries the water from theIoffshore locationinto the screen house. The intake cribs ate located in 24 feet of water at 579 ft MSL water.elevation; Water flowsjinto the cribs through an 8 x 8.inch mesh grid work that is iritended to keep 'large objects out of the

'intakes. The water velocity throug!.h the 8 x 8-7ii. grid is 1.27 fps and the watet* velocity through the tunnels is about 6 f*s.

2 (0~

AEP Cook Nuclear Plant Mixing Zone Evaluation April 20, 2006 Each intake tunnel is 16 feet in diameter and the tunntel carries thewater from the offshore location into the screen house. Inside the screenhouse the Water enters a common forebay (conmon to both units). The water passes through steel trash racks composed of two designs. The original trash racks are composed' of 3 8-in thick by .4-in deep-bars on 3-in centers, giving an. openinig of 2 5/8-in. These are being replaced over time with trash racks made ofbars set on edge to allow a 3 3/ 16 -in clear Space between bars' (bars are 3 9 /16-in. on, center and the bar material is 3/8-in thick). From 'the trash racks, the water flows to pPtionally installed supplemental trash rack removable inserts placed in the traveling screen stop log slots directly in front of the traveling screens. These ifiserts. are made of 3/16 -in thick by2-in, deep horizontal bars spaced on 1 3/_16 in centers and vertical 3i16-in rods on 4-in centers leaving an effective rectangular clear space between tfhebars and rods of 1-in x 3 '3 /16-in. From there the water flows through the traveling water screens. The original screens were chain belt with 3 /8-in-mesIh:screens.

The original screens have been replaced with single entry single exit screens (with 3/8-in mesh and /i16-in. mesh screen material) manufactured'by Geiger International, Inc.

Di'scharge Configuration The cooling water is discharged back to, the lake through two tunnels buriedbeneath Lake

.Michigan.,The discharge structures are located 1,200:feet offshore:in 18 'feet.ofwater.

The total cooling water transit time from intake to: discharge is about ten minutes. The, Unit 1 dischatge tunnel. is 16 feet in didimeter and the Unit 2 tuinnel is 18'feet in diameter.

Both tunnels terminate with a 90°:elbow that turns the watertflow from horizontal to vertical. The water enters the discharge structures'from the e.lbows and is passed horizontally through slots: inthe discharge structures. The Unit 1 discharge. structure has two slot openings, with an overall length of 27 ft. 10 1/8 in. and a height of 2 ft.,

ptoviding a cross-sectional area-of 11.36 ft'.2. At a cooling water flow, rate of 719,850 gpm (1603.94, ft.sec), thle discharge velocity from Unitý 1 isý 1-4.4 fps. The Unit 2 dischargestructure has three slotopenings, with an overall length of 19 ft: 7/8 in. and a.

heightf 2 ft. 9in,, provjiding a cross-Seciional-area of 157.33.ft.f,. At a cooling water flow rate of 950,150 gpm (2117.09 ft.sec), the discharge vel0city from Unit 2 is 13.5 fps. A conceptual diagram of the cooling water-system, including the intake and discharge structures, is provided in Figure 1.

AEP Cook Nuclear Plant-MiXing. Zone Evaluation April 20,.2006 Figure 1. Plan View of D.C. Cook Condenser Cooling Water System Review of Previous Mixing Zone Studies LTI conducted a modeling study of the thermal discharge from the D.C. Cook Nuclear PowerPlant in 2000 (Cook Plant!ThermalPlume Study; May 1,6,2000). The emphasis of:

that work was to simulate far-field characteristics of the discharge plume, Well beyontd the limits of discharge-induced. mixing.of interest here. H6wevedi, asp~art of the LTi study the CORM!X mixing, zone; model (Jirka;et al., 1996) was applied to capture the details of the strong mixing that occurs near the high velbcity discharge'structures.,- CORMIX was applied assuming both effluent discharge units were operating, and a long-shore ambient-current velocity of 0.03 m/s was used. The CORMIX'predictions indicatdddthat (1) the plumes from the. two discharge units did not: interact With each other (i.e., overlap) in the near-field, (2) the:thermal plumes would each reach thelake surface at a dista~e of4; 85

meters from the respective diffuser structure, and (3) a dilution ratio of 2.2 would be achieved at this distarce. The, authors of the LTI report-did not' present theplume velocities predicted by CORMIX, so it is difficult t o relate:these results to the:mikihg zone defi.nition being used by the State of Michigan. However;,.the CORMIXimodel

AEP Cook Nuclear Plant Mixing Zone Evaluation April 20, 2006 results can be compared qualitatively to the model predictions made for this mixing zone evaluation.

Modeling Objectives The object of the numeric modeling was to determine the dilution ratio at the edge of the mixing zone. Michigan Surface Water Quality Standards rule defines the edge of the mixing zone as the point where discharge induced mixing ceases to occur. Theoretically this definition of edge of the mixing zone is reasonable, however, in practice can be difficult to define. Ajet discharging into an ambient fluid entrains the ambient fluid. The entrainment is the result of a momentum exchange between the jet and the ambient fluid.

Near the source of the jet, the entrainment rate is high, the rate decreases as the jet penetrates the ambient fluid and the jet loses its momentum to the ambient fluid. When the momentum of the jet has been lost to the ambient, further mixing is the result of ambient turbulent mixing and diffusion. Ambient turbulence and diffusion causes mixing at the edge of the plume similar to jet induced mixing but at a much slower rate since there is no relative motion between the jet and the ambient fluid (Davis 1998). The transition from jet induced mixing to ambient mixing is gradual.

Mixing Zone Definition For the purpose of the DC Cook dilution modeling, the edge of the mixing zone is defined by considering the 3-dimensional velocity distribution for the discharge plumes, predicted by a computational fluid dynamics model. Isopleths (constant velocity surfaces) were constructed and visualized for velocities of 2, 3, 4, and 5 fps. For each iso-surface it was determined if a coherent jet structure was visible. For ambient lake currents of 2 fps it is reasonable to assume that a coherent jet structure is not visible on a 2 fps iso-surface (see Figure 2). Under the same conditions, an iso-surface of 3 fps clearly shows the jet structure (Figure 3). In each figure, the iso-surface has been colored by the inverse of the dilution ratio (i.e., l/DR). A 100 x 100 ft background grid is shown in each picture.

Selecting the appropriate jet surface velocity for defining the edge of discharge induced mixing was somewhat subjective. For this reason, results are provided for a range of velocities, Figure 2. Two fps Isopleth. Figure 3. Three fps lsopleth.

5

AEP Cook Nuclear Plaint Mixing.Zone.EValuation April. 20, 2006 FLUENT Model The.commercially available software FLUENT was used for all the simulations.

FLUENT is, a, frilly three dimensional computational flliid dynamics (CFD) solving the Navier-Stokes equations on a boundary fitted mesh. A finite-volumeý formulation of the governing equations is solved in FLUENT. Turbulence closure was achieved using the RNG k-epsilon turbulenceý model (Yakht :and Orszag, 1,986). The energy',equation'was solved in the simulation to account for the. difference in the plume temperature and the ambient-temperature.

Model Boundary C onditions.

Three plant operating conditions were considered; Unit i1 discharge only, Unit 2 discharge only and discharge through Units 1 and 2. Each operating condition was si`ulated for four lake current-, conditions; a no current.condition, and currents of O.5, 1,.

and 2 fps. As illustrated by current.meter data (gee Appendix. A: lake bathymetry and water currents),' 2 fps is a relatively extreme high ambient'velocity. Thelake cUrrent was assumed to be fromrsouth to north and the nominal current is the depth averaged! value.

When units 1Iand 2 are in operation, the dilution ratio varies:considerably if both units are treated sitmultaneously or individually. Results are given for both conditions in Tableý

1. The unit 1 discharge inthe simulations'is 719,,850 gpm and unit,2 discharge is 9501,150 gpmn FLUENT Model Results Michigan DEQ,,surface water quality :standads rule defines the,;edge of the mixing zoneý as the:point-where discharge: induced mixing ceases to occur. For the purpose of this study, dilution ratios are reported on surfaces of constant velocity ("isopleths") ranging&

from 2'to: 55fps in 1 fps intervals. Avisuai1evaluation of the surface was used tolestimated if discharge indu'ced mixing occurred at a specific velocity. For ambientlake cuirents'of 0 to 0,5' fps, discharge induced mixing ceases-at a plume surface velocity of Ito 1.5- fps, depending upon the operating and' treatment conditions. For-an anmbientlakecurrent of 1 fps, dikcharge induced mixing ceases at a plume surface velocity of 1.5 to 3 fps,, while at, the highestambie`nt lake',current (2 fps)' discharge induced mixing ceases at a plume

,surface velocity of 3 fps.

Visualizations of effluent dilution predicted within the discharge-induced mixing zones are displayed in Figures 4 and 5. Both discharge units are operating in the simulations' shown in these figures. lI Figure 4, the ambient current velocityis O While, in Figure 5,,

the current. velocity is I fps., Cbmp1ison of FiguresA4 and 5 shows that increasing the, aambient velocity tends, to shrink the. extent of the discharge plumes, as well as the ehtrainment of lake,Water within the discharge-induced mixing, zone:. The yellow grid lines in *thevyisualizations are, spaced 160 feetzapar, to indicate the size-of the plumes.

The color scale shows the percentage of water from the discharge'. Warm colors (red-yellow) indicate less mixing with: lake water and cool colors (blue) indicate more mixing 6

AEP Cook Nuclear Plant Mixing Zone Evaluation April 20,2006 with lake water. The discharge plumes from the two units do not overlap or interact within the discharge-induced mixing region.

Figure 4. Visualization of effluent dilution within the discharge-induced mixing zone (plan view). FLUENT model prediction of ambient lake water fraction (Le., 1/DR) on 2 fps plume surface velocity isopleth for zero ambient velocity, 2 discharge units operating and treating simultaneously.

7 \Ckf 11t

AEP Cook Nuclear Plant Mixing Zone Evaluation April 20,2006 Figure 5. Visualization of effluent dilution within the discharge-induced mixing zone (plan view). FLUENT model prediction of ambient lake water fraction (i.e., I/DR) on 3 fps plume surface velocity isopleth for I fps ambient velocity, 2 discharge units operating and treating simultaneously.

8

AEP Cook Nuclear Plant Mixing Zone Evaluation April 20,,2006 Table 1. Predicted Average, Dilution Ratios (DRs) For Different Ambient current Velocities,, Plume Boundary Velocities, and OperatingTreatment

.Conditions.

dischar eunitso eratin 1 &2 1 11 2 1& 1 2 discharge units bein treated W t 1 2]Il=17.LIi.27LIL" 2'&

ambient current velocity (fps): 0 average DR-at 11fps jet vetlocity- I ... 47f 7.14 5.88 15.00' average DR at 1.5 fps jet ,velocity I14.17 1LZ77I II1___!'...

averageDR at 2,fps jet Velocity Ii 3. 85,13.23 1 3.033.,323 average DR at 3 fpsjetveloCity _2.,56 E1 3.13i2.63I 2.50 average DR at 4 fps jet velocity 22 2 .56 2.22 2.22 average DR at5 fps jet velocity7 2.00 IL 2.22 20 2.00 ambient current velocity(fps): 0.5 average DR at, fps jet velocity F7II........ !

LII714 4.00L aVerage DR at 1.5 fps jet veocit .13ý I!.. Iti average DR at 2fps jet velocitY 2.'38

!.388 3.03 2.70 2.86 average DR at 3 fps jet velocity 2.04 2.44 2.13 I1 2.27 2.08 average DR at 4-fps jet velocity I 1.85 2.17 1. 96 200 . 189 averagejDR at 5 fpsjetvelocity 1 1,69 111.96 1.79J 1.85 1.67 ambient current velocity, (fps): 1.0 Average DR ait .5 fps jet velocity, ., 1 EI47 ]I"" III:"III.'iII average DR at2 fps jet!veocity : J2.089IIi'!LI" iZ averageIRRat*3f s~eveiocit 1.59 2.50 1.92 1 1.61 1.89 average DRat 4fs jetfvelocit- 1.47 i 2.l 1.82 1.47 1.72 average DR at- fps jet velocity 1.37 EIi.II 1.69 1.39 1.59

-Ambient. currCnt_,elocity.(fps):.. 2Q...

averageDR at.3 sfps etyelocity 172 1.22 21.85.1.6 avyerage DR at f4S jet elocity 1.64 .2 1.67 1.56 1.92 average DR 5 fps etvelocit 1.56 2.117 1.5 1.49 1.72 At zero ambient (ake)velocity, all operating/treatment conditions achieve an average dilution factor of greater than 3 (firom 3.03 to 7.14) at the 2 fps velocity bouidary used to define the plume, limits for dischaige-induced mixing (Table 1)ý As ambient velocity is increased, the discharge plume shapes and volumes change in somewhat complex ways that also become rmore dependent on the operating and treatment. conditions. In addition,,

it becomes more difficult to-identify the, discharge-induced mixing boundary. Although average dilutionratios in the. plume geoneraly decrease (in some cases do. to 1.5 to 21.0) as ambient velocity increases, there are instances where the opposite is observed :in-the modeling results. For.example, when discharge unit 1.is being operated and treated, the maximum predicteddilutin atioincreases from ft 4.17 to;7T 14 as the: ambient velocity is 9

AEP Cook Nuclear Plant Mixing Zone Evaluation April 20, 2006 increased from zero to 0.5 Tfs, but then declines to 4.77 as the ambientvelocity is, further increased.to: 1 fps.

Since the ambient velojcity in LakeMichiganI is usually less than 0.3-0.6 ifs, we. believe that the model predictions based on an ambient velocity of 0 or 0.5 fps.are the most representative for mixing zone determinations. At these: ambient velocities, the 1, 1.5 or 2 fps (depending, on operating/treatment conditions),discharge plume isopleths can be used to define the discharge induced mixing zone. As indicated in Table. I, dilution.ratios are greater'than 3.0'for all operating, and treatmenit conditions modeled at zero ambient velocity. At an ambientfYelocity of 0.5 fpsý DRs were predicted to range from2.4 to7,1, depending on operating and treatment conditions. Based on these results, we are.

confident thait-a dilution,ratio of 3.0 will bemaintained Within the discharge-induced mixing zo-ne under most conditions. Conservatively,_a dilution.ratio0 of2.4 couild be selected. However, we believe that using a DR lower than 3.0 is inappropriately conservative because many other safety factors are built.into the mixing zone evaiuation (see review of Water Quality Standards section).

The model results can also be used to calculate the-maximum contact time for a drifting organismthat, enters the discharge plume, Figure 6 is a visualization of stream paths for particles injecteddinto-the plume at the discharge point(s). The coior of the stream paths reflects the time of travel as, theparticies move from theopoints of:discharge to the plume boundaries. As can be seen from this figure; the average contact time-of a particle (i.ex, a drifting organism)- inthe plume'is about- 1 minute, with a maximum contact time of about 2 '/2 minutes. The significance .of this visualization is the consideration of the potenitial contact ýtimne for aquatic, species, exposed to 'the cooling water discharge within the neart--

field miding2zoneiand the cotresponding:water.quality criterion concentation.

.10,

AEP Cook Nuclear Plant Mixing Zone Evaluation April 20, 2006 Figure 6. Visualization of stream paths for particles injected into the plume at the discharge point(s) ko0 11 15

AEP Cook Nuclear Plant:

Mixing Zone Evaluation April 20,.2006 Impact on Designated Uses The impact-of the coolingvwater discharge on the designated'uses of southe Lake Michigan-was evaluated by comparing the observationsý and results of this study to"the seven designated uses of the water body. The designated uses of Lake Michigan, which.

we evaluated, were:

1I. Agriculture

12. Navigation

3. Industrial water supply

4. Public water supply-

5. Great:Lakes fisherY

6. Other indigenous :aquatic life and wildlife, and

7. Partial bodyvcontact. recreationi-Of the seven'designated uses- outlined for this study, the potential impact to the Great Lakes&fishery and other indigenous aquatic life and: wildlifemay be of greatest, concern in..

tiis dinstance. We determined that there was,no impacttto any designated use in Lake Michigan, diae to the cooling water discharge. A summary of each.use designation,, likely-impacts-and rafionale are outlined in* Table2,. Additional discussiont of the potential impact of the cooling water dischargeon Great lakes fisheries, aquatic life and Wildlife, and public water supply arediscussed-berow.

Great Lakes Fishery, Aquatic Life and Wildlife:

The cooling water discharge at the DC Cook Nuclear Plant is authorized by the State4of Michigah.via a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sys~tem (NPDES)j permit. The conditions of that permit tequiire.tiat Cook routinely. monitor the concentration of various water quality con.stituents and compare. those to established water quality based standards that are specificdlly designed, to protect aquatic life andwildlife .inthetGrate Lakes. The' DC Cook Nuclear, Plant is in complete compliance with their NPDES permit.

Consequently, it is reasonable to conclude that the State of Michigan, through the

extenIsive NPDES monitofring, has' determined that'there, is no impact to the Great Lakes fishery, aquatic life and-wildlifeý.

Of particular concern, will ýbe the impact of the applicatiogn of aimolluscide Mexei A-432 to-the, cooling Waterddischarge.. Cook Nuclear Plant is required by itheir NPDES permit to provide prior notification for the use of any water treatment chemical or change in discharge pursuant.to Cook Nuclear Plant's NPDES Permit No. MI0005827, PartI.,

Section A.6, Requestfor "'Discharge of Water Treatmnent Additives" and Part ,I,. Section C. 10 "Notification-of Change in Discharge"., Cook Nuclear Plant will be requesting the.

!approyal of an intermittent discharge resulting from a daily application of Mexel A-432 to 'the' three circulating water intake tunnels to prevent zebra mus~sel settlement.

12.

I

AEP Cook Nuclear Plant Mixing Zone Evaluation April 20, 2006 Review of WaterQuality, Standards and Toxicity Test Data One principaI objective for the DC Cook Nuclear Plant Mixing zone Evaluiation, was to.

evaluate the mixingcof the cooling water discharge with Lake Michigan water in the context of the application of themolluscide Mexel A-432 to the cooling water to control zebra: mtissels. Cook Nuclear had previously developed a Tier I water qualitycriterion for MeXel. No other waterquality criterion is of concerm at this time.

We reviewed the water quality information that is :specific to Cook Nuclearto determine compliance with State Water Quality Standards,. including the toxicity requirerienits of R323.10517 and R323.1082 of the Michigan Water Quality Standards.

Cook'Nuclear Plant's (CNP) intention is to use'Mexel 432/0 :in an intermittent discharge resulting from adaily application of Mexel 432/0 as A-432 to the .threecirculating water intake tunnels to prevent zebra mussel settlement. Specifically, CNP's proposal is to treat forup to one 30-minute period pet day of discharge of A-432 at. adaily average concentration not to exceed the established Final AcuteNValue'(FAV) for Mexel A-432

,(0.1 mg/L), with no one sample exceeding a maximum concentration of 1.5 mg/L for each outfall (NPDES Outfalls 001 and/or 002) as measured at each outfall's nearshore sample point during the treatment period and'adjusted for the expected concenottration at the end'of theOpipe and mixing zone. CNP in collaboration with Mexel and Great Lakes Environmental Center developed a-Tier, I FAV for MexelA-432 followingtheeMichigan DEQ Rule 57 guidelines.

The aquatic toxicity test data generated by CNP and Mexel satisfies the MDEQRule 57

,requirements for a TierIFAV calculation (Table 3), and provides intermittent dosage aquatic toxicit test data that demonstrates he, reduced toxicity of Mexel A-432 when applied intermittently (Table 4). Table 3 lists the FAV as 0.092 mgiL, which was founded up to 0.1 rg/L for thepurposes of this evaluation.

CNP has used various biocideslov&r the yeadktsor shock treatmeits :to the intake tUrhels, These-treatments have prven' to be a:very efficient'means of removing zebra mussels.

An efficacy rate of greater than 95% has been realized by applying a biocide for 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months as a shock-treatment to the intake-tunnels, However, uncontrolled sloughage ofslhell debris creates a heavy load on the traveling screens and pump strainers downstream from theL intake tunnels. The sloughage of shells could: possibly overwheim:and block flow in-the safety systems required by the NRC at all times for safe operation. In addition,6 biocides previously used require detoxification with bentonite clay..This process is: a potential source of silt intrusion that may clog vital. heat exchangers required for safe shutdown of thequnits.

The CNP proposal to use adaily 30-minute treatment:of A-432, targeted at the zebra mussel post-veliger stage will eliminate the uncontrolled release: of adult, shell debris. that potentially affects! the safe operation of the plant. A-432 would be applied simultaneously to the tunnels each day during the seasons when zebra in 1ssel veiigers and post-veligers are the.most abundant (April through Novemberi) to. remve existing, iIussel Colonies and to prevent further settlement. Mexel A-43'2 is an aqueous dispe.sion of lineax aliphatid 13

AEP Cook Nuclear Plant.

Mixing Zone Evaluation April 20, 2006 aminies..!t is in the general category'of filming Amines, differing from otherWater treatment products in that it treats the wetted surfaces of the system without having to treat the waterncolumn. Mexel A-4322 fuctibns a a corrosion inhibitor, dispiersant, and control agent-fot cooling system-fouling species such as mussels and hydroids; The recommended dosage is 4,ppm for 30 minutes per daytVo strive. for an effective.

concentration- in the tunnel. Our calculations.for determ.ining.effluent:con.centrations:aret; outlined below.. When all three tunnels are.dosed at one time; the injected-concentration of 4 ppn Will be decreased by 1) the demand factor of 0.38 at the tunnel inlet, 2) by-a mixing-zone! factorof3.0, and 3) by a 0.38.demand factorinthe mixingx .zone. -This treatment will result:in-an expected maximum efflieni conce.ntration of 0.51 ppm d~uring the 30 minute treatment-period in-the effluent, (4.ppm x 0:62 x 0.62/3.0).

When one tunnel is dosed at one time, the effluent concentration will depend upon which tunnel is dosed, because baffles in the plant intake forebay prevent. complete mixing between. lake water drawn through, theý three intake tunnelIs. The average concentration reductions -ineach tunnel, based upon measurements (Mallen, 2004),. are 9, 61 ,and 15%

for the, north, center. and south tunnels, respectively. So-for Mexel injected into the north intake tunnel, the injeqted concehtration:of 4 ppm.will be decreased by1) a demand factor, of 0.38 at the tunnel inlet; 2) a .concentration reduction of 9%/due to forebay dilution, and 3)'a demand factor of 38% in the-forebay. Theqmixing zone dilution ratio is 3.0, andt1hereis another 38% demand factor~inthe mixing-zone! For this case, the mixing zone con'centration:is calculated to be 0.29-ppm [4 ppm x (1-038) x (1-0.09).x. (l-038)-x-(1-0.38)/3.0%=0.29ppm]*. For injection into the centerintake, tunnel, the mixing zone coricentrati6n-is calculated ito be 0.12 ppm [4ppm x (1-0.38) x (1-0.61)-:x (1-0.38).x (I-Q.38)/13i.0 = .1-2 ppm] And, for injection into thesoiith intake tunnel, the mixinig zone concentrationis, calculated t6'be. 0.27 ppm [4-ppm x (1-0.38) x (1-0.5) x (!O.38) x (1N 0.38)/3.0 =0: 12:ppm]., Once CNP begins dosing, they-will be able to corroborate these projections?,by actual measurement. Measured demands at other 1o6cation~s agreed with these:projections.

However, itjis important to ermphasize that-this is a very conservative, estimate of the:

maximum expected, concentration durng :a.thirty-minute interi'al once; a day. The final concentration will be much lower because, 1'our degadation estimates are based solely on the water demand and. dilution, 2) the: demand calculation does.not include aIlowancess for surface adsorption:or for the demand due to biodegradation, 3) Mexel A-432 is a.

filming amine, part of the chemical concentration will.-be:lost due-to the formation-of the film, and 4):our calculations :also. exclude the demand at the edge ofthe mixing zone and inthe condenser water boxes within the plant due to turbulence. Consequently, we are confident that the actual measured maximum concentration will be much lower than our projections: Once CNP begins dosing,, they will be able to corroborate these projections by actual measurement. The final average-daily concentration. will be fardless than the FAY because of the daily intermittent application of the chemical (30.minutes). Mexel's experience with measured demands atoother plants has agreed.with the projectibs.ns, and.

We are confident that they will be able to. do the .same-at Cook.

14

AEP Cook Nuclear Plant Mixing Zone Evaluation April 20, 2006 Consequently, the. final average daily coficentfation that Will enter Lake Michigan at the edge Of the demonstrated mixing zone as a result of this rep09Ttwil! be protective of aquatic life. Our basis for this is,that:

1) The maximum expected concentration of Mexel A-432 at the edge of the near-field mixing zone Will be equal to or less than the' calculated water quality criterion.

2) The expected contact time of a drifting organism potentially drawn into the discharge plume is less than two minutes, whereas the calculated water quaiity criterion is based on exposures measured in days.

3) Mexel A-4321rapidly biodegrades in waterj Its'half-life 'in still water is less than 22"hours, and the half-life,can be further reduced to six hours with agitationi and aeration.

4). Its toxicity to aquatic life-has been well demonstrated (See attached toxicity test information), and the proposed. intermittent use and .short duifation of the dosages further reduce the irmpact on the. environment. In fact, ýthis application provides' data that demonstrates that the toxicity o9fMexei A-432 is significantly reduced when aquatic organisms are exposed to the chemical on an intermittent daily dosage pattern similar to the typical field application of the product.

5) The, degradation products of A-432 consist of Water; carbon dioxide; and nitrogen. Product that has not degraded or adhered to the walls' of the. cooling

.system.will'be discharged with the cooling'wate~r from the plant.

CNP has:also de-veldped intermittent dosage toxicity test data for'Mexel A-4312 that:

dnemosttates. that the toxicity'of this substance, is .less durin!g intermittent exposures than with continuousý exposures. That data demonstrates that the medianlethal concentration of Mexe A-432 applied as an'intermittent dose i's more than 44 times less than the demonstrated lcthal concentration in continuous exposures',(based.on aD..miagna GMAV of 0.197 rng/L and an intermittentdosage LC50 of 8.7 rg/L). This is an important. site-specific characteristic because even though we do not expect that the final.end of pipe concentration, will exceed the FAV,. MDEQ can be confident that the final discharge.

concentration will bemuch lower than:the known toxicity of this compound when it is appiied intermittently. Aquatic life toxicity:test data using fathead minnow, Daphnia ming6a' and rainboW trout in intermittent daily'd sage. experiments are surunarized:.i Table 4. The fathead minnow .andDaphniamagna intermittent toxicity test.data were:

generated by the Lake Superior .esea*rch Instituteat~ the University of Wisconsin-Superior and the rainbow trout intermittent dose toxicity test data was recently generated' at the Great Lakes. Environmental. Center in Traverse, City, Michigani.

Based on the&above donsideiration of the data, it is reasonable to* conclude that the application of Mexel A-432 to control zebra' mussels will have no impact on Great Lakes.

.fisheries; aquati& life or wildlife, 15

AEP Cook Nuclear Plant Mixing Zone Evaluation April'20,2006 Public Water Supply The intake for the Lake Township public water supply (P WS)'is located 3,220 ft.

southwest of the CNP discharge structure in Lake Michigan (D.C. Cook Condition Report,* 1998). The PWS intake and CNP discharge structure are located on a map in.

Figure 7. As.noted iihTab1& 2, the PWS is, located.well beyond the study area..Fluent model predictions indicate. that the. naximum extent,(length) of the discharge plume is aboutI2,500' ft from the CNP discharge structures. Thus, under no condition is the cooling water discharge.plume predicted to reach thelocation of thePWS intake, In addition, Mexel does not bioaccumulate or otherwise pose a human health risk at the maximum!

concentration at the edge of the, mixing zone. Based on these considerations, it is reasonable to conclude that the application of Mexel A-432 to control zebra mussels Will have no impact on any public water supply:

16 c2P

AEP Cook Nuclear Plant, Mixing Zone Evaluation April 20, 2006 Table 2:. Summary of the Designated Uses and the Impact of Cooling Water Discharge on Lake/Michigan Offshore of theDC Cook Cooling Water Discharge Designated Use Perceived.Impact (if any). Rationale; Agriculture: None There is no evidence of irrigation water removal.

Navigation None% The.CNP co-oling water discharge does not cause any obstructions to recreational navigation in Lakel Michigan. The.diffuser structure is. 18' feet below the surface.

Industrial Water None There are no other industrial water Supply intakes within the study area.

Public-Water Supply Lake Townshippublic This pubilic water supply is located water supply intake is beyond the study area; model.

located 3,220 ft southwest predictions indicate that the-maximum.

of CNP discharge extent.of the discharge plume is abouti structures inLake 2,500 ftfrom the CNP discharge Michiganqtructures.. Mxel does not. "

bioaccumulate or'pose a human health risk at the maximum concentration at the edge of the mixing zone.

Great Lakes Fishery NoneI The expected maximum concentration for Mexel inILake Michigan at the edge of the mixing zone is similar to, the measured criferia for Mexel. ,"The most sensitive species used in the criteria cal.culatioqn areý excludedfrom the 'edge of the mixing zonhe due to.

discharge velocity. Expocted contact time within the mixin'plu me is, less than two minutes fordifting

,organisms.

Other Aquatic Life. INone TheMexel expected maximum in Lake concentration, Michigan at the andWildlife for, edge of the mixing zone is similar to the measured. criteria for Mexel The cooling water is neither acutely or, chronically toxic to aquaticd.

organisms' The most sensitive species.

used in the criteria calculation are excluded from the mixing zone due to discharge velocity. EXpected contact time within the mixing plume is less than two minutes for drifting, organisms;.

RecreationalPartial None :The water'quality of the-cooling water Body.. Contact discharge would'not be detrimental to hh 'manhealth ........ I 1.7, at

I AEP Cook Nuclear Plant Mixing Zone Evaluation April 20,, 2006 Table;3.. Summary of Acceptable,@MexelToxicity Test.Data (December 2004)

'Species Investigator LC5 o(mgIL) GMAV FAV Bluegill Sunfish GLEC, 2004! -L71*' _

Planaria, GLEC, 2004 2.03 Hyalella azteca GLEC, 2004 1.99_

C!iironomus GLEC, 2004, 8.82 ten tans Rainbow Trout, GLEC, 20,04 0.450 Brooke et al,; 0.730 0.5731*

1997 2 Lumbriculus GLEC, 2004. .1.86' Fathead minnow GLECý 2004 0.450 Brooke detal,* 0.360 1997 Biooke et al,. 0.660. 0.4746*

'1997 Daphnianiagna GLEC, 2004. 0.02001 Brooke etal, 0.0121

_1997 Brooke et.a.1, 0.216.

1997' Brooke etali, 0.199 1997 Brooke et al, 0 178, Btboke et, dl,. 0.i120 1997 Brooke et.,al, 0.1268 1997 Brooke et al, 0.1698

.1997 . . .. .

Brooke etal,. '0.1,98:

1997 Brooke et al, 0.595 0.197*

1997 N =8 (SMAV) I 0.092' mg/L Z LC50s usedý inthe Final Acute Value (FAV), calculation.

Fathead minnow, D. magna and rainbow trout data completed by Brooke,, et al was identified as acceptable by MDEQ from'the Mexel toxicity data base.

Tests conducted by Great Lakes Enyironmental Center, 2004.

2: Brooke et al. 1:997.' Tests conducted by the Lake Stperior Research Institute.

18

AEP Cook Nucleark Plant MixingZone. Evaluation April 20, 2006 Table 4. Mexel A-432 MedianLethal ToxicantConcentrations (Lc50) Based on Daily Intermittent Exposures of 20 Minutes Each Day Species Water Type Daily Exposure Test Duration LCO0 Duration (mg/L)

(min. per 24 hrs)_

Fathead minnow Lake Superior 20 96 6.2' (larval) (USA)

(Pimephaes" promelas)_

Daphnia magnaý LakeSuperior 20 48 8.7' (neonates). (USA)

Rainbow Trout Lake Michigan 20 96 3.22

( Onchorhynchus (USA):

mykiss)________

1 GhMllebaert, F. and L.T. Brooke. 1997. Mexel 432,toxicity tocladorceran and fathead minnow during continuous and daily intermittent exposures. Lake Superior Research Institute, University of Wisconsin-Superior, Groupe. d'Embryotoxicologie des Poissons, Universite'Paris 7, 12pp.

2 Great Lakes Environmental Center, 2004, LC50 Determiniation for Mexel A-432 Using Rainbow Trout (Onchorhynchus inykiss). Final Report to RTKTechnologies, Inc*. Baton Rouge, LA. April 23,, 2004.

19:

AEP Cook Nuclear Plant Mixing Zone Evaluation April 20, 2006 Figure 7. Map Indicating Location of Lake Township Public Water Supply Intake and CNP Discharge Structures in Lake Michigan. The distance between these points was -measured as 3,220 feet using survey methods and GPS controls.

20

AEP Cook Nuclear Plant Mixing, Zone Evaluation April 20ý 2006

SUMMARY

AND: CONCLUSIONS The AEP DC Cook Nuclear Plant conducted. a mixing zone evaluation to determine the dilution ratio of the plant cooling water with Lake Michigan water at varying velocities and distances. The mixing zone evaluation included a plime modelinitg study by Aldenr Laboratbries that provided a computational and visual basis for the mixing zone. The mixing zone evaluation also addressed the impact of the coolingwater discharge on the designated uses of Lake Michigan and reviewed Water quality standards, specifically the toxicity requirements of R323.1057. and R323.1082 of the Michigan Water Quality Standards..

The moddeling results demonstrated that the dilution factor at theedge of the near-field

mixing.zone is approximately 3.. at the 2 fps isopleth. ConsetvatiVely; *the-dilution,factor would increase at ambient. currents less than or equal to 0.5 fps. At an ambient velbcity of 0.5 fps, DRs were predicted to range-from .2.4 to&7.1. The modeling results also demonstrated that the two cooling water discharges do not overlap and that -the area-of the nean-field mixing zone -for each outfall is relatively small and contained within several hundred squaree feet.

A review of the potential impact on designated uses of Lake Michigan Water concluded that there was no: impact on any designated use. Particular-attention was paid o the potential impact on Great Lakes: fifsheries, aquatic life and wildlife, and public water supplies. A review of Michigan water quality standards, specifically the toXicity requirements of R323.1057 and R323.1082 of the Michigan Water Quality Standtrds was

'completed, which also :supported the determination of no imipact.

Of particular concern, will be the, impact of the application of a molluscide Mexel A-432 to the. coolingwater discharge. One 6bj&ctiVe for the DC Cook Nuclear Plant Mixing Zone Evaluation was to evaluate the' mixing of the cooling water discharge With Lake Miichigan water in the context of the application ofthe molhuscide Mexel A-32 to the cooling water to control zebra mussels. Cook Nuclear provided sufficient data to the MDEQ :to develop a Tieri water quality criter ion for Mexel, No other water quality criterion is of concern at' this:'time. The calculated Tier I water quality. fiterion for Mexel A-432 is 0.092 mg/L (rounded up to 0.100 mg/L.or l0,Q .ig/Lfor this-evaluation), The expected maximum concentration of Mexel A-432 at the edge of the near-field mixing zone, with one unit treated at one, time is approximately 0:1 mg/L. The expected maximum concentration of Mexel A-432 at the edge of the near-field mixing zone, with two units treated at one time is approximately 0.5 !mg/L.

'21.

AEP Cook Nuclear Plant Mixing Zone Evaluation April 20, 2006 The assumptions used for the evaluation of the toxicity of M*xel A-432 within the neatý-

field mixing zone are:

1. The tecommended ddsage, will be 4 ppm (mg/L) for-30 minutes perday to strive for an effective concentration in the tunnel.

2. When all.three: tunnels are dosed at one time, theinijected concentration of 4 pprii will be decreased by: 1) a demand factor of 0.38 at the tunnel inlet, 2) by the mixing zone factor of 3.0, and 3) and by a 0.38 demand.factor in the mixingR zone. This treatment will result,in an expected maximum effluent' concentration of 0.5-1 ppm during-the 30 minute treatment peri.d in the effluent [4,ppm ,x-(1-0*38) ý (1-0.38)/3.0, = 0.51 ppm].

3. When one tunnel is dosed at one time, the.effluent concentration will depend

,upon which tunnel is dosed, because baffles in the plant intake forebay prevent complete mixing between lake water drawn through the threedintdke tunnels. This is. discussed ýon Page 16 (Review of Water Quality Standards,

'and Toxicity Test Data). The mixing zone concentrations are calculated to be 0.29 ppm, 0.12 ppm, and 0.12 ppm.for dosing ofthl-e north, center and south.intake'tunnels, respectively.

Based on the above consideration of'the data, it is reasonable to conclude that the, "proposed application of Mexel A-432 to control zebra mussels will. have noimpact on Great Lakes, fisheries, aquatic life or wildlife, or any other designated use of the Great Lakes.

22

,AEP Cook Nuclear Plant Mixing Zone Evaluation. Apr!il20,9 2006 REFERENCES Alden Research Laboratories. 2005. Cook Nuclear Plant Plume Modeling Study (DRAFT).

Davis, L.R., (1998). "Fundamentals of Environmental Discharge. Modeling'". CRC Press, pp. 352.

D.C. Cook Condition Report. 1998. Condition ReportfP-98-04943.

Ghillebaert,, F. and L.T. Brooke: 1997. Mexel 432 toxicity to cladorceran' and.fathead minnow during continuous and daily intermittent exposures,. Lake Superior Research:

Institute, University of Wisconsin-Superior, Groupe d'Embryotoxicologie des Poissons, Universite Paris 7: l2pp.

Great Lakes Environmental Center. 2004. LC50 DeterminationforMexel A-432 Using Rainbow Trout,(Onchorhynchusmykiss). Final Repor to RTK Technologies, Inc. Baton Rouge, LA. April 23, 2004.

Jirka, G. H., Doneker-, R.L,, and S.W. Hin-ton, 1996. "User's Manual for CORMIX: A Hydro-Dynanic Mixing,Zone Model and Decision Support System for Pollutant Discharges ifnto Surface Waters", EPA#: 823/B-97-006.

LTI. 200. Cook Plant Thermal Plume Study; May 16, 2009 Mallen, E. 2004. Mussel Monitoring and Control Program. Assessment Number: sA-2003-REA-003-QH. Assessment Dates;*12/15103 to 01/25/04. Condition Report: CR-,

033440131.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. 1999. Michigan Water Quality Standards. Part 31 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as Arended.

Yakhot, V., Orszag, S.A., (1986): :"RenormalizedGroup Analysis of Turbulenýe: I. Basic Theory". Journal of Scientific Computing, 1(1),pp 1-51.

23

AEP Cook Nuclear, Plant Mixing Zone Evaluation April 20, 2006, Appendix A. Current Meter Data from NOAA/GLERL EEGLE Project. Data Measured at Station C4, Moored in 11 Meters of Water Offshore of the D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant.

24

AEP-Cook.Nuclear Plant Mixing Zone Evaluation. April 20,2006 EEG.LE Lake Michigan Current Meter Plots Mooring C4 LatL414.99 Lon:8657 Fle;4-1998b-11M.dot

'20 10 E

U> i;

-20 30' N

E U

20 p

0 0

5, 270 i6 a 510 320 3,30 Julian Day 1998 25

AEP Cook Nuclear Plant Mixing Zone.Evaluation April 20,2006

'EEGLE rke Michigon Current Meter Plots Mooring C4 Lot:41.99 "Lo:86 57ý FRn=:4-1998b-1 1M.dct

?C C____________________

0 Eý40 20 '.

-40 4L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

E-301 E

270 la o

.34n 350 360 dulian Day 1998 26 o

AEP Cook Nuclear Plant Mixing Zone Evaluation. April 20, 2006 EEGLE Lake Michigan Current Meter Plots Mooring C4 Ldt!41;9 L&io.57 FiRe:c4-199b-l1M dot 20 w

E 20 N

.30

.20 E

10 20 V

-30 40 30 20

E 0

._4:r _._,"

-40 ....... __-___ __....._ ____-.___ ___ ___-_ _._ _._ _"

S a) 20 0;

"25 J~ullan Day 19§6/1999 27

APPENDIX 5 D 2688.

4ccatgbuttjotats) 9. :Parity of" Reagensit Dejignation: 0,2680- 9 4 (Rd-PPCO'Q i9~ ;& C~ ld Woritng on Corrostion, oec 9.1tnRegeatgade ehemiCult shell he, used in, all- tests

, Cold working can beapotiant Ia Caming lcel 6ý.;116,1 d Unleas Otherwise indicoted.It in intendedthatall reagents astall confoarto thespeclflicatios.of theComdtlte Con Asalytic.l

.d'i however.,pastic defor cn bea mnried it R011ga ins,of the Amertcan C*e*ecal wheresnch

.Society Xletten pepesioa by following proper mectelgpactining specifcaticoes are avuaiinhle.. Other**ades he ud, pro.

bmy Standard Test Methods for-oHetTasO eample, drtlling,reamst

.(for andctting aI orOsIt of~Watrin the Absence f et rnse . et M*h. o A the importance.of prop.preparatio

'vided it is first ascertained ti hat anregene is of nsffiecutldy highpotty to perimiits use withoat Iconinlg thenocatneyof (Weight Lo.ssetdV I'stegt,recigniaT*d in the other lestmethods. It is

=c

='*ss c rporeerr e"in sm=eed rm inth*e pip thedetermination.

9.2 PtrflrYof 'et --. Unles s othelsr ie Indicated, refer.

tten wded Ii bisned .dae '60a idtnlaý- tea X51101 e I t idatda6tw -dta , -VF IL ' iss t Methodia) since these'pecimenstitn havetih *eces to water Siall beunderatood to men re*gentwmet

.A.io eteleat~

ni- ~ ~~Y nana e~t~d n Ofena deiedeatd A=

naeeA i "t LW ine ean "1We iipeienotn anpei innti1O. sanprpeslesan he ipig Yntemn bing tested.

co nform ing to of Sp ocificai onD ] 193 .

flatttaWeasen qw. $._ypes or Corrosiona il GenI

. Coroxae is charac-tined by onifotm noick TEST METHOD A--Coupon

2. ýRaeferencedDacuittent ee over the entire Surface.

10-Summ ry. of Tst Method

,71 Pifning in a farm of localized contusiotedph 1.1. Scope Thse, methodscover fth determ*m*tton: of the 2.1 ASnhfstandarstl.,

A 120 SpceljctidjoO 1,Sellakan for PpeSel lnhat o-t-i ~anbr, sne shpeand distribution of piwsbelng pertinent '10.1C*aeMy prepared. weghed metal coupons are In.

eueo3vt sof wter by evIttt pitting andbyincustermOthe ZlaC;c.Cotcd (Grjvamlsxd weldedand SemamLea, far It may beevaluated bycoanting then bevn ,by etalted 'in contact with flowing cooling water for a measured t length of tie After removal from thesystem, these coupons is afrS of localized Rthe se. 31101A enddisorihution, andrby o easuri.g di aa sy tine

werighweighiestof weitfl stsfll essa amelOa.

mI=..

. rocas Pittig ut-0-of the average s~ tnýrcotoin. .-N "I f Pitain repreaeatative areas.Both sides iacataUs. mu exammined. cleaned,end reweighe.& Thbsea=Mity and Corroslow wegh 101 ... D. 129 TeermuiOgiOy Relating toats "'-6~hexesined in'Teit MethodA. In Thaestho

. w t is a 0.193 pecfictoOfoe Rkengetat Wates' h rate/ .re t mot of c trOlon of a metal immersedin'- in as h10 e cut longitudinally beforeIeternal examine.

raidtng dfife.clae the Waterare determined 61retrtiao in welghr. thedepth and distribution of pita,frt, rha and the to ttntlI* a D 2331 PracticeS fair Preaain ad P- lanO7ta uion of: Ue tendencyfotrthe rati "Woais.petmmad Depsidts 5 (or plimiugcan he perfaitaed. welglitand cheracteristism of tle foreign nomaantteche Coupons.

sots it coat+

funcion of the tendency for water a.d the Anyatemn A2 may he devited for grading pitting()

7.~te~,Cnrrtnsnin In A Pdrtinentftctor to consider in IL Ieterfrevxtee

to C.,,aAY'r,%" .*ow,,, 3.1+ l~D tOU:.L1100'mo .... sinceactive Corrosion

-~~pJ'testing. sites,may developin .I1IIDeviation in metal Composition or sutface preparation Mehd A~ ~~~~~~ iF ltsw 0at 0 Binvttat 31D-itr~t -Per deffliftida Ofreen ttsedIn dire$,

dodo 0m ib: ut C.rie ton my exist at threadsandjotots and of the coupons tny Influenen the precisio of the result.

A CRY ad B.,W'y~m DIb errsaateato rteta-W4te w 1103 'methdj referto Tcrt tin gyllSD 1129. aepaits, as well to incorrosion apecinmee. In Teat 1.1.2 Thi preseaco of differuat metals inclue proxalotiy to 7

ps.1. s; 4, 9)jgifesitadU A tevca aoslo mayhe mnevidence wherethe an.ne stheCoupton.'(Within 76 amm'(3'ia.)),even ifthey mceinmblaed re.t.ngu.lr pe metal 4. ! Si 'te a~~l'i otadto the holder end at coupon'maakings. f'rom the C oup o n.co sit utesa o-surce of i in re s ults m .

1.p .fl which aretA em ploys mounted t p e 4.1 tw tealdcesram insepaable for ama

~ lalre 4 pecimeansurtur. are reintive to Usecrevice tcd~es'tis nflonc:on the overall corroolonresutts. coupons maylalteenrie the preclisiaaaf the resulis..*

w hiphar e mem* unted

".fowori aliigPipi

nO -'ld "t- --- d corroinhibitand far water corrsionat the thetostablit andcosrtvo sst p stoI ocontains is ecsayto redmove edge of ecaupon mark. 11.4Re.lis awedirectly courpasle-only-f.ir the.wate o water sy.sabe, eISitrie ttep* "-he er ipe sivityoftaitms deter*mieda in"aelaie.

in r th 1tiThs MehodB. resusbject t~ocrevsce catrmsossrie temperature towticih thecoupon is exposed.

1.4..Tes o-'~Mitd. ~

m B apud ~~ s -,*tmmiclý.wtb tildig a sa 1 O=

rso bs e, t-ne tedec

l f a mres OfS materialmrm,**.

n slo ca.t

-. 11-5Crevices, dzposts or'biningical growths my efaect 55hich ae insatlled in a platst PPe picin as t to loac o teoM ,-VitY:-'raseshould thereforeheitrtdwt

ýorno TIMincreased corrosio andyGown a ctl s.. ,+..l.Cdsl.P*.l~

uraet *nde..oa me P i~Ce-fowdietoeslon) ipn .ttstentln .&provided ia ....

result, and

~

vtol**c~f*

absolute.cop orapting it with theerrbio naewae.4bnviunencntvervely~

rates OfMI*,

i:n]

ItsF' -t.l*ma=

other djrul arouloaapeciinmv.whore-themeal mayhe Iof "I.tnkena - anro on ae etron an contio pI Sspecimen Of a high ratio of asurfacetan'to 12. Apparatus Coroston Wansce formed 00 t. Usal .. wal*be

" the toe to of "w trhed t "intd byte orrosion cthiseffct In TeatMeshed 1.th* edges am 12.1 Coupon.specimeaA.'pre-- couponsaaccrdance jat Occturtingin-Usamtal piping*y-ee being tetd Ste, aaeit h jateri with theeasts in m e to fti Ieaf*ld* s*iaL. If anabnormally highdegree wih .SeM on'14".

gavne steel.andsolderedcapperatid copperInsertsh *ove atrial In otherwa. Sse teat to oeidst.r fn"ouranp hinis t observe t intecsScin1 n sheeaseci TessMethod A, rho 12.2 b-Insulaig llbrterSeret andNat-Use for c hevatnizd Ston .c evaluating Use effects of teatmsethods

. on sefC

. are intended Corrsio Witrtulsod.tl of, waler.Althtoagh these i enon by mneajsutement evluated of the speciment tecuo In th heoi red tsaigwan-h has a 7

iiito.us so0 antifollowing exposure. Use of 4 ve thfifts thecoupon

1. fatstrded oe ntptirjortl toaddtesO a~ll91the ain the ofwaf carrusrntrt and intos1t o nt 55 hieains may a'tia reduce edge mthe fec~i" sa 12.3 *Ph*nolicintoRod- he, aholeanmodth I5-mam '(6-in.) length mw of with -st rus. 11It ithe delesralingiicoisosivesena

- A ceovas-hesed 13.m,(0.54i.) outside diameter p+eotu.icr..

.....f g-pir y aeeo se 5.1 The sp. ece hl i, . :Sr-urn ivolvd, ischaacrerhed by chitiuonima pipinig in the.system in which the ousioesdIn 1ht Oar ana.Anedsa Caatde-Saetey 4-VtentWa A-s,a bast neet. se 26,13. Welded as asammeaS, pipe ehI he ee In beSts Iandiheighimetalfrom which protective films red away. Someoander-ung alsa may he MWnto. S. A-ad-e Ctaatir Sod.%~as Aeda, sak,deedp' ceaw,,

-" however,batt-welded piping specim.ensmy*.

ween an. n atends an aerbi eajedndtrtaP a,.. nt at . a lMm*- .eh .d,* povids.cu..e is aheo. to pick rmudh.. ,

tt t a, a d ti 'AWttdhatntnt aSteeflao tnt N. Ittrine Ave. GihMAta. 10Mt~k n at d outAi.F -,,n w .a d tt - t t aq ... 'te . .. . .. , O* ,t 5 )-+ ued deposits Obhservecdonth specimeas may nenvud tiee -nt.e te N.a sone -A Fi Na. 200.5225 thlemettsliad llstedin PracticesD 2j331The atndwnad byo. C.

Staiteii Ietre 8-timadn RMAati.eLt(aPan N2. We50Cr h.nb.n. rbatd anhay 16tti"..

anentu-liAen 4nnAMt~ ) alasdWMij Will he calchim, ana-kenosuw retina IThdanantoe roteaatdn mianr 0.2 a ('

on Mi.. lb"htaid,

!Th.widu-a nt~i nt~io~t~tjsnn aemtt 'rm~n enebant,

.dsn phosphuere Chin.

sfulfate, Sleana~~~~tA i.latOa bai40o at ~ ~~

hiala

"-heedy 1.5enM~. "t atit& nýhmeedsiadni-.4 runt[%hmiend s in'iad as

-213

'212, C

.& D 2688 1o0.veflg oflnlti hlorif(we 11.5). Dilutethediorslting (yallow3.Rinse quently. The sacetively first and second ibath- must be renewed fire-I L with wate. in isopropyl alcohol snd bnie*oa a to M Tiewmerpqlene. and dty,with a clean cliol.' tore in a desiccator.

3 7)o.l--4Fineiy g -nulated.

porous. siliceous rock; 14.6 Cleaning Coppie Brar- and CaprNickel Cousp r-bonssiica (SI.*, sof porous, and f'ee of Shirp .edges suitble cinulvre.type clann agent w ill~dy (fee 14.53).and stare coupons encti Sarfor fotross COUPon

" 14.7'Clnofig, Stainlaes Steel Coupjor--DsgeSasa tVapor Phooianos ahtor Papfr.ý. with benzene,; dry with a clean cloth. aod passivAte by. imersing in upon"repaorntls -lidc arciduddcluomatsiaolhiiso (Is" 13.I@ýa 43 to 49-C (110:

In Ibis procedure, coupons are to becmae, principally to 120F) for 15lt 30o i rin*e with water, thsn benzene, dry.

set hwevr.

secl n afewcase,, aswith ease iron or -with a clwo cloth, and store in dide*ictsor saje Itmaybe ecesar toprepare couponsý from 14.8 Clsanin Alusalnm Coapows-Degeas, with benzene sad dry. Imnoteu*in HNO1,(usp*p .42) fora mosimum Of 3 Use a coupon size of 13by 76 by 1.6 0n (05 by 3.0 misutrern-a temperature. Rinse with water twice ones with 251,a.)forall sheet m-Is eanda 13by 76by 3 mm (0.5

]:. by 0.125.In) for cai st as. Other sizes are suitable, isopropyl alcohol; anodfinally with benzenenDry, with Secleso lowel and store inso desiccator. Ifeopuanis not visibly 2Stbs tota area is about 259 mm(4 lan.' theprI1 IPe repeadthe procedure using submerged scrubblng with-achlm,ý fiber nari eft. being to keep-b th itarea large- compared to tha bristle brush in l wter a rise.

'14.9 Cea:,12s Z*nc or Galv*l-nied Stert Coupons-ti the Sheet Metal Coupon Prevparvfivir-,bhiinsheie metal surfaccedsinfree ypi d1aired except for Stinles steel; use cold-roleld lealm towel, andofstore oxide, degrease with benzene, dry lit'ii ins desiccator If Odd* is-present, polish 9of lust Noý.4 Spotsfor -fareaus meml. Obtain Stainless steed fini,0° . . . with fiber Nor 0 brush,emory paper, scith InIsoprolyl alcohol using a stiff:

no dose In bce.tnc Dry 14.10 CleaninI L.ad Coponpr--(Spec.mens and starie n detsiemen I Sheer 54-gag SlieetMetal matetla to the dimensions sdhal bh mm (0.5 by 3.0 in.). handlerl-gently with r-;S t, Drill rpAtiMcaSmun (0.019-,) hole with its camte ,itomizedwmter, plestie-tipped then nmers inglacial tweezers). Ftirst, slotse is deie acid far 30 a.

om (% in.) from one end of tlb coupon. Rinse off:the acid with flowing deoni*.ed water for 30-a; MDbLUTr all Sharpedges mi the coupon spicimen, using lmm,*eein scelone for 15 s; d&yby laying onrdy tomwel: sito rovery-blth sod dcbotr lbs bole with en oversize drll:. Is asdeiL-ide fr-l h before wetghting so 0.1 mg.,

.Saplstfng numbers or lseonbsCoupon.

6w the emmitg'hog ba . 1S,. Pmecedore Caq-lMetal Coupon Preparatila-Obtaln 15.1 Weigh the cean,. dty specimens on an alytiesl rough cast-.

be desired m e*t* 1Arsbhout 19,by 114 by 6 mm 'baance to the nied 0.1 mg:

Vaby1/4Abi.) from a commMrcdia fnmadry or elsewhere. 1..*2After weighi*g, als the spinc iens-tia desiccator

'-Surfte glod to the dimensions of:13by 102 by 3 Suntilready,for use. If storingin D desiccabr is inconvenient or

byA.0 by.o.1251n.) ad surface tughness fbout Impractical. use as alternative: method for 'roviding A "Drigla 7-rmm(Ys-oi.) bole with lb.ceater abost 8 ectrmslna-free tatmosphere.

15.3 Store fen=uns metal coupons In separate envelopes reil)flrm oas end of th coupon.-

.Debutrali Sharpedges on tbs coupon specimen suing ýnoafekrous mode from metal* vapor c0aeihmabthor-Impregnated paper Seers

-in sealed plastic envelopes o enict bell,4sod dlebiir the bole with so oversize drilL wrapped inspladic film.

ýS.Iion ldctifring nuebers or, letterf on dhe small .15.4 Attachs the coupon, to the phenolic rod, using an ttenhfcbedge and therusnating hole. linslating washer to preclude any contact of coupon with les

~'sppr~imam weght ofmealý coupaont8. is a screw sad nut assembly (ne. Specificaton A 1204.For lidded peoection, attech the spW men to the holde using a screw en nut of the same metal competition as the coupon. ....

tams 15.5 Installtlh* holder and coupon massblylin a suitable S.7 lin or In a bypass piping arrangement as shown in ig. 1.

15A6Adjust the rate of-flow of'at*tr in thl tstrplping to a 1s-sc rate thatgivesa flow velci.ty that corresponds to lb nsrmal

'e nserr flow inthose pamrtof thesytem under pama consideration.

l C rr onDry. I ese-np r s'hlton

- Remtocontainin Nrmtally, the flow vi" tywill be in the range from 0&6to 1i v ae ll reid Ibsl the enpo bPthree raptd'scm.m- m (2 to 6 fey,. Check end readjost lhb flow as ec ay to by ,

maintain the deaine ratem 153.7Remove spechnens from the system at ihosvnantori mm'se ah;telsrnawtrbt vals Since the"corrosionwill be high initially sod then fall Is.

a lowir,ariny colstan rate, two time series should he Chmen.:

15.7.1 Use-shore time Intervals for the firt time'i rlesin orderto establihbtherate atabih passivity occum.Riesmoval 215 9,)

_j

D 2688 A&D 2088 prepare. Recently, Severalpepema(I (12,3,4, 5) -havebeen Aerato tenm .3 rwlhtoAZnei~ the:bakereto factor- to he' presented which make the technique MOrePrecUiCal,, a ccord-t thecouponWeight lessen ingly. the test method bh ee on mrewinen to' Includethese Uecoptrnled 4.-tppAYinalhi n i :G ZV00

.14 Rewelibh each coop0tonthef nearest 0. 1 tug. Iinprovements. ,Essentially,Ithe Ichuogelsfrom e tso ea Oninth COUPON. toeer we as 11t34 pin i g lud n t sleeve fee ho using fth 2-Pplasic in ects, 100 a 5.7.2 Use. gtn long toval for lb *acnd tis rrest .15 If itn se .)t appaenett complet* plastic (PVC)" body.- 71bisimptlfl*e the onstraclin:

ae e dploftpl rersnaieSt with the dildepth.

odrto establish the 0mm it lyeat"MCnteeiom p0 depaths.11 ominher.. 6. Caleulatethe piining ubsing Fý 3: and r-dlue a ing ea=L The bic Unit is now generally ftre Recrdthrsst~~lvolmeSS rovadof the en tpnsatrImnhand the remnltng8 hae.and flltiuo sh al lso be dietetitl

'ftepits t . ,-in. outside dismal 2 -mm) amebly, rather thea I-is.

couponsCSt 6oS-moetu interals is recoomed-, gn R for Pseparing Air- A.-i; ou),de (33.4-sno). rvd.tedma

'blb I provid,, the d cleaned.

15.8 protect thespcientet If it. anotabe examnined. deteote, weighed em. 13 I sad reweigbed imomediaetly after ocovlem s hasnet. oi 5.6Rends enapn~tce Of the O tse diae*te*

prtece. "moderate leenliord.- -"snederate Pitl~

ns" opseetneas .O-.

(26.7-nen). and diameter 1eN Outside diamte -*.-.

(21.3-mm). (33.4-mra)4s&ebKiS$.

Dry between,Paper Ioes hefso sreta bar iOpnhibtor paoeevelopel tmode fromt vapor Pheeibbtf aevete~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ PitC. ycntoilteruoswt h t~ onovert from mils Peryear to millimetre per ymer.

19- SnMMILrY oWhTat Melthod lpaspeoted -paper or wra arfully io pliastc~lm o tsseinul.4.asreas ldyyOll234: ofve Result i9.lRemoveble Pipe in*rts maeinstalled. In ploasilcpipe Unfentrou metal c~oupons,MrapcarefolY in potcflm h caonwed by piping tinjons nedza made part of.thipopU aPeriod ten between removlofse ew Ingig .n CalcountiltI iteraim It, Should b~erecognined that the following -deviations.

shooldbe kept to a traitaUrn end 10 aebal teer s 16.1,Cotoslon rns mu selly calculated as so ave t f coupons sed fthcu*csponding'a -titrllof con- system unedr Mt PmpT dimensiom we provided tbroagho S as that Strentmline flow (eo-flow distotion). is preryided, in teag week. seontin 10 4 miePer year or tmilisret50 per year annu dsony lead to thefollowi*g e .eoInteMtr otopi Iaoprent and th essembties in Standard steel snd galvanized sod copper tubing.

15.9 Estion. fte specimenOO sod eor either by photOgtsPh " ~'-eat I Deviations in composition or surface preparetion, of Inrereni Is now being shown 10 initutocr tetg'itarolon orbyddtesPtOn the AppWhesroc~f 'be SPe~tcimejPybtt rod.ot is general(-).- 2 Deviations in Velocity end direetlnsi of flow;.and 1 other m , e ws;such as l aed. for exnm ple;hoý avger, sipTrc aae .

parllcds attention to fteisamount sandasern ofonay dethreot 16.2 CtslcuaolOti ftof isC rsr"ona Row 3 Deviations in ýcrevices, deposits, or biologicalI testingof th Corrosion relntust eof lead is Confined 'll Wto deoit ttr s~ 'olf fth deposit tMAY be-perfosit.d hot thisetep is Optional. 1612.1To Calcelate th caFF as9 te(091010m the following otter nifOr.eC;CCoOPOO. nse Eq 1:' Method

IS A.end difficult becasmasy the aotuniform be r *h peeparati Soldered wdepouIble. ,of lendPipe pipe Copperhacnmti 15.1 Fo ferouscoooos.oseoneof estivoptedoeforde coupons gth Use0 ior to reweighing. y tssen ore Presentl ente xoe nhcSraeO h lea tls inotonSsota 15.1.1 w als Possible Weith#plostic ,,cs iOn isn fu**tiron, eacof endividoalsyMeto Prepengomin e attc ncaucrvccoxi acdZ knf.Rtove oily sod pansnydeposlitsby soltuIeg Is _lb wei-,Fght loss.tg. Sage*e 6t this time.saltemet

al regurdingthis prope-ry tld -ot 'there is tsondie of the corroion debsr e mea0 knie-hleORettov reoea-t loose otrmsion products by Loin 10weighl of fth*eioew is onleraeura of the averag If = de.sitYof the of metal. /vm sd !ii! Is a comhro.tivIe type test, for which prcrision Inuohiog with a brislin brush. lmjtttft6 th`,Pccioi - ,=epoks'ede COUPO.hL.a, conUson per soL arUa.Exenation of the surface is maddeto

ýinhibited Actd.using either of thi- followinogtwo tecrhatqdn a.oniolonte.

Maeerdesee, Thetm wataer ors many quality, veriebles..'umc and fth Presene of othrer as evdua= pitting. This test m d eay -hboued m de.i*mi the 1AI I-Itlnmearsethe 4-111,11- nuthibIted* l(+1 16.22 hcabcolate~ crot rateMensltuneTe a mayj M .lao the raie of c erotosio of the co upons. degree of corroson o'cucing 10nColdor hobdlstrilbutlon water for 309 an.trmsomcmpeltstl earsfor eachtcoopaonuse Eq 2: the composition of the taut stetal sod thddifferenj sYe.,m or coolien water Syranm.to evaluate diffe*ent metasds-specitmens ts lohIhited KfS0 secrslta hi~chcurt oicrr. nitch-03general ememoion. "f chemical trea*itent, e*ado determine lbspropmchoce of A 15.10A1.2lomvmrgethe C tietletl{t~iuenOO5P ugs.tol) - 3aSS taAWA 0 11~ (l0"1~ wih ndiuect current source (1+3) Wtnslrohiologieel type. may affectthe remsusoppre- coerolna~reisrntmtalfor. the syutem.

imposed 00the coupes 4 asns anodo.sdte ssebd.h 2.5to IQ A voltage sh Ildbe to s V sod the Cuterotlenslby3 of-the.metal, g--m,, 20. Apparatust p.erIpecimen5.'~ K bO5 e.mIiorn tshehth for to 5 11111 d =-deoity area.fcou4om.sod the 20.1 Te-ter As-ebl.-: Th assembly cnmits of two in-o, =-- expose 'MODB-.-P~e 4,5). Insert InPlead. Pip.,(,.2,a 15.10.2 R11t* with vituer, after emmoviniiipecsenCs, front lone. Constructed from aepresentative lot of -it*n.ooteide, lsPO Ir04 A, medyL.

-re INTRODUCTION the Wlobhiedseld both.Rub apoiotti wih then with trlppli.. Rinse, with wo'er.Yto5O with jBoptfair spt"tC graVstlnso eitnesil ar TI3Mrh elcltl.Drybewen pertowels. fllowed by Wueosrm ethatiof corrosion testiag In municipal distaibstian

.Sadffectively for, many.'years; its" has b*.ený h V- pv cs s,pL lts latt. . 8,4 4 5tn 21*Jtn sonigth olowing .lPVwrdh b Oti th assembly has born cumbirsome and costly to e ~ 1.1tor sppcr to copper atlloycospon$.ýS h oaW CMvftokensiTi N. tows' 4 Cr5en~ea otek 25471.B.L precedurte for Cleaning prior to reweihlf. - CRemovteciyOrupeos as weillas possible wvitha plastc koio eov iyorges h cup deposits by sooeltlg UIfticatomnthy~ toofle TABLE ISp-cutlesstlov 1IcG TowylpeCeroaton Spachtnec.

in inhibited HI~ (1 + 1tR8) er 30s flss copot C14 wi'thwote, Orats . ar. "Ire hse On.tsdd Fn!W blt Drycoupons flitweenppcIW1a ~ ainsds~~O o nersees Me p t'. st00 to@ee sAo e a ss aumloO5 15.12Pee lw Coupons.Utoeth duroloolots o 4.05 nasa 0025 50.7 Wh.V .k,5. a.

fOllowitagprocedurS for. cleaning prior in rawlighitig.Cleen

~~ the~~csepoOtosttpossible0 WithI'%lastle knife. Remove etnod~osspp esseetad U 10 105 LOWa to m2 oly or greasy, deposits hy sOakingiu uin al tridtloosyleC.toC ai solution mrethe coupons in cItUtelr aCid~phesphorile (see 113.2)1 at romtttotttrfo 0m.Rmv o rinse.

6isoly is ithlas aeneas 4s.pp. gukWrdnS 4Mn 1037A 1r12 , t'3.0 with witle, rinse with isopropl slrho so. Type L tabi eavs Coo5 lS t.5512.09 h.enorepcDry.hettten aerlwet Pi ous inn de-cceto for 15.13 Subjecsa weghedbleank oponO h5ofmu rrsiniprcedreesd frthe test spot tins trshcdeol~l 217 216

@ D.2688 0 2688 .5oaa 'TABL E2 Factor. f Wr Conosttl uW Ih Noft 0.ls- .reo. Lass

.M a*aromeal s into 4

- "(Spe TlrAiHh/orrAeid (3+4). I-hIVbed ZO of el I, Corrosoon M "'

dinaneter(26.7-m5t) steel etndr ppei ad. ril (Smi-pip y,+ Or1Ar" .. O -9....

. . -...;l F

ctedby mreachul ceue4Zlft _2.)

aospip. M. 1 sl e em -W, A re A deitrfalbY In 110.21cibly) or copper, ieatia pipingS. ljlblvcn am yajAC d (0)R ,1 2 1SýSlyiawlMdI 2j 1.1w*m< e o S .atpaa . acento Poem tV A 00 .. l .. . . "I5M 05M.11%"-

head in place by 3/4- , 0 i e da ee.*00 lds ItI..eo -jAc tad 4 15daea 1W 574 .

"showun1 f.pi.3 and F 4ii s1 )U7-rl4S eroittl)PV se eluF_(HISOan 1. T*' L ISll(a t20 to. 4.91i

.italledina t 1 sa3/4m (27JnSetoeO~

scettt~ a. ad s of aticyclit abietylatton(Se2.) n i socket Wem, ) 3/4-in.4 (26.1-naulan 1(1 16- dIa .PV uion (S4 -21. C.d::O'6 5 Mj inm: 90 -... wae....andi 4c,10 _ .+

sbZ Svhiatidnn..Dsn g ofsode .014!asaca leca tlY 11C hv e(21asoi at consttructed according tO 1 2.P 0 1. 40 ASIeddl. sta pipi. 2120 0153 10.40 7,Si p etfpa Scssu.1

%.et L t s t

4 sno oPMM~dPoet pa p pa.o1'1517 05 II now 74.0 -

teste.. Rose d e U1.S. dArmy d 20= f die c ors nmtin t' ers poxyte 517pox

)n1Tablpe 2 oop"I in bahlbTest h-tethods AIssli d ilt tBILDir~.~ th" 015.O t5 IApO05d15a.S p r adp aepox hold

PTulk

Is Ss-

01. Ot0 dealpip eor Ma5a &40ta t mater f.bettetr s the *" psasivs tht8S clt - D. llyPOd

21. 2WchlroE' 1 andhot

cold

'etsnma

water syste]M. iaystacks tiaald!0 5

- 22. PrePnoIoofle'1n-tt5l h L*

524.w rao*di tpper s ~,a 3 55 20.2'Dial DepthGoig- Se 12.5 . 150-W. 64(

.20 3 U71IrOsn5 le, I MrtnP .2arlisumba~lo IfI gIgttt~l ~isorielaee tn-ttýt to held 2-1.beaker."ilanal lack -Ltbcdin. deg`eneLth insertlsby itafT 05.OysiarOtia Oc 00,. 147 07 58 22.3 Theextecior and eadsof the macalaare coated with a

,?,L " Pub a22. thae, nifeol ainsert show theýprescflce of rust etrof e epoxypOirL Blend the eLoxy bannandepoiy py W.

2121 lyrt A btclmtlo~ ed(actaldthl m tedaya ise notremoved,cleaincopper sadiatel latest W..1:2.

Place catalyst Cmm~

rubber

stopperstoby-*

according Into the the vhos ends npralm of pin sadthe 3" to hocarts o*anncfnur.ninstructionw +nprotect

- be eseo~deadd~tif cess ~

a end-otoesndd5l with (1+3) b~hydcblonecid inwntilfref Inibd ý,

produce galvanizeddspI - by~the - 1,: Isticmt wtw~a Pvc wen o -inteior aS roil dry-flute surfaces darinIthieloaras; pase coaftngAflow IoAli dry feir res t hei nserts to ditht~SOni n so peve salto nsto - surfeca Icdb f r sUlaniomi oocaset~ ttahtttr,5 . P ac p ed.r sonti ot lar ,eCe in xpose e achen

'loP d H5tie Of art ina ti lfrwilmstfr CortaaldtIIihb foro yý- a, fe epm epseInccetae CfoI 24ý22.4'Stem h.and remove mciraria theinstopperm.

a desiccator auntilInstalled in the tester t ahoev Coemesom ptst m ay eiea.mush longer reute assembly MFg.3 and Fl.S.41).

2f.3 Sab1s1tci droehl(tIt 6cid.,Arseenil a v stpp rS.ivusinscSwihwtt

$ ~

3 Procedu.re in,,

plusand we a-01.tarM Ulsle W

~~ L50e..

.. ,!stýo 1

~tt,%)

0,PA teloa mete P. 1001t55Wes

. ,'.a 16

. rie eo a . 350. n.t eeep ow by -LOflW

. Iam . ade

.the system 1

23.1 Insilsthe les assembly.

roife obsenedL i a siiln.ainlzed pipe lina in 23..1 A miiataFr straight ru of 91mM (3P fr) of piping Shellproceedtha test as emnbly topravent undue Dow distor-23.l2 Cossstructa don. by-pose valveandpiping sarreangemen in oider to allow insert removeowbile the syatemis opeoetieg.

ac inld

"(* dshte Ilrcyi! 0Ooatngso' c: l;. 1Weei+ IIltAmt5e*Q 1. 05*0-P~jo flowrate Ps1 e ordir 23.In etoobtain InstallCUmRxMm a Watermeter Informactions fhtlowiag~ te testthec Cocernting assembly in:

and totaRlow.

23.2 The micomomriacommanded les' petted Is preferabily 120.days.

23.2.1 Removethe. downstreamo Insert at this time tW 22.12.2If feaaihla.exposet -he upstream inaerasprefemblly for 3/4'(1.91 CIn pV'i~a rjms, pipenipl4 PC a teatpperiod of`12 moaGuh&

24..Calloteral Oint 24.1 ýRecordpertinent' Information on the physteal and s2.Bt~~ ~4I l rolftedati~g!0giostai, , PVC,SeetoSt .

chemical chomwedseisse of the enviroement in which 6thelet is Rsdsmd O.Oi5'lOj~q8e madeion the seatreport sheet(FigS6).

214.2Inclade 0130the locatian of thetester,loeen materal.

Record, wgla and in*sýer mr ta et hisert nomber. installation' data,removalidate, andother 'do.

tep....... ectipliv Information in~thetearrpst she(Pg6.

w Caress~ Spocltsm j%4C oil ReduacdWcl0en cr~eal a istadttgdFls SteelaPtpe alwhO s_t .tersan rapnsaivas mat sat It they re ass 2S. Inspection

'o hie frocm i net v. 25.1.Diver thUeflaw of waler from thetesterandtemove thie hodfl38einl.Le40ol P . ta - Insert ficamthelost assembly.

.03Ll.. ciil 219 1-f

&D26888 ns~tltctionno puat Lo000cation _________________

Type tattt.ori.

DateInstaled

,DateReported,

onoacnt.

VittlogeRvsaGlnn, Osos______ 50soz'd IhaPol III pxa~lloum -t 42taft..imotallti.lc 10 -1*l and coccosouo ptod.

.*3)ater la to1tS., t IC.. cO WtaI 005. os 9 V/say (A[Oaln .. sees do.Ing Lnist.110115 (1-2) - -

()laos.o SCRIG,sd c~orosoni Press(2-31 -

IC, 'fightSeale and Coeooalvo pond. (3-4)-

,o)- t0tal scale and corrosion or-da 12-4)--

I01 A~c15fIvaiht 1ane sof tweet (1 WV q/o 4! tutj appotl - 120:v/v Ag. a Ilport Ithost 0n Corrosion Spogltosn (test Met~hod 0)

ISgof Inserts 26.4 After. wihng,(th inserts lengthwise- In bend saw,

r oemove from tho coorodlog osovironmoot. -dry lospect the interiorsrorfe tor Oliningrecording the atnober.

WC oveo for 24 h (except fiewcopper insets whldic depth, shape. enoddletrilhllon of pits (we 7.2 one 125) in thr A in a dsiccntor for 24 h), cl*se ends of mire wit, pkt evolootico cohbm shown InniPg.6.Aso inspect copper pets, immer=ieInset Jot on epoxy point stripper to, Inserts'using 4Lrdicrso1po to determoine if. tritoiens reslling nt on the exterior. mndremove all Its point film from crosloo3-corosisoony hov, IVCI -nocured aintoAfter rosovln4 the ostnppcii.dry ogeoi In u 27. COlculation ifinof h, cool in a desiccotor for I I (except for -27.1 Calculat (ho scale"nd corrosinn products In grins s-which shall be dried In. desieisto for 24 hi), cod goins=per day, onindicoeld in Fig. 6.

o thonearest 0.Ofl R~tecord theweight toolne (2) 27.2 rxproo thi mien .of corrosion cither awcight tonepa I sheet (PRg.6). untsmen per unittime or the equioaolcvrate of pen* utlott.f7e mauln: While removing point, avoid 6ootea with aeccptcd units ate grim per eupo=roete per doy*fglr2/dey) otionby wcorlng toshbergloves co~dwogtiog In o cod mtllunrie peactratlon *er '"F(mMpy)MUsper yr po thein w~e~rwithoptl o to remove loose (4py): Colcuotn in g.odor gn Idy meyl omdsusing Eq 4:

I woshwith a broth end scourin poder.D*ry the elgbiio previously noted oiler otrippiog. Record the clride, da .It? ~ to,~b steeMW sd elvantrod

.op-lsen.

ie(r3)'of Fig. 6.:: -61. 'Maty tO steel inse*.rinn freshly. prepared solulon of ..t20 wiZ~pprcpnd 1(4)

Fdro*hl'ic :aid (s=21.4) for seve] minutes or where*

ttnolmcproducts ore tosoved. Copper Inserts ore W. - actualwmight loss of inse1.g, and i c redhydrochlnor d acidforl I n2 mi to r' - mostollorlontme, days.

not no (hocopperrei herb to Clemn 0othtd 27.3 lbe relationsibp beomteecorrosion re in good.mnp,.

codt.py, (27.2) in o follows (ne Ibb 2):;Isultply go4 by galvanized Woos libmrse, In e n ihibed sufmin Ili 651density to obtain onespy.sollllmee year Aond ottpy/

(I0 %)l(e 21A.6) for 5 min tolIooen thdeposits. 0.0254 toIbtmulo tIoo.The densites wen;lso)am st*el---.i,

.Pous't, by'brushing cod placs:ing.n o Utdraonicl zic (gelvoo'eo-"-7. l ; copper'.-,8,.96;. leed-,1,,34 "

ttreesosay. In this ns-oe pinceinserts in a 2-1, e.0bclcr ceatioing (ho Inhibileduold end plccW 28. Itelrpretation of Rumnlt.

.45aoOIc equoipenos contaening w -te ' 28.1 This toot closely sboostetes ortuo piping service coo-.-

14-:1111~ inseets with water and ecolono, dty inoj ditions end hot been observed to yield on accurote mtenum of OfofeI bh(except for copper inseris. which shell he, corroion oceurlog In a pipin system.

for 24 h). cool I desi"catot for i', I.ad en1"tor s Cotsin rtots of le(o then (0.13 mmpy ore considered 28.2 25.2 Itecord the corrslwt Porte"t coL sosftOor &f aneci~tcoltemn of eIogte:e O4 g.,Record the weight DP*0o N4 of 1leet0.001 low. ad or. ageneral idiio of eatinfactory Iservice lifIe of sl odppeytl corso u crrrsdn hul roughtcuetOdSM1orpittnc. the ,ietils'teted cod exposed in the piping system.

obowing evidence or ,,,ilon;,SrOOVing, n eoird the oppooei o)4fthlepoinedsurfd Obov questioneodhecroeo;ee eulSm (ho b Isttd ItelOt p I g. etc.. If rho#pointbu fledt qesrte

,221

7

l

]D 21688therefore, a general statement regarding this property is not 28.3 The, degree of -pitting rnay be graded (7) and its importafice evaluated,. practical at this time.,

30.2 See 18.2.

29., Report 29A1 Fig. 6 shall include the observations, 0,eight determn 31. Keywords nations, and pitting evaluation made in Sections 24 and 25, annd 31.1 -cooling water corrosion test; coupon corrosion tes*

the calculations of scale, corrosion products; and corrosion ra te in. Section 27. distribution water corrosion test method 30" Precision and Bias.

.30.1 Precision, is a function of each individual systen RET RhE NCES I4 (t).1"illinois State Water.!Survey., Proceedings of te Amiericahn Power Cotifercnce, ,Vol.XXV; 1963, pp. 696-697:

(6)Metals.Hqibook,'VoL 3,Machining, Armerican.Society For MetI Metals Park, OH 44073; 1967. p. 75.

(I)tReiber.,Ferguson, Benjamifi, Journal of the Aknerican Water Worx, , (7)'Darin, M., '!Corrosion. Criteria--Their' Visual Evaluation,!' Aiflj November.968, pp. 41-06. .Bulletin,No. 1384 JimuSTy 1946, p..37.

ý(3)Prak-asli. Schoize,.Neff,.MalonqYI Heath" and Saith," Develop'ment (8 Co'ng e Moul C "pe 6-Water Chensistry sand Trriaesa &7.

the Pipe Loop 'System for Determining Effectiveness of, Corrosio Control Cheriicals in Poinble Water Systems," USA-CERL. Te dmic, Con*in lower, butitute, 1981.

Report N88/12, August 1988. r- (9)"NationalAssociationi of Corros.ion, H_,

AwiaanJ'.T.M , VanDroffelear "Corrosion ngiheer, and ItesConb4-

ýHoustonrMIX 1902'*

(4) ,.PrakashbScholze, Jr.,. Maloney, andNeff, Proceedngs*.ofthe Wsati Qualo Conference, Baltiujore, MvI, November 1987, pp.43-156. (10) Loandrum RJ... "Designing for Corosion Conttrol,"? National A (S) Singley andLee, .Journalof the AImerican Works, Augiist 1984, pi ciatiOn of Corrosioa Enginer. Housto' TX 1989; 76-83.

TheArnerfeen Sody for Testing and Materials takes nopo,sltian respectOg the.vat .at anypaten dghts assertedin connection '

with anyllem mentoeted In: this standard. Use of thLs standard are expressly advs that.daetetratnaffonof the valiaity atany such patentIghte,and the driskIof hiringsmentof such dghts, em entirely their own r*spons.bl.. y.

This standard,I sqbj6ct to rovision at anytme I by the respormsldlethnlcal committee andmust be reviewed every five yearn and revised, eftharrnappnvedaOr wjdrwnI Your Snlaot fcmments .em Invitad att erforrevshton of thii sandalrtoreraddilonhalstandarda, end soud be addrassed to ATM Headqihrntem. Yourcomnrents will ti~ae'carituconstdaatiýo ata meeting of the mspohstbte techhhIca ConMIlttea which you may tlter4 It you feel thaty LTCm cmments

, have notreocaivedea!,i heirnin you should make your

.daWs known to the ASTM CommIttea onw:Stndaens. atfthe address shown below Thisstand cr4yd CpyghtedbjtASTfT,.1 00 BnarrHarborDiyme, POBox C700. West Conshohocken. PA 19428-2959,- UnitedStltes.

Infividuailrpdnia (sinrge or multtple, 0plbs) of-ttIs slandaectmay be o0alned 6y ontacting ASTM at the abo*-addrass or at 0I0783-93l50 (phone), 610.8 -9555.(OWx, or sence~astaiaomS (e-mal); or tiough the ASTM wets8te ( M-nt ,org).

22Z

APPENDIX 6 CA' O6V&?oa~

Savis'ta I

-z4 Membran-eAutopsy Report

-.-Completed for:

AEP

,At Cook Nuclear Plant Avist Treclmnopigs. 1nc.

)"'S, I of))I

'p 133

0 318 8002 DNRMODUCTON PROdi1DU~jES AND RESULTS .............................

Wet Test, ..................................................

.........................M.........

External lupecdic ............. wo.........................

Thesima WzOP ................. ...............................

Tdescopingof Element ca49M ....................... ............

Bzmc Secal .............................

AnfltlSapingDevice (ATE)) ........... !.!!! .......................................

Penunaft Tube ............. ?...... ..............

Membrane . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Po~wma Testo .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . ... .... . .. . . . . ...

Feed S4macei(VeIVr) . .... .. .... .... ... .... .... ... ... ... ..

GlenIiest Meubrauc Fmulut Dmf .... . . . . . . . . t ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bubble Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .

EDXISEMAn~yosi . .... .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... .. . .

FMI Anssi . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .

MAfcrbiologca emniaatkm .... ... ... ... .... ... ..

Compabibf test . ... ... ... ...

SUMMAY'MN CONCLUSIONS . ... .... .. . ... . . . . .

RECOMCMENATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ... . . . . . . . . . . ..

APPENDIX~c A-Diagprn of an RO mlcmet' 8 APPENDIXB -

Digit lfotoiupb JK Avhsfa TerA"nplogies.

Inc.

Page 2-fiI

031 880 0 2 IITRODUCTION AUP spat a Fihute BW3-36M5 eleomentfm their Ca* Nudew plan sit for mauops The Serial m= of that elem=et was A8141661. it was mpoftlft= ftir RO.syst was exposed to. a, biocide (Spectus CTI300) diut cootaned a- qjzatenmuy, amine 1The systcm &evekpied signs of foaingi shortly afte ft.e inroutoxfn of fthibiocide hwot m Tfelwpima Goal of ti mapy, 'was to dwnnine whether Spects CF300 f dh The: ehment hopectim, rsults are mmim belw. P~leas.weeir to tie: dezrmm drawing in APundix A* an 6qmuepautio offithwomu used thrughod this report.

1PROCEDURES...RES .

Theeknen'sfiergas wrppngwas badly ra d and defomed. As A resuk~, it ixudd notbe wetmtested.fl o~e ELEMENT IGHT Because elwxst weigh is ai A ndidatie of the degree of iuling, ekmewelts ae weWghds prio to auk4,sy. This elemet weighed 46 pwrxle hue nomina weigh of ne delonrt I

EaXTRAL. VNECION Fibrgasswrp: *

.TelesaPingof mdeuulaw Bodtnds~ of ftheclomnt were examine it sOpign of: nouternx and bd' sla eurusia Th-is typeof dnamag is:tne Iln~rg n is causd by the &wvlopaxun of.hg resr (ysiza* great i hn 12 psi)j acros the elemnt. Madeate

-ooiawas obsenved Boineseakr mebieseal prvent bypassing of feed qwat aard the delnimu Mw brin seal was in,

.good udaitim with no czdAe o tamls observed.

Anadoeecapin device (A4Th):

beý Al'sý aie desiged, to pevWn telscoping of clemntý leaves at nra ifr~a premsuse No crack we=e detected.

1ie PaTge 3.nI; K 1<

- 03 18 8 0 02 No scfatlcs or gougms wme viuibl on ft, aids of ffie. PaMate hdme d&a woim allow by-p*sof fedwazr.

InWENAL MUM1NAUON Mod= %D hevy fum,, . was sem. "rU foult was gVy in cobr and possesw& a musIy odor, A mmfm saqple was dyed with.rystal violet dye to hi~ danalpd, Fafjiwwu Test line Fq*nwaI but18'used to damiwnm wb,-dx a polyamnl (PA), ihin-fihn nmdxaine im

_bcn cxpc~d to, -an. oxidzin mcch as dikaine, hwnhre, or incfume lne teat dftMihws qpalibtvcy wbcdior buIms have becme peat of tMe m.ua wlimauc tume A Fujiwwa test was moan a uw ewsmpL. and itestrl mwa sitivm Ine ifedd spina b a plbstk vountain (Vema) dmjaW4 IDsuamtc mmanlma I==ve to him a ipow, jutih aod ;Dojmimafttuhla within kiodwateri pmsgesm Tie feed qm=a PWeafepacrga

'Mnpesmesteu (riat 'ft'd a. pat for pamlem f [a* to mituiinzt pamcai-swi IEmm. 6 Thesspa= vms in ma c~ -Z~ltctiu~ii wfth no signs of daenmicz Gluelias:

Maidain leav= eam glued 6m tAfu is to scjpmfte feed -anapcmeac $ft&,= Glue Uins dxauaob sousof ha-.

samples

=I #= w tea: lest Apitus 10 dtmine =mbm The cow spa

tbhe*

is opemd as vab*, w te sat lx g a0r= st eqmessed; by ai *B' valuse. &eA caxuftazi ate hxfiioss Of fti paapa*s of tne ommaelds MnY hmghyevr Ne mind todis&solved Solid Of fth ftcszUnM. owl value units we almsecl A Vistu Tr4noiogfei. far-

-page4;7fi)

\3Ql

08188002 AVaie B Value'"

Serial # A8141661 1.04E- ".51E-5 Mamzktumes,oo ig iinal 8.00E-4 to 1.08&4 5.50 to 7.44E-6 FOULANT ANALYSIS

.Lessojiignioen:

Lows on ignition givps an W -md cf fie ora ic ~oftdoIfit=an Value in.

exe of about 3% represent a sinilicantl o1rgai cmutw LOWs on ignitioc was 503 Mw awe fozdadem,*d :

Mmixane; *za= density is Ie. Weight of' dty Wcuant Per am of menixmne unIfcc.

Foul-zt densities deterined f past rane fro 0.04 to 06*

and Bubble test, Sevralý dreps of dilufte hypkdro qoiacid weeplacedn bc, di ulaut =&=ice Bu~bbles indicate the presnce of carbonates. No bubties.evolved.

EDX,'sEMwsl "is EDX. mlisi is coubeuted im omuctqwco ith ma rmu electron km ww~ (SMe to woflem mmsak: mdm he aia-bipaidcorponntsofdie fidant vi alunfinD= s~dk=0o~pmL F.R analysis. organic fliest "Ainant 'Fatty acids were detected Qiate0.y un, compunmdswepe iununot deoalt pefomeiL A trace amount (1-94B4 96) wa's detcted.

A Aublntunmul was stained ýamd etamirrd. wit a lig mnkch pe. Signifiicnt umnb~cm otrud--dshapodiactenu (lrclh)we wn seen.

COMPATlDILITY TE A amqt~i~-test -wm's z between ffielS~pechrus CMMl.0 bicide- and now Filnnec

.BW30.mmnhone Tesis woivre r -m in a celts paaisand in a total recycle mode. The' results am graphed~ below Ai~slaTcinimpke. Inc.

Page 5-f1

UJ 15 bUU0 Spectnas CT1300-BW30 Compatibility 9.OOE-05 6.OOE-05.

57.OOE-0 .* 1 2 3 400E-.05 ::::'...

6 04.OOE-)5, -

c3.OOE 2.OIE-05 1.00E-05 .. .

2 3. 4 5 6 Time, Hours.

1-4-AValues -- BValues I Atpin w,01 p o petu C.30 .. ...~w pmws de a ontto and a ttal of4 pm was added'at pointtee.

ISUAMMAYAND CONCLUSIONS A wet tes to dtuin *ment Adta c,. ould be cm&=& Howe=,, cell toos of a, manb=ar BROVI shed pemwal flwr at the- high ax! of 'wxWl :§alt Claiugte RO sysema hk the *rewu cfreictkn sazniln cm=lochsea a inl the fibrglass wmuppA& ,!as e= in fthiekinelt However,, it was reported tht his gicdewas never mpblyecL Nog diffoiet prmac cmd'by failin may alao result in fthtype of danmge Ft:*,wvam.t waypoi: v. fw mye CXdm. elvated W&

am!pecfate flow at the hig" cod of uma tB M1w fuanut cnints of claya polbr'w, sc alumiummihyddel, ar bww and ba4lrisl sliuw A U=ac Of qUaemMYary mmzMiu COMPcumd wasdetwctedby-a wet test jincedure.

Nie. was: detecedbdy FTuR analysi 11w: &lliet id 4wtzatnW amirxs by, FMR does mtnebessarl MM'" tht &hqwine abscut. It uuy,-', tiyn fnthathey w% blo auqtest Ihwdta SpectrusCF30fusFhecB- nnla.

Flo*w de&clnd whnt itas 0.1 MM Of bioCile Was added to fthc=ll teat apzartu A.

tota A value declie of 26pcatwas seen after. theaddito of 4"ppm Spectrus CIrI300., . .. '.. /

Avista Trecsnofoqgs. Inc.

'Pagi6 if II:

l

. 0

03118 8100 2 pmow"ccd in a cuntmmks mode, of testng Inza iuyd mode, fte snal qfiankis of, the test subM=nc presen.i thetest IoT, may beý adsolibed onto the meafmbi surfce wVI~out ccwcnfg al, o~f the potestia atthncl='tsihes In A welinuous mode, of qtezation,

'i s in.padded to the uous all of the membrane atahen ie wifl eventull be covered, and a: much greater.degro of, Ibidig i o~wo tW rao~ns6 w our testing was coucitd* in thei nzycle mode.

A cleaning t, was pedripod cm, a bed nnmw smnoml Expclet cleanian-resubl, wese obtaned with Avis's Ro~lan Pil dclaner., Howcve swtkesg did iees IRECOMMENDATIONS lbe SpectusC 1300 finals F&MpecBW30.mcmbrwce. We recomoamiez tatadiflinet l IAniialeumc Pilu T, sa ri.ki,.t atimaybe a ispoxluct wf*l Aviuta RoClean Pllt cleaner shuld, be. evaliwatrx Vt May be a mot cost-efibtive PW=uc for cleaning, toe Sysytem*= do,acid and caus&z curently wsed.

Pliw ded~ ionaprocedure Awould be Tmkvieed Avisa Tv'n "'S -'.'nc Tcg;r7qf Ici 119

0 t3188 02, APPENDIX A Spiral Wound Membrane Consction I laxIamm!

'aMINAUM WONODU A'i.,mi Technbiuoiref. Inc.

'50~

0,31 8o8 0 02 UiPENDWI FgApre 1 Defoiuwecoing:

F!grn 2 Fouled membrane leu~f p., j

0318 8 0 0 2 Fgujre3 Fou~afmtrface

.7r f

7t A*'a 4 Stindfuln skoi' ,i r 4

03 11880 02 fi-are5 Cleaning .resul

, r -if 1i!

573

APPENDIX 7

' 1 f14

H H CHEMICALS, !NC.

$00 SOUTH VERMONTSTREET PALATINE, ILLINOIS 60067 847/35847400 FAX NO.. 8471358-7082 DATE:' Auigust 28,-2007 TO: Tom, Armon FROM: H. Ai Becker

SUBJECT:

indianaand Micdhigan Power-Company Donald C. Cook. Nuclear'Plant Mexel (A432) Efficiency Study Compiled Analytical Data August 2006 through August 2007 D~ear Tomt::

Attached please our laboratory analysis .reporton the above referenced project. This report is. a,year long conipilati6n of laboratory and field' analyses 'on water, deposit; and corrosion coupon samples. In additioný thisxreport'i'ncludes the:membrane autopsy data from. two sets of fouled reverse osmosis membranes.

.1ihope this inforniation0satisfies your requirements. If any further work ordiscussion is needed, please get back to' me.

Very truly yours, H. A. Becker HAB:ld Enclosure

LABORATORY REPORT - WATER ANALYSIS Customer No.: 1001392 H-O-H Chemicals, Inc. rRegarding: Indiana and Michigan Power*Company Report No.: as indicated 500 S. Vermont St Location:, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Report Date:

Palatine, IL 60067 1. Cook Place Analysis Date: I' Bridgmah, MI Sample Date: as indicated 8471356-7400 Fax: 847i358-7082 Control 9/7/066

. Treated.917106 ;Conrol19114/066 Treated 9/i4/06 Control 9/21/06

(#26723) (#26723) (#26743) (#26743)- (#2678)I hnIi~eII 1,i 1,dh 1 I 1n.Iha .h I I-WIMhI~ QrIht.h. I I-hffif. I QMI,hl. 1-~hihi.,

___ ___ -,..t-.,..1~

Alkalinity ("P') __ as Caco 3 12 4 0 1.20 1,*28 .........

118 2: Alkallnlty' (,'M) ___ as CaCO 3 ý 132

w Free Mineral Aci!*ty. as CaCO a Chemica Oxygen Demand (COD.) 4:9 t 5. Chloroform Extractables 128

7. Dissolved Solids 198 198 .191 r Hardness (Calcium) as Caco. 74 .77 77 Hardness s CaCO 3 iMgeim ý43 115 120 123 8.5 8.4 8.0 0 Specific Conductance ~mo olop 298 298 p Spec!ric Gravity g/m .

,S Solids jpended 10.0 7.0 r .0.06 8.2o Aluminum,, as Al 0.0 0,01 0.69 0014 0.01 0:55 0.01 42,02 ..............

0.014 Barium sBas ý0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 Calcium as Ca, 5.33 30.7 1.28 3186 7.20 1-.32 29.6 0.48 30.9 e Chromium as Cr 0.0-00 0.00 0.01 ý0.00

ý0.00 '0.00 0.020 Copper as Cu 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 S0.00 Iron. asFe 0.00

0:06 0.00 0.20 0.01 001

21. 0.000 0.00( .0.000 Lead as Pb 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.02 0.,95*P

17. Lithium asIl 0.00 0.,00 0.00 10.60 0:002

%1. 0).00 10;0 ........:0000 OMOO

18. Maanganese as M 0.3E 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.28

24. 0.00 1ý08

'0.00 0..

6600....

0.01 001% 0.00 0.00 0.00

25. Nickel as NI. .00 0.00 0.00 1.24 1.30 :1.57 0.0i 320. Potassium as K 0.00 6:

.1.25 ...... 47...q 0.00 0.01

.............. 9693 0.00 0.00 C Silve Sodiumr _as- ....... :asi Af ......

Na 6,24

,0.00 0.00.

66 .812

......... ....... 61.2 a 0108

t :.22c Strontium as Sr 0.00 0 00 06.00 0.......

00i* 0.11 ....

t, 0.01 Zinc as Zn 003 0.00 6.51 0.03 0.05 26....01*o 0 23. total CationMilliequivalents 2.607 2.687 . .......... 0.o0 Z.755 0.10 0.00::

6 33, Acetate _ 'as C2H302 0T:.00 0.00

_S ý0.00 Bromide as Br 10 0.00 Chlorate. as C103 0.00 0:00

ý36, Chromate ..................

.18

-as Cr0 4 ___ 0.02 .0.1

27. Fluoride as Fý 1 0.0-0 .O11...

0. ..:

FormateasCO 0.00 0.00 0.0=

) 0 00 0.07 0:0p

41. Mpfybpdate as MoO4 0.73 0.80 0.01 Nitrate _ ___ as N03, 0.00 0,08 .....

o . ..

0.00 Nitrite, asNO 0.101

Ooo 00 Nitrgen (oaol). as N . 0.00 K.........

0:.00 21...

.7........6 o

Oxalate-... . .as

' C2 4. . 0.00 0100

. 6*83.

0.00 Phosphate.(ortho) as P 4 0.00 0.00 0.81 Phospate (oly) as P.04 _ 3..1!82

--0.00 28.. Phosphate .(qrgano) as P 4 0.00 hsporu (QotAl) sP- 0.10 017 22.1 0-00 .0.09 Su.lf~at~e ______ as§$04, ý21.6 .

529 Total Anion Millefquivalents Ammonia _ 5NH 3.2 18 0.95 0.25 6.79 4.119 2.12 .I

.. ..o 1.02 0:82 53.

Benzotriazole, as CqH5N3

55. Boron as B 0.80 8 o.oo 0..0....-

0 silica as S102 1.07 0 00 ý245 5o. Sodium Nitrite as NaNOZ 0.83 578.TSodiuultazfite as Na2S"3 5.Tolvltriazota; as CH2N,

. Au GSS£ZC.prpSI,,,pans perWithaloresm&c*WO uontjnueo on reverse sios.

Afid=-WpM.p.Mprftb....ý-td Continued~on reverse sice.

LABORATORY REPORT - WATER ANALYSIS Customer No': 1001392 H.O-H Chemicalsi Inc. Regarding: Indiana and Michigan Power Company , Report No.::

jReport'Date: as indicated 500S. VermontSt. Location: Donald C. Cook'Nuclear. Plant Palatlne, IL60067 1.CooklPlace . !Analysis Date: -

Bridgrnan, MI Isample S Date: as indicated F~ax: 8*47/358-7400 847/358-7082 Contrl19f7/05 Treated 9/7/06 Control 9/14/06 Treated 9/1'/06 Control:9/21/06

(#26723) (#26723), (#267,43) .(#26743) (#26781)i Soluble insoluble I -soluble Insoluble ,Soluble Insoluble Soluble in'nolujble. Soluble Insoluble

. . .... - ... . ..- i........-

- -.. ,,,---.. .. .. ...._..._ .... .... 1...

Bromate as BrO 3 _

1C 64: chlorite as:CIo 2 0 Cyctohexylamine,

m Diethylarnine* as C4H-11N 0 671, Diethylaminoethinol' ats CalHiiN0 u Ethylahiiine*-. as C2H7 N

69. ýas CHq1N0 EtthyleneGlycol- . %byyeight 6.s 72.

%~byweight

-73. P~ropyl ene Glycol`

Aerobic.Plate 'C6unt M 65.

79.

Fecal Coliform org'slmI C Iron BBacteria org !smi I................

r Mold og's/1-11mI 0

b Nyt Reduceari- 000 iii~i~

Slimhe Forzme',s' -org'smI 0 Sulat Rducers org;'s/mt0rn otlColiform, 70.

781 7...:*ResiduepybyEvpoqration 808 Volatlle-Solids

-'a .System_~Capacit 0.00 ota!l Organic .Carlbon_ 2.10 2.50 Tota OrqancONitrogenP 029 ;<0.124 3.0 .........

,a Mdatmn-ý Him ft mOm kdkWý

LABORATORY REPORT -MWATER ANALYSIS Customer No.: 1001392 H.O.H Chemicals, Inc. Regarding: Indianaand Michigan Power Company Report No:: as indicated 500 S. Vermont St ILocation: Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant. Report Date:

Palatine, IL60067 1 Cook:Place Analysis Date:,

Beidgman, MI Sample Date: as indicated 847/358-7400 Fax: 8647/358-7082 Treated 9/21/06 Control9/28/06: Treated 9/28/06 Control 10/5/06 Treated: 10/5/06

(#26781) (#26813)' (#26813) (#26859) (#26859).

Soluble I Insoluble Soluble. Insoluble I Soluble, Insoluble I oluble J. Insoluble Soluble I Insoluble

1. Alkalinity("P!') asCaCO " 0 6 6 0 0

.. 2.Alkalinity,('i .. ascac 3 " 11 .112 114 . 114 _1*14 3....... n...(.OH.).............s...C...

WY 4. FreeMinerlcdt as CaCO____

a 5. Chemical_O ygen Dema*nd (COD.) 4.A4 6.4 . . 9.6 . .. 6 12.7 1 6. Chloroform Extractables e-7~.Dissolved-Solids 193 195 .. 196 199 620 r Hardniessý

.: (Calcium) a~sCCOw __ 880 0' 7 6

.HadesCc4444 44 43 43.

(Mag--s-u-)--s-C-......... ........... .........................

-.-H ...... 8... .. . ....

P '10. Hardness (Total)- -as CaCO 3 12 125 ....... 125 122 122

-_ -_ - 81 82----- 8.2 _ 8_ 8.1 o 12. Specific Conductance *mhos 285 _ . 290 295 294 303 p 13.. SpecificGravity. m...... ..... . ..

e 14. Suspended Solids 470 80; 15.5 A20

15. Aluminum sAl.

a_ 0 5001 0.01 016

16. Barium _ asBa 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0000 w002 0.02 0.00 I17,Calcium ___ as Ca,__ 31.8 0.00 32.2 6.04 _32.1 0.02- 31.3 0.00 313 000 e, 18. Chromium as Cr. 0.01 '_0.00 0,01 0.00 0.01 1_ 0.00 _ 0 00 0.00

.0 20 jq opper as Cu __0.00 0.01 0:00 0.01 0.00 0'.00 __ 00 0 __0.00 6_.00 iron .. _ as Fe _ 00 0.0 0.00_ 1.04' 0.00 018 0.00 0--6.30 0.0 0.2

21. Lead

22. Lithium.

....... ..sM as Pb .

as Li

,............... ....: 1..............

0.000 0.00

.. 000 0.00 0.00 ....

0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 0;00 0.000 0.00 0.000 000

_000 0.000 0.000

000.0, 0.000 000

23. Magnesium as Mg M08 0.00~ 10.7 20 4.j .6 16 0.17 10.5 000D

4. M nese as Mn 00.06 0.00 0a00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0 000 001 001

25. Nickel as NI . 0.00 0.00 0800 000 0.00 0.006 00 0 000 2.4 Potassiumt as K 1.39 140 1.86 1.22 1.42 274.Silver... S~ t.t.....as ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~33...d..*..B.0O.0..0..OO A0,i ~~~~~~. °000 00 0 °'000 0,00 0.00 000 0o00

.. 000 ...... :,.,* 00

,*0 C 26. Sodium __ *...

-."C ofi. Bas

...h... ~

Na ...

a**s.........

. . ..... ............643 11 ...... .. .................. ... ... ... ......... ... .... . 7,00

_6.49 _ _ .....................

............ .........61

.. ..765 .. .....1...12..1......

a2. Strontium asSr,011 0:00 0.11 001 0.11 0.00 -- 0;11 0.00 01*1 0-00 2 784 ...............

310.: Zinc Zn, 0,01 0,04 001 000 0 01 0ý01 0.01 0ý011_ 001

~ .yo

__as TotalCatiornMillequivalents M. ------------ - ----.....

. 2,798

_0.01 2 810 2' 40 2 734 o...o_-_- __

Acetate

k32 as 2 ~ 2 0100 _ _ 0.00 OJO00 0,00 0_00 5 17..-

33. N1-r-.t........... .. . . ...........

Bromlidý -*

6s'Br N 2-

M00............ oo 0700 _ 0.00o : "o 0.00 o ~oJ 000 ............

534 Clotriaoe asC N 115312,2 115

35. Chlorat as CB5 0.00 01.3 0.00 000 0,00

36. Chrmate __ A 4B. :as Pfiospliate PO*.......... '(poly) as Cr0 4__

37. Fluoride, asF-0L0OP0600 0

38. Formate_ :as CH0 2 _ 0,00 0.0 00000 M 0:00 3.Glycolate n_5

._r.(Lo

.su.!u.t~..!)............

. _ s 2 5 3 0000 ......................................... . ...................

................ ___ 0000_ ... _000 40Mlybdat as!oO4 00M0O___ 0 00 _ 0

41. 52 Nitrate Am m on~~~~~~~... ....... asN03 .081 !-.. ...- 0;75 . ...------..-_ . .....0.79 0;92 ... 0688.

42. Nitrite as N2 04 000 0.00

'43. Nitrogen (totial as N-- -r-- --- ----

44. Oxalate: as C- 4 000000 00 )0000_ 0.00 A46. Phosphate SS:Siicaas j(poly asP0 Si~ 4.

_- ., _ 0..8 i0._0Z -_. /.:_*4 3; 5 ... ,_ .80 ........... ,....8....2 _0_.........0" .............-

n .A.ýasjO - ---

48 P4osphorus;(total)..............0 0.03 000 004 0.00 0.00 0:02 0.00 0.01 6000 0 49. Sulfate6 __as S0 4 21.8 28 23ý3 225 _3.3

_pc5.,Sulfur (total) As S 6.90 0,00 60 11 7.18 000 680 0.00 .6.81 . 0.00

51. ToaAhq_ a _l t _ae .4

52. Anion. equvaen-

.ta. 3.185 3.094 ---. 3_175 -_ ----- 3.122 _ 4 5.Ammonia _ as NH3 ___

53. Benzotriazole ~, as C0 HsN3 ._._...._. ....

54Bron asB00160-95 - 01;0000

55. silica, asiO 0.88 0.67 __ 0;94 365 '0.60 1.24 0189 2.07 0:768 120 1

56. Sodium Nitrite s NaNO 2 1 ci__

57. Sod-iium Sulifite _ as NaS6 3 _

5S.Tolyltriazole as CAHNs' F______________ ...._.__._....._

- M~e5pose5~tadContinued on reverse side.,

LABORATORY REPORT - WATERANALYSIS [Customer Nol: 1001392 H-O.H Chemicals, Inc. Regaid1n4: Indiana and Michigan Power CompanyV rReport No.: as'indicated 500S. Vermont St. Location: L)onald C. Cook Nuclear Plant. I Repbrt:Date:

Palatine, IL600671 A Cook Place Analysis Date:.

Bridgman, MI .. Sample Date: !as indicated 847/358-7400 Fax: 847/358-7082 Treated 9/21/06 Control 9/28/06 Treated 9/28/06 Control 10/5/06 Treated 10/5/06

(#26781) (#26813) (#26813) (#26859.) (#26859)'

Soluble Insoluble ,Soluble I Insoluhle Sohlhle In-nluhln Solubl. 1-nh6lbl Innoluhle; Insoluble Bromate -. as Br03 c 59.

60.

61:.

0 c!*hloaitoe tycloh~kyarmine'

_t__a 1._.. asýCH 13 N DlehYlamine! -- --------- -asC4H11 N, p Diethylaminoethanol* asC6 H15 NO

05. aS C2 H7N u

n Morpholine' as C4 H5NO DiethyleneGlycol' %bywelghi PErtYlaene*:Glycgi ......

69; % by weight Aerobic Plate Count .....org .s/mi ......

70.

M Anaerobic Plate Count .org s/rmI!

78.

76-

!C Iron Bacteria Mold org'sIml*

0 r; 75.

Slime Forme..s 71.

0

77. Sulfate-Reducers_ org's/ml

72. Total Coliform, ga6lr ......

O

-. 78.

73 Residue. by vprto volatile Solids.

a.

P~ropioflato ýas CH' 0.00 -0:00 o:00 2.4 0-.0-0 Total Oranic Ca@rbon :1.0 7:62 3.50 T8tal Organic Nitrogen 3.0 Mexel :(A-.432):

'1.47 3.0 5.0

,^ . ..._

1.4-------

1.0

______ 4 _______ fl _______ L _______ t _______ I. I. _______ L ______ £

LABORATORY REPORT- WATER ANALYSIS Icustomer No.: 1001392 H-O-H Chemicals, Inc. Regarding: Indiana and Michigan Power Company Report'No.: as indicated

500 S. Vermont.St. Location: Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Report Date:

Palatine, IL60067 I Cook Place Analysis Date:

Bridgman; Mi. Sample Date: as indicated Fax: 847/358-7082 Control 10/12/06 Treated 10/12/06 Control 10/19/06 Treated 10/19/06 Control 10/26/06

(#26908)ý (#26908) (#26957) (#26957) (#27021)

.1. _ _____ ____;

Soluble I Insoluble Soluble:' I Insoluble Soluble- IInsoluble. . Soluble, I Insoluble Soluble I Insoluble

1. Alkalinity(P"):Pas.CaCO 3 6 6 10 4 8 2.Akalinity CV") scacOi 120 . 20 ____ 120 110 114 3 Akalinity ("OHW)(eelculseu as CaCO3 . . . ...

a4. Free MinefalAcidity: ascc1 .Ca6

_H. ........ ..

i ;.............. . ........................

...... ..... 2

.: ...... ....... 2. *1 Hardne"-ss (*Mag'nesiunm) . 'a-9.:*,- -s-aCO3; "..... 4°3 . 42.......... . . ..

4 _..__,_............. .. 44 44 41.......

I.............. 41 ... . -!

1., Specirficm a 1i0. HardnessG (Total) xravity...a ri. 3 asCacO a: 119[ _ 117 82 122, 122 _ __ 85_ __ 511 .

o12. Specific Conductance (.tmhos 294 299 296 .295 3289

,e 7. Siss nd.ed Solids a...

._ a ........ 8010 . . 27.0 1 70..o 18o 15:2 r 1.. Cal*carI--um. 1.Au iu aA000 as CaB 3050 001 85 _0700 .0 0.0 0.0200.000A0 4.22 __7 31 _ 0;00 000 33 00.4 2 00.....01(*........:'

14

24. Manganese as Mn '004100 43 _000_ 42 .2 00 .0 0.0_00 .0 00 o 16. Chromium* as Cr 0.00 0:01 0.00 0.01 0,00 _ 0.00 0.01 0.00 000O 0.00 r 20. Iron 288oimaa81 .as Fe: 4 0.0... ............31 0216 1...........I40 .4* 7 8.97 0....... 00 ........ 000 0......1 7.29 _6 022.... 8.09 0,00.... .3... *0;B..1*

Totalfi CatondMluctancent

31. 2680o 2 858 2891___ 2990 2.59 V_34. Shlrýd asC 11812512. ____ 2.911.

25. Nickel __ a I0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 0;00 "0.00i 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0 P26. Potassium as KCC 1.38 1.54 1.45 :1.68 125

27. Sierou asrAg000 000 0.0 -0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00.. 0.00

29. Strn~tium as. S .0 019.1..............0.12....00o. 0.10 0 n.....2. Acetate __" as C2H3O2 0 00 0 00 "0.00 0.00 0.00 5 33: Bromide . . as Br :000 " 0:00 0.00 0.00 _ _ 0.00 I

35. Chlorate Soli as CO1 000 _0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Chromate .36 as C .......................

4 as MO 0*

00.02 0.02 000.000 00 006 .......... .. 006 . 008.......

0 *00 40.

3915. Bdat MAlucoint 37 loieasP

... . . as F AH 0.06 0;00 .000 __ ......0 O;O_ -0.00 P

41. Nitrate _ as NO 000 8 0.95 _ 077 0490 081

42. Nitrt*e.... .. . as NO2 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01

. 0.0 000 . 000

43. NItrogen (total) as N: .. .. ... . .. 0 . 0 2 44.

58 Lxaladte . ...

!as Sr 5N oo000 0

0111 000 0 oo000 ___1__

0000 0

oo o.000 12________0.10____

d;o M Sytroniuml 4 . Phospha... tr.......

__ __0__ __01 _Q.12_____

46.

2 Lithiuhrmu(ta) as LI 000 0;04 000 0003 _000 . 001 0001' 3 oo0.00 ;000o 49, Sulfate.

0 as SO . 221 237 231 238 207 Sulfur(total) :5.

as S , 81 0!71 6H92 0640 730 0,00 0.764 0.00 7-13 0;0C

51. TotaIAnion Millequiivalents -3218 - 3291 _ _ 3J274 3.308 _ _ 3;088 ...... .......

53. Benz~otriazole .as C5 H5 N3 "i

5. Boron as B 0 0 ;00 00 0.000 0 000 0 :.00 i 555. S lica.....

1 *ii as. $103__ 061............447

....... 078 1.4454 0 80.88.....087... 0.91.....

91 018:08108 0854 1.04!.0

58. Sodium Nirite as NaNO_ ...

57. Sodium Sulfites Na6SO:

Nas1 S790 0, T ui=,, ,,..ontinued c*llpt on reverse side. Z589

LABORATORY REPORT - WATER ANALYSIS iCustomerN&..: 1001392 H-OH Chemicalsi Inc. Indi~ne ~nd Mit-hint n Pn~,jer C'nmn~nv IPnnrt ?Jn * . inldiri~atpiI Re rdmj ndMihianP6mr Idina or av.I e r- No: s ndc. e 500 S.,Vermont St. Location: Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant IRepoot Date:

Palatine, IL 60067 1 Cook Place: lAnalysis Date:

Bridaman. M[' ISamble Date: as indicated 847/358-7400 Fax*. 847/358-7082 Control 10/12/06 Treated 10/12/06 Control 10/19/06 T"eated 10/19/06 Control 10/26/606

(#26908) (#26908o) ,(#26957) j (#26957) (#27021)

RolhlhIA I t~iti,,hIn flnnnlihln I Insohtbln I c,!

'0 Bromate6 Chlorite:

as Br0 3 as CdO2

~

S~

Insolubie Inoul olule 5~nIuhIn Soul--

Insuittitin, 1-0e;I Soule I_____ Slbl nsl

. ,nOlubnl Insoluble Cycl.hexylamine . as C6,H13 N m

p.

0 Diethylaminoethanol* as C H15NO U- E~thylaiine. as C2H7N

n. Mo.rholine as, C4HNO d Diethylene Glycol" ,by weight S"

PrtyleneGlycod % by weight Aerobic Plate Count. o.g's/m Anaerobic Plate count org's/ml c

Iron Bacteria 0 Tecai Coliform ,_ org's/100~ml t

1i Yelasteeues org's/mi

.o C Volatile Solids Total Col32ior - rsOnI 0.........

0.00 0:00 .........

0:00o TI~ Ot:rganIc: carbon <1.00 2.06 0.485 4.07

... ... . . ....... :<.124 . ....1.06 0.55 4-0.50C Totl~ranl Niroen

. _6 .0. ...... .........

o

..... ... .. I S Audll d nsa t rl ant nl it nnin e

tnduin AlavsS bN(ýs WaNsis yGa ChmmdcaraDh, hmalaa

LABORATORY REPORT - WATER ANALYSIS ICustomer No.: 1001392 H-O-H Chemicals, Inc, Regarding: Indiana and'Michigan Power Company Report No.: as.ihdicated 500 S. Vermont St. Location:- Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant; Report Date:

Palatine, IL60067 1 Cook Place Analysis Date:

Bridgman', MI Sample Date:. as indicated 847/358-7400 Fax:-847/358-7082 Treated 10/26/06. Control 1 1/2/06. Treated 11/2/06 Control 11/'9/06 Treated 1149/06

(#27021) (#27043) (#27043) (#27107) (#27107).

,*nhlhl* J Inonl= Ihl* *h shln Ine*hht= 'P*.*IHhl¢ I InenlHhlA QM'.61. 1 1-1" 1.

IQ luble I Inolbl '~~ col l I_ Inolbl 'Slbl Islul

1. Alkalinit ("P.) as .CaCO3 6 0 S .. 6

_2. Alkalinity ("M") as caCO3 ............ lie 1.34 1216 Alkaliniy_(W'OH")(lc ) as ca...CO.

Free Mineral Acidity as CaCO 3

-4.

9:1 a 5.; Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD.D) 7.5 11.4 5.2 7.7

6. Chloroform Extractables:

a

7. Dissolved Solids: 222 200

8. Hardness(TCalcium) 263 as CaCO3 115 41 44 ---- - 44 881.44. 45 iO: !Lard ness (Total) a aO '125 125 ......................

128 rp 7._8 8.4'

.0 12. SpecificConductance pmhos Specific Gravity g/riil

13. -167 6.0 4.C Aluminum as Al 0.05 .001 0.01 0944 0:03 0:02 ý0.011

,e Baiuilm '-a-s B"a - 0.00 0.02 ..............

.... 0.02 0.01 ...........32.... ....

.q

'0.00 0. 2

--- 'o 18.

15. Calcium 0.001 32.1 3.

as Ca '29.5 '1.13 32.4 10.1 33.2 0ý00o 0.00 Chromium'. ..

......... as cr .... o..oo 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0:00 ............ o copper-6....... as cu 0.00 0.00 501.012..................

0.02 60 00 6 0.00 i ..... .............

0.00, ........

.o

.__0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0 00 20.. Iron asaFe 0 00 0-12 0.00 1.67 01*6 0.000

'21. Lead, asaPb 0.001 ...........

0001 0.001 '0.002 0-000 ........'0.000 ....... . 0.00 0 00 S0.00 Lithium as LI 0.000 0.00

22. Magnsm. ....... .. Mg. 0.*00 0.00 0.00 6.00 233. 10:00 0:23 179. 10.7 .3:30 10.7 0.00 ................ .,....0 0.00 Manganese as Mn. :0.00 0.00 0.30 .........0_.o 0.00 ............ 0.00 *___ 0.00. 0,00 0.00 '0.00 o....

oo3. o :

Niclkel as Ni , ..._:*....... .

24. 0.00 0:00 1.33 1.66 1.39 0.00 Potassium, asK, 1,77 1060 .... 1.56 L~

327. 0:00 0.00 0.00 0.100 0.00

.25B 8 23 8.95 Sodium, as Na -..15 0 00 7.30 C. 30.

i* - * .. .................

29. Strontium,

ýas Sr

- 0.10 0.00

.. 0 01.."

0.111 o.03 0.11 0:00 0;11

,0.01 0,00 0:111 ,0.00

.0.13

'25. Zinc 6as Z 0.01 . 0 04 0.01 28.

i32.

Total Cation Millequivalents 2.600 2.903 2.892 -:---------

-*: 2.842 2.921.

0.00 n Acetate' as C2 H302 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5: Bromide as Br 0.00 0.00 34- Chlodde as Ci 14.0 12.4 12.4

35. Chlorate _ _ as CIO 3 0.00 0.00 0.00

,35.

chromate as crO .

0.05

37. Fluoride as F 0.00 ,0.06 .0.05 0.06 0.05 Formate as CHO 2 .0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Glyclat ___~~~ as c6H:o 2 0.00 0.00 M01ybdate MoO as__Moa4_ . 0:00 0.00 0.00

. ._......o...Ooc 0............

0- 0.00 0".91 41_ Nitrate "as NO3 1.20 1"09 1.05 42: Nitrite as NO 2 0.00

............ "6 0.00 0.00

.0.00 Oxalate, as C:O 4 0;00, 0:00 0.00 0.00 -0,90 0.00

'45.

43. Phosp-ate ( 6) -rt--- as P0 4 . 0:00 ............

46., Phosphate (pal)oasjP0 qL ........ '0.00 A 4

47. Phosphate. (organo). " as P0 4 hosphorus (tota) as P, ............21..4 0.....

..00 0.00 0.46 .........

0.00 0 s.

Sulfate~:

.!~............. ............. .... . sS .....

asS .4 ... .0.00 24.5 .24.6 22.9 22.4 n soo Sulfur (total)_as S 813e . 7.. 4......

7; 0_00 0 00 7.08 8.31 0727 0.00 7:63 a

50t Total Anilbn Milleqluivalenti ....... 6? 0.0 52., Ammonia __ _ as NHi 000.*,* ......'... c'3

53. Benzotriazole , 'as CHN 008o ........... ...

54. ..............

.....a. ......... . .. 0.00 3180 2 29 0:

Y'" 00..... ......... 0.00

55. Silca as S1o2

.......... l6 *1.06 05 14.41 1.16 .0.31

56. Sodium Nitrite as, NaNO_

Sodium Sulfite as Na2 SO3 58, Tolvltriazole as:CH ,N IAOdatWocpt pHInpaft pwM11onw,a. lda~d4 Continued on reverse side:

LABORATORY REPORT.- WATERANALYSIS Customer No.: ,1001392 H-o-HIChemlcals; Inc. Regarding: ndiana and Michigan Power Company I Renort No as indicated 500jS. Vermont St I n^mmiri rý P-L-Al ^IA- Dlnri+ý Dm ^rf flý+

n I E -

Palatine, IL60067 1 Cook Place lAnalvsisDate:

Bridlgman;.MI - ___sample Date: as.indicated 847/358-7400 Fax: 8471358-7082 Treated 10126/06 Control 11,/2/06 Treated 11/2/06 Control 1119106 Tr*eated 11/9/06

(#27021) (#27043) (#27043) (#27107) (#271 07)'

.Soluble I Insoluble Soluble, Iso6luble :Soluble, I Insoluble Soluble I Insoluble- Soluble. Insoluble

£ - I ____ I: ____

Bromate asýBr0

'C 610 Chlorite as CIO' Cyclaexlamni4n.. a's COH 13N-m 61. Diethylamine` ------

p as CIH,5 N0 01 63: Diethylamlnmoethanol.

"U Ethylamine* asC 2 HN n 64. Morphoyine° as CAHNO 8.67 % by weight

.66. Propylene Glycor % by weight

% by weight Aerobic Plate Count m 70. Anaerobic Plate Count.

71. Fecal Coliform org'sti O0ml

-72. IronBacteria.

73. Mold 0, orgsm Nta!!Red..Reucers. .org's/mi.

org'S/mi __

-75. Slime Formers 0o Sulfate Reducers I 18. Total_ Coliform og/ i .

0 Yeast, 9'

i Syste ImCapacity~

Proplionate' : as 2 H5O2 --0.p00 0.00 Total OrganicCarbon_ 1.ý67 .95 '.0......0<:6 1.40 total-Orgaic tatrogen-- 0..500 ';0.500 ,0.54 Mqexel(A42 2ý.

0 1.0 30

- 0 AUde. ýý H m-rb - n91- . - hWiýmw

LABORATORY REPORT - WATER ANALYSIS ICustomer No.: 1001392 H.O-H Chemicals, inc. [ Rearding: Indiana and Michigah Power Company IReport.No.:. as indicatedj

-500 S.Vermont St. ILocation:. Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant I.Report Date: . 1 Palatine, IL.60067 1 Cook Place. Analysis Date:

Bridgman, MI _Sample:Date: as indicated 847/358-7400 Fk: 847/358-7082 Control 11/16/06 Treated 11/16/06 ContrIol l122i06 Treated 11/22/06 Control 11/29/07

(#27142): I (#27142)' (#27142)j (#27142) (#27177) ];

. . ._ _ _I Soluble; I Insoluble Soluble I Insoluble Soluble' Insoluble, Solublew.L Insoluble Soluble I Insoluble 1.. Alkalinity ('P)' as CaCo 3 o 0 0 0 - 0 .. _ o il ~

laiiy( a aO 3 _ 136 12210 22

,3. Alkalinity "OH)l calcuIlted) as CaCOi, w 4. Free MWl Acidity_... as CawO3 .

a1 8. 5, ChemirCal o,*i** e* - ;n *: .': .... .. .*10.95.....3.9.

Oxygen Dema (COO.)__

ChloroformExtractables °.................... ...... ...----.......... .....---...................

......... .... ...........--- 4.00 ==* -

e 7. Dissolved Solids 232 236 , 207 218 213 a.Hadnes (Calcium) asCaCO 3 ---. 91 93 82.... 83 8.

9. Hardness (Magnesium) asCaCO 3 49 49 44 44 45 P 10. Hardness,(Total) as1CaCO 1 - 139 142 126 127 ._130 r*1pH,7 81 _ 8.2 _ 7.9 8.1 _

0 12. Specific Conductance pimhos M47 .... 350 315 325 320 p31.. SpecificGravit mt..I e 14. SuspendedSolids . ....... 106 510

.. 158133 30:0 r* :ui:* -i'u - .. -.....................

r15. Aluminum a-s-as At i----------- ..... 0:01... ...............-

1.42 0.01 i 0.21 ..-000 0.45

8 .......50.191.. .---......----

........ :0.00 -... ;* . . ..5 0.01

.o.............

6--

0.631

16. Barium asBa .002 001 002 000 0.02 0.00 0.02 000 002 0.01 I 17. Calcium asCa, 36 5.81 37;3 . .00 32.7 3.66 '33*0 0.05 34:1 5;75 as 5 C-hnromium as Cr 0 OM_ 000o 000 0.000 6000_ 0.00 0:00 000 0.00 0.00 a1.Cp~per s I: o~ _* ' a~u:

asCu. ......... qo........

0060 0.01.. .....

.0:00

........... 000 o.o 0.00 o.o 0.00 000 _00 0.00I~o oo-o

......... !oo 0ý02

20. Iron

-.. ............ ....a..................

_asFe, 000 ........... 22 6.6'0 - 43 i ? 0 0 o

.00 .....i6 6 6 0.85, ....... . 6 0.00o i i . ........

0431 , - _- ~0.00-;, - -*

ý1336 21Dea;_asP 000 0ý000 0000 01 0 0.0 V0606 0000 0000 0.0600 02

22. Lith-ium as LI 0.00 0-00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000o 000:111- 9000

2. ageumas Mg 11.8 2.36 119 005 10.7 1.29 10.8 013. 11;0 2.49

24. Manganese _ asMn 000 009 0.00 '0.02 0.00 0.03 0:00 0.01 0.00 0.05 25: Nickel as NI 000 000 0,00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0:00

26. Potassium as K 1.48 1.63 1:.30 149 1 36

27. Siler C 8 Sdu..aN.9.`a _ 00 000 0.001 0.0 0 0.00 6.40 0.00 0.00

&!62 000o 0.00 0006

3*: *o *..........

29. Strontium

30. Zinc as Sr asZn 0.11 0.00 000

ý0:03

. * . I ............... .........

011 0.01 000 0.01 0.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 .......

.** - : -:: * : ..................0.03 0`10 00 1 0.00 0.00

0. 11 0ý01 00.11 o' 31 Total.cation Millequivalents , 153 1230 2:831: 2,865 __ 2.945 S2.Aetat asOM 2 0 0 0:00 - 0 0 s 33. Bromide as Br 0*00 ,. . 000 0.00 00 000

34. hloddae . as,Ci 12.7 c'*i rai*

35. Chlorate ..........

. ."- ........ as6C1 3 b

0.00 ....... 133

1*

0.00 ~o 11.1 0.0 . . 11.3 0.00 , 11.5 ooo

ý000 i

36. Chromate- as C0 37.

_ luoide aP ___ 0050,03,___ _ 000 0.0004

38. Formate as CHO 2 000...000 0790 . 0.00 00 0..

39 lclt s 2 3 0, 0.00 0.00 000M 000-- - 000--

4.Molybdate ýasm MoO 000 00.__ _ 000 0.00 ___ 0.00

41. Nitrate as NO 3 1:66 _ 1.38 _0940 0.93 108

42. Nitrite, as NO2 0.00 0000 _000 0.00 00

'44. Oxalate __ as C20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

45. P (ortho) . a 04 0.00 ___ 0.00 0.00 0:00 _ _ 0.00 A .46- sp ho-sphatN e (poy),- asý(P0 4

, 47. Phosphate (poly) PO4 '

I1 .46. Phosphoruis (total) ' as p 000 0ý07 00.0 0 0 _00 _00 0.00 02 0 49. Sulfate __ _ as S0 4 '22.6 __ 228 21.0 24;4 - 21.4 n 50. .Sulfur . . . ... ..

Qtotl), aasS------7.93 s, 0 , N ............

....... 0'00 ý809...............

0.00 _ 7.16 000 39 0 00 823 ,0.00 51; Total Anion Mille~quivalents 3.602 3.652 3244 328 32 9-----

52. Ammoniaý as NH3 ,

53. Benzotriazole as C6H 5

54. Boron_ asB 0,40 .026 0.18 012 ,0.99 '

55. Silica, assio . 166M . 5.63 '1.56 1.08 .104 2.03 1.08 _1ý32 1.16 '1181

56. Sodium Nitrite :as NaNO2 7.Sodium Sulfite ____ asN 2 O 56 T.1yltiazole as CAHeN 3 _ _________________

Medaa. H1 aspwm"a sit Continued onreverse side.,

LABORATORY REPORT - WATER ANALYSIS ICUstomernNo.:- 1001392.

k-O-H Chemicals, Inc. Regarding: Indiana and Michigan.Power Company IReport No-.: as indicated 500 S. Vermont St. Location: Donald C, Cook Nuclear Plant Dnad . Cook Nuclea -oaton PlantI IReport Datew Repot Date Palatine, IL 60067 1 Cook Place. -Analysis Date:

Bridgman, MI _Sample Date: as indicated 847/358-7400 Fax: 847/358-7082 Control 11/16/06 Treated 11/16/06 Control 11/22/06 Treaed 11/22/06 Contriol' 11/29/07

(#27142). (#27142): (#27142), (#27142) (#27177-)

Soluble I Insoluble Soluble I Insoluble Soluble. I Insoluble, Soluble I Insoluble Soluble.

Insoluble F I r ~--4 -

59. Br-Omate. .-as.kp. ..........

Chlorite.' ... ...

c 'as C10 2 Cytoexylamfne'* as C6 H 3 N m 62.

P 61, Diethylaminoethanol* as C61 15NO 0

u as C2 H7N4 Etrholanine*

n a.C ywihNO 4

d Diethylene Glycbl* % by weight s

64. ProEylene Glyco.*

73;

70. Aerobic2Plate Count! org's/ml M 75. Anaerobid Plate Count Fecal Coliform org's/ml C 77. Iron Bazceri*

r Mold~

0 b Nitrate Reducers 761 SlimeF ormers 7.gSulfate Re6ducers Total.Coliform a.

.0 Yealst.

aorg.s o

_ org's/m.... -.

Residue.y Evaporation ............

o.

80. Volatile Solids a Sy.stem Capac ity.

0.00 0.00 Total Organic*Carbdn' __2.26 21.6 Total Orgarnic Nitrogen <s0.500 1'.,23 ojg mexel(A42 3.0 3.C

-- ii PaOSSaxew 0Mm0~Thoermw0M&aamonlec.

'Li

~s.

LABORATORYTREPORT - WATER ANALYSIS Customer No.:. 1061392 H-o-H Chemicals Inc. Regarding" Indiana and Michigan Power Company Report No,:ý as indicated 500 S. Vermont St vocation: Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Rbport Date:

Palatine, IL60067 1 Cook Place, Analysis Date:

Bridaman. MI. Samole Date: as indicated 8471358-.740.0 Fak: 847/3.58&7082 Treated 11/29/06 Control 12/7/061 Treated 12/7/06[ Control 12/14/06: Treated 12/14/06

(#27177) .(#27204) (#27204). (#27246) (#27246)

Soluble I insolubleI Soluble I Insoluble, Soluble I Insoluble Soluble! Insoluble 'Soluble I Insoluble

1. Alkalinity (P) asCaCO3 : 4 0. 0 0 . - 0 2.Akai~t ~M)___asCCO- 130 _ _ 1214 134 124 130

3. Alkalinity("OH'") jýcIted) as CaCO 3

_4. Ffree Mineral Acidity :as CaCO.. ....... ....

a .5. Chemical O*xyLen Dernand(C.O.D.) 8.0 1..1.8 22.6

&,__ 7.9 14.7

6. Chloroform Extractables ..... ..........

e 7. Dissolved Solids " 210 230 237

,203 203

8. Hardness (Calcium) 'as CaCO3- 83 89 89 79 " 79

9. Hardness1(Magneslum) as CaCOq 45 '47 , 47 '43 .. 43

10. Har asCaCO3 128 136 . 136 122 122 rl1.pH 82 779 7 8.0 79 o 12. Specific Conductance :t34hos 314 -337 350 306 296 p 13. Specific Gravity I;L l ...

e .14. Suspended Solids_ _60 315 78.0 340 21.0

15. Aluminum asA] 0.01 003 0.01 3,35 0;01 1.02 0.02 2.34 0.01 0.46

16. Barium as Ba 0.02 0.00 0.02 "0.03 0.02 0.01 002 0.02 ý0.02 0.00 I17 Calcium as Ca 332 0.00 35:5 '31.3 35.6 5.75 31,5 - 25.9 31.4 1.87

18. Chromium

.*er, c p as'Cr sC , 0o00

.*o oo ' 0:00*

o~ .6 00.

00 .. 0i O.........

O -..- ~ o.0oo 111-1.11.1-......--

0.00 0"00

. l............. 0.01 6 .......... 0.00

.0.00 :6"06 *.6 a 9.Cope -as Cu 0.00 0.02 000 01.o .1000 0.02 ~ .0 00 20l.r6nroas, Fe 0.00 0.05 0.00 6:03 0.00 1.56 0.00 4.34 0;00 0.54

-. dLeadu ...........

21. - .. . .----. as'Pb . ....-..--.

0.000 0.000 ..-

0.000 6 . 0.. .d 0.600 0000 *- ...... **

0.00 .... *

.000 - " 0.004 * '0.000 i oo 0.000o--

22. Lithium as U 0.00 .0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0.00 23-. Mag R m 1.8 0.0 11.5 11;0 11.5 1.98 __ 10.5 9.3 1.5 071 6,

24. t/angan.se ____. asMn 0.00 0.0(0.0000 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.01

25. Nickel as Ni 0.00 0.00 0000 0.00 '0.00 0:00 0.00

26. Potassium. ... . . ...... as K ... 1.53 .... .... 1.56 . .. ..- 1.65 , - 1.23.2- . ..- 1:25

27. Silver .... 0.00 o 0.00 0.00 . 0.00 0. . 0.00 .0.00 0.00 0.0o C 28. Sodium as:Na 7.02 7.61 7.73 6.60 6.65

. 29. Strontium asSr . 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.03 0.11 . 0..00 0.10 0.03 0.1n 000

30. Zinc as Zn 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.06 0;00 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.02 231.Total Cation Milleqt3iValents 2.896 3095 2.756 2.3100 _ _ 2.758 32 Acetate as C 2 H3O2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0;00 0.00 s 33. Bromide as Br 0.00 0.00 0.00 O0. 0.00

34. Ch.oiide .... . .. . .. as:C 11.7 13.4 14.1 11.9 11.7

35. Chlorate as C103 0 00 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36 Chromate as Cr0 4 ,_--_----.......

37. Fluoride as F 0,05 :0.00 _ ,0.04 0.04 0.04 38 orae sCHO2 0 0.00 0.0 __ .000

39. Glycolate asC5 H3 O3 000 00.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

40. Molybdate __ asMoO4 0.00 :000 0.00 0.00 . 0.00

41. Nitrate as NO 1,07 _2__03 .2.03. 2.13 1.02 . ... ,1.10

'42. Nitrite as NO 2 ___ _.. 000 o.o000 0.00

,__ 0.00 - 0.00

43. Nitrogen (totalJ)-_, N as------ -------

44. Oxalate as C204 0 00 '0.00 -000 0.00 0.00

45. Phýospate (ortho) as . 0....

00 0.00 0, 0.00 .00 . 0.0 A ý Pho as P0 4

47. Phosphate (organo) as P0 4

48. Phosphorus (total) as:P 0.00 0.14 1 01 01 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.03 0 49; Sulfate . _asSO 4 215 233 284

28. 22.3 219£ n 561 Sulfur (total, as:S 7.69 _ 0.00 7ý97 119J 931 0,56 __7.02 1.14 _ 7.02 0.00

51. Total Anion Mill:quLvaLents 3.446 _ -- 3685 1... 31795 3.342 3,451.____

52. Ammonia as NH"

53. Benzolriazole, as CeHsNs ........ ....-

54.asB 05 0.05 001 0.0

i -~c -- S .O-. . ...---..........--

.... 6 -,

, 2._ ' 1 .0................. 6.--- .............

3--9 . ...............

3 ,,:'2......... .........

5,Silica sl 2 10 0.26 2.25 110 2.Z26 3.9 1.37 8.42 . 1.35 Z.0 56& Sodium Nitrite, asNaNO 2 .

57. Sodium Sulfite _ as'NaSO ý3 ... ..-.... ...... . .

58. Tolyltriazole, asCHeNj I

- . UdtoPI rP= ... hd.ýd Continued on reverse side.

LABORATORY REPORT - WATER ANALYSIS ICustomer No.: 1001392 HO0-H Chemicals, Inc., Regardindg Indiana and.Michigan Power Company IReport.No.: as indicated 500S.. Vermroni St Location: Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant IReport-Date:.

Palatine,.IL 60067 1 Cook Place lAnalysis Date:

Bridqman, MI Sample Date: as indicated 847/358-7400 Fax:i84/358-7082 Treated 11/29/06; Control 2/27/06 Treated 12/7/06 Control 12114/06 Treated 12/14/06

(#271!77)'

(#27204) (#27204) (#27246) (#27246).

'Soluble Insoluble Soluble' I Insoluble 'Soluble Insoluble .Soluble Insoluble Soluble Insoluble Bromate .. .... as:BrO 3__

60; Chlorite, as dlO2 M Cyclohexylamine* as C6*0.

1 P as CH11 N 0

,as C6H,5 6N0 I) 61. as C*2HN d as C4H9NO14

70. Eýthylene Glycol % by weight e.

%by weight Prdpylene GlycW. -------------

74. -erobic-Pla*te count....... org's/mi Anaerobic Plat Con C

-- W"*

or/ OMmiL 67.

72. Iron. Bacteria org's/0mi r 73.:

M7, org's/mi.

Mold 0

b.

I: 75. Slime Formers Sulfate Reducers o-..rg's/I0mi 0 TotaI'Coliforrn 70ý oa Yeast7

.0 Residue by vaporation Volatile;Solids System!, capact _.. .. . .. .

Propiopnate as C3H 5O2 - 0.00 0.00 . .0. 5......

35* 0.00 Tota Organic Carbon ý3.94 4439 Total'Organic.Nitrogen

'<081*2 4:5

. 0............

.... 14 0 A flood0 in oais at 00n w 06000*0 W a.a .a.I. .S

'5-)

LABORATORY REPORT- WATER ANALYSIS ICustomer No.i 1001392 H-O-H Chemicals, Inc. Regarding: Indiana and Michigan Power Company Report No.: as indicated 500SS Vermont St. Location: DonaldC. Cook Nuclear Plant Report Date:"

Palatine, IL 60067 1 Cook Place .Analysis Date:-

BridgmanMI . . . Sample Date:, as indicated 8471358-7400 Fax: 847/358-7082 Control 12/21106 Treated 12/21/06 Control 12/2806' Treated 12/28/06 Control 1/4/07:

(#27294) (#27294). (#27323)y (#27323) (#27352)

ll#nl*¸ I IN*II0hI* *,*hlhla I In*nlHhla 0 1 . -

- - ----- i - - I I'-.4** .g I e I u a4 s 11~F-Alkalinity ('P") as CaCO 3 0 0 0 A as CaCO 3_ 11.6]

3. A..........I. as CaCO 3 -

2 Yý Free Mineral Acidity _____ asýCaCO 3 Ea Chemial Oxygenemand (C.O.D) _ 180 10; -........ 6.4 t

Chloroform Extractables Dissolved Solids. .................

1'199 7

143 8., Hardness (Calcium).. aCo 3 81 re 79 7S

___79 80 Hardness Mgiesi m). as CaCO% .43 43 44 44 Hardness,r(Tot ).. as CaC0O 43

_124 123 123

.6. Specific Conductance 123 123

r. pmh.s-- 1.7 8.0 8.20 8.4; 8.0 0 Specifc.Gravity........ g/ml 308-Aq 23 293

'p; usended Solids.,

--9. 1.07 3.0 13.0 305

r. i20. Aluminum 16.

asAt ,0.02 0.02 0:03 0.02 0.80 ...............

9o .......

0.,_12 0.011

.21. Barium as:Ba .0.02 O23 0.02 0.00 0..00 0.01 0.02

17. Calcium *___as"Ca ............

.o.....

.31.8 ___0:00 '31.6 31.8 0.006 31.8 31.9

e 0.00 0.00 .0.02 .0.0-1

18. Chromium as Cr- 0:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0.000 0.01

$" 0-.001 0.00 _0 0

19. co-p-per as Cu *0.O0 0 00 0..............

.. 0.00o 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.08 Iron as Fe :1.84. 0.00 .117 0.00

0.00, 7.13 0:05 0.00 0.00 .0.18

21. Lead :as Pb 0.000 00.000 0000 .0.000 0.000 O.O o.o00

ý0.000

ý-o 0:000

22. Lithium' ,~as'U 0.00 0.000

0.00 :10.6 1,.00 10.5 10.6 10,6 1.45 00.00

24... Manganese __ asMn.

0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1026 020 Nickel as Ni 0.00 0.00 0.00 ..........

F oit,m.----..........

Potassium. . ...............---

- -as K, * ........ . _.I.431 1.... -.1-1-1........ ...-0.00

. 0_00

............. .....asg

.r................. a k -...... 0.00 31..

38

........... 1.43 1.37 ..............

.. 6 Silver ....

-1% :0.00 ........

....0.00

,B 002 0.00 C 23. Sodium*........ =i* ............... ...... .asias Naa*r_'

....... 8A12 0 00 6.65 6:34 a O:O 0 00 It

'0.11 0.00 20. 10 0.11 0.10

25. tnc* as Zn" 1.743 0.01 ý0.01 00, 0-- 0.0-0

36. 002....

0 Total cation Millequivalents ....-. 0.00.- .2.762 2.7.79 2.,792 2.769 n 37. Acetate .. as C9H 3O 0.00 :0:00 0.00 0.00 S 28. Bromide

33. as Br ..0.00 0.00

34. Chloride . as Cl 0:00 .10.3 10.5 11.0

29. 0.00

36: Chlorate as.C10i 0.00 0000 Chromatet as CrO 4 '0.00 430.

437.2. Fluoride

.... asF 0.01 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 Formate as CHO 2 0.00 ........... .0_6o ý0.00

0:00 0.00 .......

.....0.00

39. yco-ata -- - as C 2HO 3 3 0.00 0.00 0ý.00

40. _Molybdate .. aJs -MoOQ 4 0.100 Nitrate as'NO3 0.00 0.85 1.03 0.98

42. Nitrite as NO2 _0.00 0.60 .......

o..oo 0.00

38. 19.8o aN 0100 OxalAte.. 0:00 6:59 0.00 2O4 ....

-as.C 0i 004 Phosphate,(ortho) as PO0 4 3.029*$ 0.00 0;00 .0.00 A 47. P.hospat P.._.(.orgaf sno) aSrP0 4 yOR

41. 1........

2 . 3o0oo 0.02 0.04 0 04 0.02 O.S

.0 Sulft __ ------ as SO 21 ý6 21.4 n 50.

asas0S s.. ........ 6:54

'0.94 6.80 0.75 6.78 2.o90 0:62 7.!32 T~otal Annion MLqiqlalentsý 3.142 3,9?2

,52. Ammonia as NH3 Benzotriazole as C6H N-Boron Silica as B as..S.......*-*. __1.44[_ 1.881*

0.001 I .00 0.82 1.12*] 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.08 _0 00 2215 9 78 "54. Sodium:Nitrite as NaNO2 SodiumSulfite as Na2 SON Toiyltriazole, as CH.N, A" ARd.M exW PHIn ;ý pa ndlan a n indicaw Continued on reverse side.

LABORATORY REPORT - WATER ANALYSIS Custbrher No.. 1001392 H-O-H.Ctiemicals, Inc. Regarding:: Indiana and Michigan Power Company Report No.:* as indicated 500 S.Vermont St. Location: Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant ReportDate:

PFlatine, IL60067 I Cook Place - Analysis Date:

Bridgman, MI Sample Date: asindicated 847/35847400 Fax: 847/358-7082 'Control.12/212/06

(#27294)

-Treated-12/21/06

(#27294)

-Control 121281/06

(#27323)

TTreated.12/28/06. Control 1/4/07

(#27323)! (#27352)

Soluble j Insoluble Soluble 1ý Insoluble Soluble Irisoluble Soluble J Insoluble, SolubleI Insoluble

59. Bromatel _ as BrO........

,o 61. Cycioheiylam ine' as;C,,H1sN m 62..D.ethylamine " aSCHN."......... .... ", .......

P 63: DiethylaminoethanolV as C6 Hi 5 NO

-~Ethylarnine'

" 65. Mbrpholne...

-as Cztz 7 N......... ......... . ., .......... . . ~

as C4HNO

d :68. Disthiylene Glycol' :%.by weight ___'_"

67... :EthyleneGlycol %by Weiht ... .... .. .... . . ...

68. kroylene Glycol'Py %b. ~ight .... . . . . ....

69. Aero0bIc Plate count __org's/mt

72. Iron.B.cte..ia. .

o 74i....r................

NItrat Rse dubc.Paers ut ..... .. -. -.-......... ..............-

b 7 -. -- iare - e ,u .- -. - . . ... .org's/,mI . . . . ......... . . .... .

i 75. Sline Foimers .org.s/l.l ......

o 76. SulfateReducers. org s/mi 77- oo---.. - ----- . ........

. -g/.... ..... ........ ... . ..... ..

0 '81. Sulstem Capacityi b 80. Volatile Solids ......

ga rl._ __ ..... .. . ........... ~ . .

83. Total OrganicCarbon 1.94 4.29 3:09 7.7;8 5:63 0 .. . . . ..... . -. . . . .... 8.0....8.0......--

78.~~ o+sm *t 79.. R- esid u e. Ev t.i n . ... .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by . .......

.e .. .+....... . ...... .. . . 0M . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... ....

LABORATORY REPORT - WATER ANALYSIS jCustomeir No.:; ibdiýqz

' *H-O-H Chemicals, Inc. Regarding: lndiana.and Michigan Power Company Report No.: as indicated 500 S. Vermont St. Locatior: Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Report Date:.

Palatine, IL 60067 1 Cook Place AnalisisDate:

'Bridgman, MI. Sample Date: as ifidicated Fax: 847/358-7400 Fax: 847/358-7082 Treated '1.4/07 Control 1/11/07 Treated 1/111/07 Controal1(18/07 Treated'1(18/07

(#273.69), (#27436) :(#27436)

(#27352) (#27.369 q*h=hla Ine^htkl* - 1 m--

_ _ __ _ __ _ _ go,__ -e__ In __ ,_ __ __a~- __ __ ýjjj __ no IngyIu _ _ _

Alkalini*/ty(). .as caCO3 120 0 0 12

21. Alk'alinity (M'W) as CaCO3 ...........

..126

._2 126 126 124 Free Mineral Acidity: as CaCOi:

a Chemical Oxygen Demand (C.6.64 . 17.9 -18.9 6.4

26. Chloroform Extractables a .Dissolved S*oJlds........................... 200 215

27. 201

15. Hardness (Calcium), n.CaCO i 80 81 :82 '82 82 Hdnes(Magnesium)......... .s caco 3 44 43 44 441 44

30. Hardness CTotal) as:CaCO3 124 127 126 . 126 8.5..-

8:0 8.0 8.4

....22.

298 319 323 133.Spcif~icGravit g/m 14- Su~spendeSolids, 25.0 195 34.0 38.0

25. Aluminum

15. as Al 0.00 S0;30 .......V;; 0.01 0.59 0.00 0,13 Barium as'Ba 01;4 0.01 18;2 0.01 32.9 32.7 Calcium . as Ca, 32.3 0.02 5.42 4.18 32.7 1.76 18.

Chromium ...... asCr ,0 O03

-0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cppsr as Cu 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Iron as Fe 0.00 ,4.43 0:00 0.28 0.000 0.003 0.00 0.000 0.000 -0.000 obooo 311. Lead as Pb '0.000 0.000 0.92 0:000 0.000

20. 0.00 0.00 Lithium as Li - 0-00 0.00 0.00 M~agne._situm ... ..... ~ ,g:-

10.6 0.000 0.75 10.6 10.8 10.7 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.03

21. 0,.00 0:00 Mqanganese as Mn 0.00 0.02 0.00 o.o0 6.0c 0.03 o:oo 0.00 0.03 0.01

_22.: Nickel as NI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.003 0.00 . O-le 0.00 0

.00

23. Potassium as K 1,~27 1.29 .1.32 1.40 1.65

24. Silver a..

.Ag s 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 .. ................;.~

Sodium as Na 6.70 0.00 6ý83 6.89 Strontium as Sr 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.01 C. 0.00 0.27 W1, 419. Zinc as znr 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.04 TotalCation Millequivalents 2.77,5 2.810 Acetate. as C2H30* 0.00 0.00 n0 0;00 0.00 0.00 ;0;00 S Bromide ~~e Bro ~~.................

m................

_ .. .aBr. _ . .... 0,00 0 00 Chlbride, es a...Cl 12.7 12:5 11.3 25.~Chlorate as C. *ooo ý000 ChrbmateW as Cr~

..... 0:6 0.00 oooo

48. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0005 0.00 0:00 Formate as CH0 2 6'.00 0----------- ....

. .._o.o....

0.00

32i

27. ..... te ........ - as

- . C. omo -- 0;00, 52.

0.00 6*

0.00 1.24 1.29 Nitrate as NO3 17.51 1.23 530.

i*tfte _.. as NO2 . 1.00 Nitrogen (tqtal) as N 0.00 0 00 Oxalate as C 20 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 as P0.4 0.00

---. 0 P~hospjhate (organo) as P0 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phosp!horus (tota) a 0,02 0.0e 0.00 ------ 0.00 0 Sulfate " 23.3 ,22.7 21.3 20.8 Sulfur,(total) asS o oo 0.54 0.76 7.77 0.31 7.33 0:'87 7.,38 Total Anion Millequivalents: 3.388: 3.365 3.325 3.25,4 Ammonia. as NH,.

Benzotriazole as C6 H5N3

54. 0...

700 ,0.00 Boron as B 0.00

35. 0 00 0.00 o0 0 Silica as 0iO 2 '0.83 "7.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 o oo S-o-di-um- N-itirite .. as NaNO2 -

57.

Sodim Sl-ite- . as Na 2SO3 Tolvitriazole as C H6Ný- - .5. _______ _______ U - L ~ .5. 4 - £ _______

A. Ni dalaOJCPI P'1IApafis p&nt10 IA-stIIIAICSI0 Mau ýPT P"Apaft perftý wniwsý C.;ontnuea on reverse. sioe:

LABORATORYREPORT , WATER ANALYSIS Cust0mer No.:: 1001392 H-O.H Chemicals, Inc. Regarding: Indiana and Michigan.Power Cornpany Report Noi: as indicated 500 S. Vermont St. Location: Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant. Report Date:ý Palatinej, IL60067 1 Cook Place Analysis Date:-

Bridaman. MI Sample Date:.: as indicated 847/358-7400 Fax: 847/358-7082 Treated 1/4/07 Cntriol 1/11/07 Treated 1/11/07 Control 1/18107 Treated 1/18/07

(#27352) (#27369 (#27369) (#27436) (#27436).

Soluble: Insoluble Soluble 1 Inso Soluble.

Soble Inblule soluble I Insoluble Soluble I Insoluble

59. Bromate: as BrO 3 q 61. Cyclohexylamine*' CsH1 m ias 6 3Ne~

. ,D _ y~ -- ..............

m...ne*..-a,.s.C~iH:nN. .. .. . .... . . ... . ... . . .... .. .-- ...........

P, b. Diethylamrnoethano as C4 HNP D c...... .3.

_64.. ýElhylamine___ as C HN n 65. M Trpholine* as CHNO .. . ... . ...

d .66. Diethylene;Gyc01_ %:by weight

67. Prhylene' Glyco.... '%.by weight 6... 9. ............

. ._% w lh ..... ........... _ .

69. Aerobic Plate count rorgsm -. . -. . - ...-. . .. , . ...

M 70. Anaerobic.Plate Count Org's/mi iI .71; Fecal Coliform org's0100ml .

C72. Iron Bacteria r .73. Mold ___ ogsm S isi Reduers__ org....s............. ............. .... ..... .. ............... ... ... . . .. ... . - -......

0 7c 8 Slime Farmersoor:ss/mi e s .0 gsm ....... . . ... . .. .. .. ....

'0 76. Sulfate Reducers. ___ org s/mI.

?7. Total colaiorm Cb org's 1 1:ml2....2.....

76. Yeast rsmi ..... ... . ..

_,79: Re i u----------- ---

I~..... . -- ---- - -__

--. ~. . . . . .

81. S tem c y. . . . . ... ... -------........ .........

'82~.Propionate. _ as C H5 O .00 0 0 0.00 0.00

83. Total Orgianic carbon __ _1 0.20 8.22 9.07 64., Total Organ~ic N~itrge .. 6 0 0 <0.500 85.~ .0.

.......... 4.0

.i... ... ...- -- -- - - - -.......

.~~Ll ..... ...

h d ... ..... m ae

LABORATORY REPORT - WATER ANALYSIS Customer No.:: i00i392 H-O-H Chemicals, Inc. Regarding" Indiana and MichiganPoWer Company *Report No;: as indicated 500 S.Vermont St Location: Donald C, Cook Nuclear-Plant Report Date:

Palatine, IL60067 1 Cook Place - Analysis Date:

Bridqman, MI Sample Date: as indicated 847/358-7400 Fax: 847/358-7082 Control 1125/07 Treated 1/25/07 Control 2/1/07 Treated 211/07 Control 2/8107

(#27429), (#27429): (#27466). [ (#27466) (#27502)

, Soluble r Insoluble Soluble I Insoluble Soluble I insoluble Soluble J Insoluble Soluble I Insoluble

.1. Alkalinityk("P) as CaCO3 : 0 0 8 6 10

Alkalinity-("M')

.2. as CaCOj, 120 .120 122 120 126 3.Alkatnlty ("OH')(c.lo.......s.C.C.

4. Free MineralAcidity______ CaCO.. .s .......

a 5. Chemical Oxgen Denmand.(C.O.D.) .... 3.9 .7.1 __ 11.8 7.0 7.4

.6; Chloroform Extractables - - ...- -------

7. issolved Solids.2221 a 2112029 r a.'Hardness (Calcium) as CaCO3 82 82 81 80 B0

9: 'ds M_es ,. CO3 45 '45 . 43 44 45 P -10. Hardness Toial) as:CaCO 3 127 127' _124 .. 125 125 .

ri p 8.2 _ 8U_ 8.2 ___ 8.2 8.1.

--' piSP Spei

12. p ,*:: ..*~ .,._

codcace.h317 I**

t..;_ * '_ ...........

.- I . .. ..... ..... ___ ::::..**....318 :.......___ :::::310: : ::::::: 30.: ::: : :: :: :::::310 : .....

p 13. SpecfcGaiy gm e 14. Suspended:Sol1ds - ...

427 37.0 10;0 ....__ 110 . . 234 r 15. Aluminum- asAt 0.01 . 209 001 :050 001 019 001 0.13 0,01 19g8.

1-1 ....:

Lý 16. Barium *0 .. 1-as Ba -7 .......... .......-...

-11 .111 0.02- -1...........001 --

0.01-- : -.-.....00-67 O_ 1........ 6;002 ... . 0"I 00:6o11 ....... 1_02 ..- ...11o1- 60.00 -6..... *a002* -o 0,01 o

1 17: Calcium aCa:

a 328q 12 38 1.06 32 0.00 322 0.00 31.9 - 135 e18. Chromium: as Cr 0.00 0:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00 0__ 00 00 o 0 d01 a Cope ~ ............asu00 19. 0 0 01 00 00 .0 0.0 00 0.00 20 ro _ sFe 000 357 0.00 075 0.00 0.24 0.0 0.0 0.0

_qg 3.38

21. Lead as Pb 0,000 0:000 0 000 06000 0 000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 22 Litium as Li 0.00 000 0;00 0;00 000 0 00 .0 :00 0.00 .00 0.00

23. Magnesium asMg 584 5109 108 057 10.5 0.54 10.7 0.35 11.0 4.56

.24. Manganese .-asMn 0.00 0:11 000 0,02 000 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09

25. Nickel as Ni 0.00 0000 0.00 0.00 00 0.00

':26. Potassium as K 146 163 1.29 1.34 1.06

27. Silver .0 0:00 0.0 .0 00000 0.0

,00 __ 0._..00

. ..e ........ .. 0:00.. 0 0~00.0.o...0.00..... .............. 0.

C *28. Sodium as Na 7.37 :7.70 6.74 6.74 6.44

29. Strontium: as Sr :0.10 0.02 0100 000 -011 0. 0.11 0.0, 0.11 0.01 Zinc as Zn 0.00 030 ._0.02 0.00 0:01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 S31 o,290 Total Cation Millequivalents 2.896 22.8 2.811f 2.817 17 22.908

807 n.3-2. Acetate as C2Hd02 0.0 000 .0.00 0.00 - 00..........

000 Pro33. - as-Cl.0.00

"'mde Br 'g;<;;*]*~~~~~

"-- goooo 2.000 6.. o-oi

.6 ~ ........ .......~ ooo ~ "oo ........... ...... .

34.Chloride as cI 22____ 10___ 10.2 0. 9.34

35. Chlorate as CIO 3 - 0.00 0100 __ .00 0.00 0.00

36. Chromate; as Cr0 4

--3-7. Fluorid asF00 _ __ 00 .0000 0.00

38. Formate as.CHO2 0000 0.00 0.00 0.00

39. Glycolatea _ as C2HO 3:..... 0.10 0 .___00 0.00 0.00 0.00

. ybdate ' a MoO4 0.00 ' 000 0:00 . 0.00 0.01

41. Nitrate as NON 1.13 1.08 . 0.00 0.00 1.05

42. NitrIte .as NO2 0.00.0.00.00

43. Nitrogen (total), as N

.44. Oxalate as.CzO4 0.00 000 ;0.00 4'ý5.Phýosphaýte (ortho) a P04 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pl __ 000 00 .......

.... ........... . ... .......... . . . ... . .: t -

n 47; Phsht(ran) aP0 146. Phosphorus (total)- asP 0.0 .00

.0o-----------.o0- 00 000 00 000 0 __ 000 oT o

o04. Sulfate as So 4 _22.0 22.1 224 o u lf te

a. .... O . .. ....... .. . .. . ... . .......2......... - 7, n 56. Sulfur (tl......as S - - -__ 7.68 0.75 7.60 0.52 755 50 s 51. Total Anion Mlllequivalents #VALUE! . .

VALUE- . 3 -206 3 165 "3. 3267 p. .

-.. - . . _ ... -- 4 -- .----.....-.-...--

5 Benzotrlazole as C6H sN3 -

54. Boron , as B 0.92 0."63 o_0:00 ..

55 Sliaas S10 00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 8.Sodium Nitrite _ _as NO 2 -#VALUEI __ #VALUEI l- ____

57. Sodium Sulfite s Na 2 SO3 ........... ......... ..............

58. Tolyltriazole . as CiHBN, . . . ... ............... . ............ ..............

ADdab.pHi padsaWrdoonoas*ds*i oled Continued on reverse side.

LABORATORY REPORT.-,WATER ANALYSIS dCustomer No.: i001392 500S. vermont St ocaton-: Donald C.. Cook Nuclear Plant Rep0rt-Dateý Palatine, IL 60067 1 Cook Place .. . .... Analysis Date:

Bridgmah, MI " " I Sample Date: as,indicated 847/358-7400 Fa-x- 847/358-7082 Control 1125107 Treated 1/25107 Control 211/07 Treated 2(1(07 Control 21807

(#27429) (#27429) (#27466) (#27466) (#27502)

Soluble: InsolubleI Solb~ble IInsoluble ýSolubl6 "Insoluble I :Soluble Insoluble Soluble IInsoluble

-11.

59,1- Bromate

... . . .. aas B r 3 Br0 3 C _,60.. , Chlorite

,--,..r...

._.... . ...... ...... *s C 9 ....

.as.Cjz 06.Cyclohdxylamin&* as C6H13 N m 62. Diethylamfne as C4H11N

63. iet ylarpinoethano_ ,asC CH 15N0 64j. Ethylmn a'sC2 n65. Mopholjne as C4H9 NO d' 66. Diethylene.Glycol- %b. :eigh

' 617._ Ethyleine Iyc1 %,b weigh ea.*Prolpylene.Gly~col:' ., % byweighl

69. Aerobic PlateCount orgsm M 70. Anaerabic Plate Count. org's/mi 1 71.' Fecal Colitorm _ org's/lo00mI c 72. Iron Bacteria 73 Mold

.b 74. Nitrate. Reducers orgs/mI 5SieForrmeirs ogs/i_ . . ...... ................ . .. , ........ ..

07. M Sulfate Reducers orgs/mi.

77. TotalColiform n- s 7.8,. Yoa east 1 org s/mn .. . .. .. ........ . .. . * * *... .... .. ....... . . ....- .......

I M Residue by Evaporation --

i-- ..... -- ........ .* ..... .....

80e.Volatile Solids:

a 81. SytemnCapacity gal 6,3._ TotalOrganicCarbon * ~~ ~ ~ ... ...................

64. TotalOrganicq Nitrogen 65 Mexel (A-432) "

..... . ... . .................. .. .... :Z..............

.. 0..... at: .0z0--o-Iin0.4".'

S?nEIa....... kat odi* iii

LABORATORY REPORT - WATER ANALYSIS Customer No.: 1001392 H-O-HChemicals, Inc. R6garding:-Indiana and Michigan Power Company Report No.:. as indicated 500 S. Vermont St. Location: Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant- Report Date:

Palatine, IL 60067 i Cook Place Analysis Date:

Bridgman, MI Sample Date: as indicated 847/358-7400 Fax: 8471358-7082 Treated 2/8/07 Control 2/i5/07 Treated 2i/5/07 Control 3/1/071 Treated 3/1/07

(#27502) (#27541) (#27541) (#2763"1) ' (#27631)

RtInhhI. I In*.nl*, R'fh 'hl I In. hhi, QAnl.h I Innh.h* nhlhl. 1In fhhi, I AnIhl. I n1nhhdl I ,1 ____---___ ___ 1 0

1:

-Alkai iniM).........

Alkalinity ("M")

as:CaC* 3*:

asCaCO3 126 144 6

144 0

a

4. Free Mineral Acidity as CaCO3 ,...............

. ........ "7.7 6.1 w 5. Chemical OxyenDema'nd,(CO .D.): 16:6 5.4 B. Chloroform Extractabies e 7. Dissolved qSolids ' 210 208 232 235 r Hardness.(Calcium) as CaCO3 87 86 579 ............... 9 95 Hardness (Magnesium) as caCo 3 . .49 50 48 46

'P 10. Hardnes'_(Totat), as.CaCO3 1125 5..........

. 145 133 132

r. 11.. -S--------------- .................

.. . . . . 8.3 8.1 8.2 0 Specific Conductance . . m!__ 312 ........

348* 350 _-304 P

13!. _.0 .

Suspýended Solids ___ 4.5 7.0 7.0 83.0 3116 Aluminum asAl 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.09 I 0.01 .O.OE 0.83 :0.03 "t 0.01

15. Barium as Ba 0.02 U00 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00.

4.75 0.02 0.00

,a Calcium as-Ca 31.8 0.00 38.1 0.00 34.4 124,Chromium _ as Cr 0:00 0.00 0.01 0.00 :0.06 0.00 a8 0.00 0.00 copp.. . as Cu 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.0c 0.00 0.00 0.00

20. Iron 0.00 0..10 as Fe 0.00 0.000 0214 0.000 1.48 21:. L.:ead: 0.000 o0000 0,0oo 0.00

18. "_ as Pb 0.000 0U00 0.00 0.00C 0.003

,22. 0.000 0.03 Lithium _ 4 SU ,..................... 0.00 0:00

........... 0o......

00

18. Maesr. as Mg 0.00 12.0 0.17 0.0c.

0:0C -1.5 V000 0.00) 0.00

19. Magnesu .. .... .......as-n. 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 11.31 0.00 0.00 25.

Nickell as Ni 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.0 0:00 0.00 0.0c Pcitassium as K, __1.53 1.42 27.; Silver as Ag 0.00 0.0c 0 00 c 28; Sodiurn as Na 8.45 8.49 0 00

" 0.11.0 7:51 0.10 6.56 a 24. Strontium 29: as.Sr 0.00 0 10 0.00 0.0( 0.11_I_..

I t" 0.00 0 00

'0:00 0.03 I. Zinc asZhn 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 3,261,

0.00 To~tal aio Milq et's 2o.oo 3,.255. 2*963 n

si AcetatFe -s- ----

2 0.00 0.00 Bromide as Br - 0.00 0.00 0:9.0 0.00 Chlordide ______ as Cl '0.00 13.5 11.4 1t1.3 Chlorate as ClO, ý0.00 392. 0.00 0.00 0:00 3.2.6o Chromate aS Cr0 4 0_100 0.11 0.10 Filuoride" as..s F 00 0.10 30; Fo-7 ......

-t - -...... ........

. .. C . ......

0:00 0.00 Formate as CH0 2 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 Glycolata __ -. . as C2H.30 ............

k-9,9 4:4Z 33, Mybdate .. -a~sMoo 4 0.00 0.01 0:98 1.84 Nitrate as N.O3 1.45 1.29 Nitrite

50. Nitrogten(oal.)

as NO2 0.01 0;00

.. . as N 0.00 0.00 oxalate - as c-04 _ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 -0.00 Phosphat.(ortho) _ as-PO4 -0.00 A Ph .patý(qr@oiy) _ asPO4.' 0.12 Phosphate [organo) asPO,

38. ... Q.oO 0:00 Phosphorus (total) a Ps 0.oo 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.00

.0 Sulfate.. as SO 4 ... 24*4 0.81 0.......

00:6 _21._2 n Sulfu01910)

(tota). ....... .as.S 0 00 .. 80.3_8 7.44 0.00 Total -AnionMieuvert 13316 290

47. Ammonia , asNH3ý,

53 Benzotriazole as CaHoNs Boron' as B: *0.1 0.10 0.60 0.6c 55.

Silica. - as S0 2 0 00ý 0-::*..0.9 ... oo 0.00 2.38 1:99 0.06 000 Sodium Nitrite as NaNO2 sodiuL Sulfite . as Na_2SO T0lVitrazole as C4H.Ni 6 Anl dt eept pH InPob W mpliu a, as atdked Continued on reverseside.

LABORATORY REPORT - WATER ANALYSIS- Customer No.: 100139',

H-0H Chemicals, Inc. FRegarding: Indiana.and Michigan Power Company 'Report No:: as indicated 500 S. Vermont St Location: Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Repo-rt Date:

Palatine, IL 60067 1 Cook Place Anatysis Date:

BHdgman, Ml ...... Sample Date: as indicated 847/358-7400

'Fax: 8471358-7082 Treated 2/8/07 Control 211 5107 Treaied 2/15107 Control3/l/07 Treitid W1i/07/

(#275602)- j (#27541) (#27541) " (#27631') 1(#27631)

Soluble [ Insoluble. Soluble' Insoluble .. Soluble, Insoluble Soluble: Insoluble Soluble I Insoluble,

. ornate . as Br0 3 ..................

51 cyclohexlamine* as CgH, 3N____-

a -- ------rnne--- .......

0,':3 R ietylamninoethanol ......-....................I..........I

_ as, 6H15 NO w............. ...........----.......--.............--...........

........... i.........- ............--....... __

n 6.9ýMorphoiin& as c4 H5N------

S- E he*------- w i.. -.

............. . ...... . .. ..... I ...........

65 P tyleneGlycol - % by weight

... Plate. ur rg m..............nt wmi - ......... .---------- ------ -- - - . . . -- .. .... -

M 70. iAnierobicr Plate coun .. .rg's/miL . I ... .. I I ... . . .. .

Feoacoiiform I _............o

-t rg'. ._ Ionm-----------...........

c 72. lron'Bacterla _

73. Miold ogsm

74. Nitrate Reducers org's/m ... " ... .

o I75. -o,"Silme Yeast, Formers org'smi _ - - .. .----- - - --.---.-. - - -rg- .,------m'....-........

O7.Sulfate Reducers _ _org's/mi _

771 co.lr /l m .ota. ....

9 _ý r.smi__ .... ... ...

9esdu byEvaporation c '0. Volatile Solids

e. a......... C pa it . i* -222 Z i _- -----------.....

82.. Propidnal:6 as 2 .000....

0-O 000 0~0 0.00 o.0 .

683. Total Organic Carbon

65. Mexet_(A*-42) "2.5 1.0 . ... . 2.5

." .- . : . .I .....

.. ..... . . +... . .. .. .. . .. ........ . -----

.... . "+"..... .-.----

. __ . _. . .. ..

_ + :.+ : . . . . .. . ... . .. . . . .. . . .. .. . . * - . ....... ........ ....

+ -- ---

. -* - . ... .. .. ... .... . . . .. .... . ...... - i - = .. * : --

.. .... . . :"~~ ~~ ~~~ :*-.+. ..

0 AU!!W. nN In fl. - AMn ., .. indi-iml A.01,4. bv

LABORATORY REPORT - WATER* ANALYSIS Customer No.:: 1001392 H-O.H Chemicals, Inc, RegardingL IndianaBand Michigan Power Company tRep0t No.: as-indicated 500 S. Vermont St. Location: Donald C. Cook Nuclear.Plaht' Report Date:

Palatine, IL60067 1 Cook Place Analysis Date:

Bridgman, MI Sample Date: as indicated 847/358-7400 Fax: 847/358-7082 Control 3/8/07

(#27631)

[treated (#27631) 3/8/07 Control 3/15/07

(#27677)

Treated 3/15/07

(#27677)

Control 3/2/07

(#27694)

I.,~IrhI~ *,nti hl* I Incnh =hlo, *nh Ihfm .l In*P, hlhl=i *knhlhl I, In nh,.hl, ,ý-t~hf. InnldhihI 4: ___ ___...~. ___ ____

Alkalinity ("P") as CaCO3 0 0 10 10 Akai nity('l'.) .... . as. caCO 3.

3. Alkallnity:("OH") (ca~cum=I)d .as caco 3 ;

132 ..... . 134 ....:126

........ 2 126 138

......... ....12 Free Mineral Acidity asCCO 20.7 a .5.

9. ChmclOygen Demand (C.OD:)_ 4.4 14:6 Chloroform .Extractables e 17: Dissolved So lids 2200 209 99 99 79;

_4. Hardnes(Cal) ....... 'as.Caco as CaCCI 43 46 a (Mgneium

10. p*. : ..... ............... 124 133

,82 "_"16

.311- 2372 8.2 Spcfionductance prnhos o

14. Suspendedra ..S .......... ....-...-.. ......... 20 0 ,54 0 __543 19.0 .280 3959 30:8 15: Alumiinum asAl 0.01 0.01 0.02 ,0 03 0102 0.2 16;. Barium as Ba 0.02 :0.00 .0.01 0.00 0:02 0.006 0.02 0.02 Calcium as Ca 39.4 o.00 39,5 1.47 32.0 42.7 34.6 25.3 Chromium ___ as Cr - 0:00 0 02 0.02 0.00 0.oo 0.00 0:00 0.00 0.00

.. .... Cu

....s.a 0.00 0.03 0.00 .0.01. 0.00 0.3 0:.00 0.78 0.00 0.000 10.0 9.31 0.005

.21. Lead. 0.000 0.000 0.003

-0.00,

.as Pb 0.000 0.00 0.012 0.000

_22.. Lithium as Li .0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0.00 13:. Magnesium-

23.

12.6 0.00 12:6 0.97 17.0 10.6 0.08 -- .

1.12 9.27 0.00 Manganese as Mn ~0;00

ý0.00 0:01 oýc 0.03

-" 0.00 0.33 0:00 0.00

0.7 0:00 0.00 0.24

25. Nickel: as Ni 0 00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.01 Potassium .___ as K 0..00...o__.1.34

28. --:4

1.30 o:oo 0.00 sodium as Na 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0..00.....66 6......

-.-657 G 28. 8.44 8.52 6;61 0.00 strontium . ....--------- as--- Sr ... 0.04 O6 M.03 0.00 '0.600 Zinc as Zn 0.12 0.01 ........

0.1o£ 0.oo0 0.00 0.01 0.000 n

0 ,Total Cation MILLequivalentsý 0.0

3.424 2.792 -2.7*67

& Acetate as CAHO 2 34;7 .0.00

18. Bromide nas Br 31.

19. Chloride, 0.00

-as Cl

_ 151 11.6 53: ---

or-'. 7 .............. .......

32. Chlorate as -igC0 ...... 0.00 0.00: 0 00 Chromate as Cr0 4 0.00 0,00 0.11 34.oo Fluoride _ as. F 0.00 0.11 '0.11

20. 0.00 011 0.00 22.61 36.

0.00 0.510 Molybdate, as MoO4, 0 00 0.00 1.27 0,00 2.24 2.32

40. Nitraten, al. as NO1 ...............

qo 0.01 Nitrite -as NO

42. Oxalate 0_00 0.00

. . as CiQ4 0.00 0.00 0_00 43: PhosphateW(poly), . as P0 4 A 0.00 0.00 nTi 450.

Phosphoru~s (totl :as P ........... ... 0.00 21.3 0.03 .00 0----- *1.94 0:12

46. Sulfate; asSO4 24:2 24.6 n 7.01 47.

Sulfur(total) as S 0.00 1.02 6.79 0:00 a 548.Total Anion Millequivalents 3.*356 0.00 3 740 3.364 Ammonia ".. .. as NH 3 "

Benzdtriazble,. as C6H5N3 0.0c 5.szBoron as B 0.00 0.00

'0.00

52. 2.40 22.43 1.32 11:"77 Silica as S11 32 2.41 1.60 1.34 2.16 Sodium Nitrite as NaNO 2 Sodium Sulfite as.Na 2SO3 TolvItriazole as C HbN 7 1 A-W -lld." Ipl 4 pH~

l Ip rno-~ ~aO- Continued on reverse;side.

iy~Y

LABORATORYREPORT - WATER ANALYSIS: ICustomer No.: 1o01392 HO-H Chemicals, Inc. Reaardirim Indiana and, Michiaan PoWer Cdrmanv I Reoort No.:, 'as indicated 500.S. vermont St. tLocation: Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant IReoort t

Date:

Paiatine, IL60067 1 :Cook Place lAnalvsis Date:

Bridaman.MI ISamoleDate: as indicated 8471358-7400 Fax, 847M358-7082 Control3/8/07 Treated 3/8/07 Control 3115/07 Treated 3/15107' " ontrol,3122/07

(#27631) (#27631) (#27677) (#27677) (#27694),

Soluble Insoluble RSolubfleh I 1ln lbl Soluble InolubhlA Aoluble- Insoluble Soluble I Insolublel

_____ - -- - -- - - - -. ... - - - - -le I--

59. Bromate as BrO..

chlrdite as CIO 2 vc.ohexy*lamine* as CjH1.N m 62. Diethylamine* as C4H11N p 63. Diethylamihoethano_ as C NO 0 1 iH U n -tyam

_ - C2H7Ný n Morpholine* as CHsNO Pi :66. pofietylien~lcl %by weight

67. !elthylene -

bMtyweIght Phopy!teneG!yco . i byweigh.t

'69. Aerobic Plate Counti ýorg's/mi o Anaerobic Plate Count ýog's/mi . ..............

70:

,71. Fecal Colifoimf logsio~ml Iron Bactera'

-ok --.--------- s--i

_73.

iI.75. Nitrate'Redu slime Formersogsm cars or~gs~ml 9 76:. sulfate Reducerst org'sri

77. Total Coliform o rgs/1 MI

78. Yeast org'simI

.c 79. Residue b vprtio I Volatile Solids System rCapacity ._ gal._____

Propionate .... 3 asoC

...... 0~i0 .o a

........ 0:00 _______

63:

Total Organic Nitogen ...

'oo

.85. Meel (A-432__.. . . .... 1.0o

- I.,. ____________

_________________ I IiiI7IiYi7T 0 A] dý .4 - Ind t

LABORATORY REPORT - WATER ANALYSIS ICustomer No.:: 1001392:

H-O-H Chemicals, Inc. Regarding: lndianaand Michigan Power Company Rep0rtNo: as irdicated 500 S. Vermont St. ILocation:, Donald CI Cook Nuclear Plant Report Date:

Palatine, lL 60067 I Cook Place Analysis Date:

Bridgman, MI, Sample Date:: as indicated 847/358-7400 Fax: 847/358-7082 Treated 3/2207 ,Control W328/07' Treated 3/28/07 Control 4/10/071 treated 4/10/07'

(#27694) (#27725) (#27725) (#27790), (#27790)

Soluble; I Insoluble Soluble I Insoluble ,Soluble I Insoluble Soluble I Insoluble Soluble I Insoluble.

________________ ____ - K - - ____ - ____ z I ____ - ____

Alkalinity ("p') _iasCaCO 3 *10 8 -- 0 as CaCO_3 ......126s 132 13X as CaCO Free Mineral Acidity Sas c~a~cO 3 ...

Chemical Oxygen Demand 8.2 16.2 7.6 6:6 7.5 t 16.

Chloroform Extractables e Dissoved Solds'-- 222 209 .... .............

312..

0209 211 '222 r

.a~s CaCo 2 82 .........82 45 48

-20. Hardness(Magnesium) 46 45 436 15..

132 136 -.---...1837 oH 8.1 8:0

§.2-312 ý323 13.

nded Sotids

_Suspeýe 21.;5 154 1.0 2.5 1.2i7 Aluminum 'as All '0:01 0.26 ........ --- ? 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.06 0.01 0:06 Bariurr sB .0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 00 0.00

32.9 0:00 35.4 :0.00 L.7.1 Calcium as Ca 34.4 0.00 "32.8 12.2 35:8 0.00 Chromium as Cr 0:00 0:00 o.0c 0.00 o.oc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

29. LOWpe as Cu .0.00 0.01. 0.00 Iron as Fe 0.00 0.4E 0.00 3.14 0.000 0.20 ......... _0*..q 0.08 O:OC 0.06 0.0c O,000C 0.000 0.o00o

11. Lead ,as Pb 0.000 0:002 0.000 .0.00 0:000 0.00c

,21;

12. Lithium .. . .as U 0.00 .........

0.00 0.00 0.0c 0.00 24: Magnesium as Mg "11.1 A.l0 o..o__.

0.00C 0.0c :1,1.0 0----.-..

0- 4.05 11.0 0.00 11.5 0.00 11:. 0.00 0.00 0.00 ............

s .

14. Mang~ans Nickel as Ni 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00

.0.00 ~~

. 0..00... 0.00 0.00

15. 0.00 1.29 0.00 .0.00 0.01

26. .1.45 Potassium as K; 1.35 __O.OC 0.0c 1.31 1.56 Silver as Ag 0.00 0.00 8.

0.00 0-.00, 0.00 :0.00 0.00 .... .. 0 .0. 0.00 80.0 C Sodium as Na 6.57 7.09 6.95 0.04 0ý00 a Strontium asSr OOC 0:11 0.01 o:11 0.00 0.12 1140

.a00 0__

130Zinc as Zn 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.01 :0.01 0.01 0 Total Cation MillequLvalents-_ - 2.884 3.153 13.3.4 Acetate ___as.C2!73O2 . 0.00 0.00 '0.00 12.65 0.00 8 Bromide asBr 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 O.Oc 12.6 13:7 Chloride as Cl 116 12.1 13.4

36. Chlor ata asCrO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

.0.00 37.

Chromate sCr0 4 0.10

............. b.....

Fluoride! as F 0.11 0.11 3a. 0100

0.00 Formate as CHO 2 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 bOlo

28. glycolate asI 3C H 3 0 0.00

0.00 0.00 Mo/ybdate.... as MoO 4 0.01 0:00 0.08 0.00 30*:

1,.

402; Nitrate. 1'.79 1.32 as.NO 3 1.22 .1.13

52. o~oo .0.00 Nlitit Nitrogen (total )

~ a No as N 2 0.00 0.08 0.00 534 24.

xalate ' ........ as C20 4.__ 0.00 .0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.00 A 27. Phosphate (poly) as P0 4 Phosphate_(organo) as P0 4 "

358. as P 0.0c 0.01 0.01 0.02

,Phospphrus (ta) 0 0 Sulfate as SO4 22.4 21.0 0.60 21:.8 22.2 22!7 n Sulfur (total)_ý,. " asS 6.93 6.97 0 00

.S 0.00 3.561

.Total Anion Millequivalents. 3.632 31357 3.384 3.546 Ammon a as-NHA3 Ben:zotriazole as-C6 HN,3, 0:10 Boron asB 0.00 0.00 0.00 :0.00 0.0c 1.i37 1.05 Silica asi0 1:05 1.64 2;01 .5:67 0.49 Oo~o Sodium Nitrite as NaNO 2 .

Sodium Sulfite as Na 2 SO3 Tolyltriazole as C?H 6 N3 ARdate MeeppH p P~14Pe nin n urse 1*u*te5d ,Continued on reverse side.

LABORATORY REPORT - WATERANALYSIS ICustomer No.: !1001392 H.O-H'Chemicals, Inc. Regarding: Indiana and Michigan Power Company Report No:: asiridicated 500 S. Vermont St. Location: Donald C. Cook NuclearPlant ReportDate:

Palatine, IL60067 .1 Cook Place Analysis Date:

Bridgman, MI Sample Date: :as indicated 847/358-7400 Fax:1847/358-7082 Treated 3/22/07 Control 3/28/07 Treated 3/28/07 Control 4/10/07 Treated 4/10/07

(#27694) j (#27725) '(#27725) (#27790) (#27790)

Soluble ' Insoluble Soluble j Insoluble Soluble Insoluble Soluble LInsoluble; Solublew Insoluble

56. Bro m ate . .

C, 60. Chlorite

. .a o,.+,+,+c_o_,_..... . .

_as s .Br03.......................................

C102

~ ~

a xlmh

_. ____"* ' ... ... I~co*

H;

61. _. Cyolo*....aC...

-aC

, -,, ""--~i21;* ,*,,,*

- -"- ---- --- 1-* * - l2111:i ...... 11..;..l.

i p63RDiethylamlfotao asCH 5N0

--- D ylen e y w..... ... ....... . .............................. .

6_3 5

5.... o pp Ol- as ..... .............. _

I ------- -

d 66. Dlelhylene Glycol' % by w~eight .___

69: Aerobic Plate Count- org's/m. . . . . "...... ......... "-.-.-...

M670Anerobic Plate Count org's/myi ____ _________ ..

Mb 70. NitrateRedcers org's/ml 0 75 Slire-Formers ... . o rgs/m . . ......

-b 1,*21** T;* K _... ....... .o-",- - i----

74. Sulfate Reducers org s/mL --- - .. ... ... .- .. . -. ... ? ... .. ............. -- ...

1 78. Yeast_ _ __ org's/ml .- -

o O Volatile Solids i "- sy.tem

_,81 Capacity _ gal. ............

83. TtOrgahiic Carbon o ./. . ...

4... Tota Orai - t g

..... ....-. ... .- . - . .. . I ..--

8 M2 . . . ... .. . . . ........ . . ... ....

~

-~~~~~~~~~ 5C1 nonnn~no. ninn 0nd2 Aavusb heaei~

LABORATORY REPORT - WATER ANALYSIS. Customer No:! 1001392 H.O-H Chemicals, Inc. Regarding: Indiana and Michigan Power Company Report No.: as-indicated 500 S.Vermont St. Location: Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant ... Report DE Palatine, IL60067 1 Cook Place Analsi [E.

Bridgman, MI Sample Date: as indicated 847/358-7400 Fax: 847/358-7082 Control 4/19/07 Treated 4/19/07 Control 5/3/07 Treated 5/3/07 Control 5/10/07

(#27817) (#27817) (#27972) (

(#27972) (#27972)'

Rnlfble IF ln-hnhl. RM,.hlh I 1n-1hrhl. *nlMhf. ] I-Iulthln qnlIhlhl I In nuhlhl,' nhh I in=,nhJhlR Alkalinity ("P") as CaCo

-r-, 0

- ____ -r - 1~~n 10

~ .. ____

4.1 3 --- 10,

-- 138 162

3. .Alkal.nity('COH.)..i!

P~y(~') _ as CaCO Ca-C-- 3_* - 1:0 FRee Mineral Acidity as .CaC0 3 .......... 11 ,

a 5: Chemical OxygenDemand_(COD ) 15.4 :61. 65 6.5 t 6' Chloroform Extractables B 7.

Dissolved Solids 263 263 =-218 227 229 1, 93 Hardness.(C .iu.m).....-.. as-CaCO_ 118 88 :92 Hardness (Megneskim) 5 aO 62 ,47 51 103 Hardness (Total). as CaCO 1092 1...

.... !34 144 143 r, 8.0: 8-2 8.3 803" Specific Conductance 392 .....343 0 tmhs .. 399 8:2' 7 341 p

13: specific:Gravity.......9mi

_14,

§Supended Solids 175 8.0 1.( "1.0 0.02 .1.0 r Aluminum as Al 0.02 1.7C 0.15 0.01 2.

00..... 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

.t1 Barium as Ba 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0:00

17. Calcium .... . asCa 47;3 43.5

.8 6.85 35.0 0.0s 37:3 0.00 36.8 0.00 S .0.0,0

-18 Chrbdmium as cr 0.01 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 '0.00 19.. Copper- ~ as Cu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

.20. Iron. asFe 3.68 0.00 2.83 0,00 0.02 6.02 0.o00 '0.000 0.000 , 0.00 Lead

-21., Lithium. as.Pb 0.000 O.O0 0.000 0.000 9-C o0......0..... ...............

- -oo 0.000 0.000 0.00

.22. ___ as LI 0.00 '0.00 0.00 0.00 0200 0.00 Magnesium _asMg

-2.51 13.9 15,0 0..0

0.00 12.3 Manganese

__ __ .......as as.Mng _ 0.00 0;00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 :00C 0.00

25. Nickel as NI 0.00 0.00 0.00

ý0:00

.26.

Potassium. asK: --------

6* 1.58 0.00 1.35 0.010 0.00---- 1.28 0110 Silver - as--

Ag-------- 0.00

.23.

C Sodium as Na 668 0.00 . 1..........3. 723 Strontium_: as Sr 0.11 0.00 0.00 297. 0:13

.as .Zinc Zn . ,001 0.010 0.00 0.22 0.01 ......o..oe 0.11 0.05 Total Cation Millequivalents . 4.045 3.735 3.019 '3 232 0 3.197 0.00 n --- 000 0.00 0.00 o~o0 Bro0riiide ...... ..................... :ass Br.

Chlorat C.....

O

31. Chloride

38. asCI 15.7 11.9 Chlorate :as C103 _ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0E Chromate as Cr0 4 .

Fluoride as F 0.10 ,0.10 0.0:00

'0.09

0.04 0.04 0.00 Forinate. .as CHO 2 0.00 0.00 39.

G-lycolate - asc 2H03 o6o0 0.00 40.

-- 0,05 o002 0.00 Molybdate . as MoO 4 0.02 0.01 0.00 ,2252 1.68 Nitrate as NO - 1.40 0.32 Nitrite asNO. 1.06 0.4 0.00

.... ........ 0.00 . .

Nitrogen (total) _ _ as N

-40. Oxalate 0:00 as C204 0.00 ...............

O* o 0.00

35. (orio)---

Phosp...a.e as P0 4

....... o~oo

~0.00 *000 A 38.

Phos.hate(poy) as P0 4 0.00 0.00 . .........

n 41 Phosphate (organo) .,~

0 00 0 00 0.00 I. 542 ,Ph6sphorus,(total).. . s P 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 Sulfate, as SO 4 _ 25.1 21.8 23:4 n

-0 Sulfur (total) asS 8_60 6.99 0.00 .804 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00

.Total Anion MitequvalenI 4 397 3. 624 3 888 57.1 Ammonia as NH3 ........... .H.. . ....

457. *, -- - - -__~ ..------

.. --.-- .sC

_ .... H.N Bnzbtriizolem as C6Hý5N3 --

0.09

50. Boron as B 5,84 3.24 0.08 0:02 1.68 Silica, assi02 , 2.26 6.12 :200 0.82 3:04 0.00 3.18 0.00 Sodliu Nitrite as NaNO 2-.

Sodium Sulfite. as Na 2 SO%

Tolyltriazole1 as CHAN 3

- AndWB*ý phI ~'P.nnhn~,

bnen Continued on reverse side.

LABORATORY REPORT - WATER ANALYSIS lCustomerNo.: 1oo0139 H-.O-H Chemlicals, Inc. Ftegarding: Indiana and Michigan Power Company Report No;: . as indicated 500 S. Vermont'St Location: Donald-C. Cook Nuclear Plant. Report Date:- 1/0/00 PalatineIL 60067 - 1 Cook-Place Analysis Date: 110/00 Bridtman, MI Sample Date'- as indicated 847/358-7400 Fax: 847/358-7082 Control 4/19/07 Treated 4/19/07' Control 5/3/07 Treated 5/3/07 Control 5/10/07

(#27817). '(#27817) '(#27972)' (#27972)- (#27972).

Soluble, I Insoluble, I Soluble. Insol6ble I Soluble'. Insoluble I ýSoluble Insoluble Soluble Insoluble-

59. Bromate as Oo.Chtorite. as 0102 0 61. Cyclohexylamin* as C6 H13 N .......... .......

,,6.2.Oieth~ylamin& s 4H 1 ---------

63."*Dlethylaminoethanoi* as C5 H15N0 .......... ...

6,4.Ethy~mn as C21-1 7 ........... ,

n. 65. Mr.pholine . as.CHNNO ------------- ----- ---- ............ ........

d 66. Diethyleie Glydol* 'W~yeight ...... ....

fT

6. EthyleneG-yco-l-*----- byweight .........

69. Aerobic Plate, Count rsm

M70 " nerobicýPlate Count! org'simi I 71. FecalColiform.f . ...................

. Irg's(Om, .....

73. Mold ' org's/mI 8 74. itrate Reducers org's/ml I 75& SlimeFormers org's/ml o 78. SulfateReducers _rgesT

77. TotalCotiform org'si100m1 0 78. Yeast org's/mt ...

9 Residueby Evaporation _... , ..........

c 60. VolatilibSolids -

a 81 System Capacity gal

82. Propionate, as-C3 H502

0.66, 0:00 0. 0 b.00 ý0:00

3.Total Orgahic Carbon ---------------

,.84. Total!Organic Nitrogen .....

85.--- .exl.....~ 1.5 2,5

- _, .... .e n -.. n.a ...................

... . .. . ... .... . ... . ......... -=. . ------

AnalvMs bv Gas Chr*maWamvhv.%

LABORATORY REPORT - WATER ANALYSIS lCustomer No.:. 1o06392

(~~ H-O-H Chemical, Ind. Regarding: Indiana and Michigan Power Company Report No.: as indicated 500 S.Vermont St. Loaauon: Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Report Date:

Palatine, IL60067 1 Cook Place Analysis Date:

.Bridgman; MI Sample Date: as indicated 847/3.5877400 Fax: 847/358-7082 Treated 5/10/07 Control 5/17/07 Treated 5/17/07 Control'5/24/07 Treated 5/24/07

(#27972) (#27958) j (#27958) (#27999) -(#27999)

Soluble I InsolubleI Soluble I Insoluble Soluble' Insoluble Soluble, Insoluble Soluble I lnsoluble I

1. Alkaliity,("P-) 3 10 0 0 .as.CCO . 0 - 0

2. Alkallnlty;("M" as CaCO 3 134 152 154 122 124 3.s Alkali as-a--------...........- -----------

~ . .- . ... ..-..

4. Free Mineral Acidity Cas CaCO3 _

a5. chemfIcal Oxygen Demand (c.oo.) 7.1 16.0 16.3 5;9 6;3 t . C hl o ro fo rm E xtra cta ble s - ---- - ..... ........

.7. Dlssolved'Solids 216 231 236 2.14 210 r H d.cHardness.(cal.i.m. 8~1 .as. .. 8.. . .... 68~..... 68 .........

9. Haasess ... . .. Mg*PG

..* p. . . . . .. ... .. ... 2 4k6a.i47.40 ........ --------- ........... 7.8 40 P %10. Ha~rdness ý(Total) ..... as cacO33, 136 M___13 3 108 __ 108 _ _

r Clp 8.2 7 1 :, 38 .78.0.7 1. ... O

12. Spec0fic 327346 0onductanceos -46031.-30.00"-

P3. Specific Gra~vity. -g. ___ 02 415.Aluminumg'nes asA[ _ 00 U1

-0.004 0:01.0 ... 14 0 00 0.15 0.01 . 00.08 . ... 000 0.02 16 aNium asNBa 0.02 .0.00 002 0.01 0 000 _ 002 0:00 0.02 0.00 17w. Calcium asca 35.1 0 0.00 342 152 348o 380 V.23 1.440 273 0000 e 18. Chromium ascr 0001 0.00 0.00 0.01 .0.00 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.03 9001 0.19.cop as cu 0.00 .. 0.00 _ .0.00 .0.00 0.0.0 .0.0 - : 0.00 .000 03 0 iron T2. as Fe. 0.00 0.10 0.01n 2.76 0.01 0.32 0

.20.00 .202 0.02 21.20 Lead o a su ...... ass K Pb "". . 1.2 .............

.0.006009 0.000 ..........................

. . -. 0.00 AR3 .4 0.0 0.00 0 00p 0

0.00 ----------- 0;000-1,--

2. Lithimi . as LI" - 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0.00

23. Magnes~ium sMg_ -_ 11:8 0.00 '11. .4.08 11.5 0.76 9.69 0.17 9.63 _. 0.00

24. Mhanganes aslMn 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.1. 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 25.ýNickel asiNI ----- 0.00 0.0 600

. - -i0.06 00 0.00 _ 0.00 '0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

26. Potassium as-K 1.22 1.38 1.43 2.07 1.90 217.silver as'A 0.00. 0.00 000 001---

O _ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 c 28" Soima a86 79 _.2, . 8.47 83

.a 29. Strontium as Sr 01 0.1 00 02 011 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.13 0!00

30. Zinc as - 0.00 005 "600 0.17 000 013 001 045 0.00 030

31. TotalcaonMillequlvatents, 3 4 __ _2993 _3052.583.__ 2.570 n 32. Acetate ;37.

. =iu rideasF asN2HO32 000 0.0 _0.00 7.39 0;0 ................ 0.00 0.1 i 0000 0:9 ............ .000 ,.,.

42, Bhder as Br 0.00 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3ý4..chilorideý as~ci 11.9 12.7 _ _ 1112.7 20 i__

35, chort asC 1cio 3 -- _ 000__00 __ 0 0;00 0100

,;.::4 a t : .:... .lt

..... N. * -------

.. -. 1.3 .. .. ...... . . .. .... . . .......... . . ... . ------ 0-8 1

43. chrshoate 0 as, c0 4

.37. 4Fluoride

. .......... as F =

asC~z 9.09

.0 __ _ 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00000 0:09 0.10

...0.00

.38. Format* e- o a -- - --- --. - - - 11 o 00-o_ o0 _ - I .o0 0. -- 00 ---

39. Florate: 4~~~~0.MoydtasO as SHO 0.00

-2 00 __

0490 0009 0.00 0.00 0:0 0.5 020.0 001___001 4

!-'-46:,

. . P. ho_

_-------- (R. y,"..

. ........... ..... P . ,.. ........

-I......

........ ... . . . . ..... ......... .a . .

-41. Nitrat. _ as NO, 1.35 14 19 091 0081 42 itieas NO 2 000 0.06 __ 0.00 __ 0.00 0;00

43. iodumn total) _____as

.. N --- ----- ----- -

44.: Oxalate 51.. ~~~.

Mle uv___D letTo..noaso 0 . ... 0 9.. 06 0 ... 000 ... ...... 3,6000 .........

45!.Phospteoto 52 ......... . ...

a... sO s .. . . 000 . . . .. . ... 0.00.. ..... __ 0.00

. .. 0.00 Mo___

oy5" 57 T01- tea(olye dBoronas- as P0N O

99 1o-o t -o ..... ....... . .,qPW6_ .. .... uo-*. i -,-- ' .--*o ........ ...

. *Phosphat( .rgano)

a-

- -se-s--e-" - Contlnuedo - reve -"

1 4.Pho~sphorusý 56; ~ (ttal)___ ~ ~ as___ 1, _0.00 0100_ _,000 _0.06

................. 0,00 0:01 -0.00 0,00 i:.........

...... 0.00 ..... 0.00 0 49. Sulfate, as0 _. .21.6 236 ___ 247 21.5 ___ 20.9

~~.50. Sulfur (total) -~as S,-- 75 00_ 00_ 8 0 4 0.21 _ 819 0 5i.. Total Anio Mitleqlulvalents 3.508___ 3.1991 4.061 ___ 373.385 2.Ammonia asNH3 ___ _________

53. Benzotriaole as c"H N3_ _ __

54. Boron as B 0.00-- __-- 0.00 0.00 _ _ 0:00 _0.00

55. Silica a5SlO 2 - 2.23 0.00 2.00 5.15 1.91 1.27 1.47 0.61i_ 2.69 0.00

58. o~dum Nitrite a aO ___________

.57. Sodium Sulfite as Na2 SO3

- ~ Continued on reverse side.

LABORATORY REPORT - WATER ANALYSIS ICustomer No.: 11001392.

H.O-H Chemicals, Inc. Regarding: Indiana and Michigan Power Company .Rep6itNo:: as indicated 500NS Vermont St. Locationm Donald C. Cook Ndclear. Plant, Report Date:

Palatine, IL60067 1 Cook Place Analysis Date:

Bridgman, MI Sample Date: as indicated 847/358-7400 Fax:i847i358-7082 Treated 5110/Q7 Control 51171/07 Treated 5h1707 Control.5/24/07 Treated 5/24/07

(#27972) 1 (#27958) (#27958) (#27999) (#27999)-

-Soluble. Insoluble Soluble I insoluble -Soluble Insoluble Soluble j Insoluble Soluble Insoluble 9.--*Bromate __ _ as BrO * ..... . .... .... ....... . . .. . .................................. .........-....... .. ....

60. Chlorite as Br 2

62*...Dyleoh__

C...- 61.. ylamycloexyimin&

ine.,

__ __ as C102 asC 4H11

. ___.................... 3N .... ... '... -.... '. ... .. ... .. . .. . ....

e362. Dlethylamine " as C4H1 5N

...L ,I ..........

i..... . .. ... ... ............. .......

p 4 Et yI6 Lam pLn e t q ai -- - - -- - - - -------

65 Morphollne ____ asCAHNO ----

d '66. Dlethyleoe Glycol . W b yby weight n6-.Et-l w-gh - -------- -b- - -- --- --

68. P ropylenmeGl ol* % yWeght . ....... .-.-............ - . ....................

,69. Aerobic PlateCount .. org's/ml M 0. Anaerobic Plate Counts __ org's/mi . . . ..

i 71. Fecal Coliforin orgf/,100mlI

. 72. liron Bac6tera__

,i~~~~~~ **-m._.*T .* ..... ;Z;*22*2i`*-] ?T- --- iLZiL*`*-))*))L]i-i~*-`

~~~

-- 22 ........... ~i r--

.r732. Mold

'org's/i _ ---

b -7.Nitrate R'eddcds o rg'~s/mi _

m

.175. Sfin~e Formersorsmi_ --------

--- .-- . ............. ........ 1.-- .. :... . ...- -* ... ------ 2.: .........--

0 76. Sulfate-Reducers __ ogsm 0- . * * ......... ...;; .... . " . .. .~~.--* .......T " - -I -*...... .

..... I .'- ........ ....... ... -*

-T-------... ---------. _ . . 1 ...

1 3. Total'rganicr arbon --. i -p-.

64 S .e a.cy ga.........

o. .... -__-----

...... -oa~gn~toe.... .

g s e e ( ----- --)_-_--- ---- - 5-- ----- -. - ------

o so'Vo~fleflid

LABORATORY REPORT - WATER ANALYSIS [customer No;:: 1001392

-Cstoer...

C.nmn~nu NAYSS WATR.

L ABOATRYREOR.. 03.

H-O. -HChemicals,Inc. o.,,....;.,.. di Intliana anr ti Ilirhin.n Pntaunr Indiana and Michi an Power Com an I*nnrt Nn"

!Reort Noý:

indir*t*d as indicAt6d Location: Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant IReport Date:.

4Palatine, I IL 60067 1 Cook Place JAnalysis Date:

Bridaman. MI [Sample Date: as indicated O4Fax: 847/358-74000 I T T I Fax: 847I358ý7082 Control 5/31/07 Treated 5/31/07 Control

(#281,00) 6/21/07 Treated 6121/07 Control 6/28107

(#27999) (#27999) (#28100) (#28129)0 I 1-l!

feh.hW* QMh.hl. I.It-hn.ht. Qhf.hI I In-nfihil I. CWhIn I In*aohl., QnMhlha I Alln 4hlhl.

0.................... 6

!AIjajntyAT.. aSCaqq33 118 154 150

2. Alkalinity ("M) asCaCO 120 130 Free Mineral Acidity as caCO 3 a, 5, "8i Chemical. Oxgen Demand (C.O.D.), 13:0 9.. .

............. 7.3 23:4 chloqroformEtractables ____

e¸ Dissolved Solids,

il

.. .......... 213 210 224 86 Hardness (Calcium) as Caco, 70 82 81

_9. Hardness (Magnesium) as CaCO. 41 40 46 45 .46 P 10.. Hardness (Total)_______ as cac .. !111 108 128 127 "132 r 11. pH 8.1 8.4 . 31 8.2 717 314 .338

p. ....................

.13.Specific Gravity gmln ...

.3 e

Sseded Solids,_ 6.5 :213 r

14.

15. Aluminum as Al 00;06 730 0.00 a05 Abi 4.14

-1.10 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.67 I- 1 t 16, Barium as Ba 0.02 0.00 0.01 0,02 S ................,._. 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 I 17. calcium 'as ca. 28.0

........ ... ... 3.37 ...

27.1 ..... 8.78 '32.5 I ...0:00 0.00 34:5 19.4 Chromium asCr 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 e

19:' Copper ascu ........

o...9 . 0.00 0.00 0.00 0..0 0.00 0.00 0.03 0:00 0:02 0.00 0.02

20. Iron- as Feý 0.12 _....o:0.'03

__ 2.39 0.03 0:06 0.00 2.51 0.00

21. Lead as'Pb_ 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 .0.001 0.002 0.000 0.00 0.00 Lithium as Li, 9.62. 0.00 __0:00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 Magnesium as Mg 0.00 0.00 0.02 3.03 11.0 - - -... 0-00 0

0. 11.1 5.22

26. Manganese as.Mn .0.05 0.00 0.11 0.03 0.14 N

ce ..........................

.........ads LNI ... .... 0.00

-23, Nickel

28. 0:00 0.00 0 :01 0,00 ............. 0.00 0.o0 0.01 25*.Potassium as K 1.83 0.00 1.46 9o I................. 1.41 1.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 Silvar asAAg 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 C 28. Sodium as Na 8.36 8&08 .7 69 7.49 7.51

'0.01 a 29. Strontium as Sr 012 ..............

0.00

... , 0.12 0.00 0.11 0.0.00 0.11 __0.00 0.11 Zincl " as Zn " 0:02

30. - ----0 ý-,' , .. .. -ý- , ..- -.- ......

-.-.. . 0.29 0;00 0.24 0.01 0.00 0ý04 6 31. Total Cation Mllteqqk~lents 2.631- 2,,546 2.924 2.896: 1.009 n 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 5 0.00

33. Bromide as Br 0.00 0.00 0:00 0.00 34: Chlonde Chlorate as CI as d!O3 ....... 12.5 12.4 12.0 12.8 35.

Chromate as Cr04 ......

....... _o o .......

.i6..

0.00 0.09 0 00 . 0.00 Fluoride. asF .0--08

37. ...............

-..

0.07c

38. Formate as CHO 2 0~o 00 .0.00 .........

.:. 29 Glycoate" Mol t .s as C2 H3O3 a-**e MoO. ............ ;. .............

00 0.00 40: 0.01 0.01 0.00 0:00 0.00

41. Nitrate as NO3 0.92 0.87 '0.00 0.71

.0*00o

42. Nitrite as NO2 0.00

43. Nitrogen*(total) as N ........

zo S....

........ 0....6

.0=

0............ ---- O9 21--

44. Oxalate as CO 4 .. 0.00 0,0.0 0:00 0.00 O.O7 0,00

-45:ý Phosphate (ortho) as P0 4 .0.50 0.52 ------- ---

,A 448: Phosphate'(organo)

_~ !APhosp-e(oy.)., POd4 as PO n 47. ............

6 *.

Ph'osphorus (total), 'as P 0.00 0.00 0.1:!6 48: 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.07

.0 49. Sulfate ____ a 0 21.2 21.4 ...............

.20.216 n 0.30 7.01 S 50. Sulfuir (total) as S 0.50 7.03 1.6 0V96

51. Total Anion Milleauivalenfts 3:223 3.252 3.948 3.889 .. ..

. -- 3.502 52: Ammonia as NH.

53. Benzotrlazole as C6H9 N3 ,

0.00 0.313 5_22_ , 0.00 0.00 1:18 2.60

55. Silica ,as S102 1.5E 3.13 0.38 3.13j 5.221 2.34 0171 439 56-SoduNitrite as NaNOi, 57: Sodium Sulfite, as NaSO3

58. Tolvltriazole; as CH*N,,

Ailoto ;pt P mPan PIwn oras lindkm Continued on reverse side.

LABORATORY REPORT - WATER ANALYSIS. Icustomer No.: 1001392 Report N0.: ,aS°indicate*

HO-H Chemicals, Inc. Regardlng!: Indiana and MichigAn.Power Company IReport No.: - as'indicated 500S. Vermont'St I .*; ...

1.s on:

I'rn-l oca

-, I'

,*b.Kh1 JtJE V

.-lra DlInM

.4~d0 .11 0.

E

-4 M.Cm; Palatine, IL,60067 1 Cook Place. Analvsis Date:

Bridgman, MI sampie Date: as indicated 847/358-7400 Fax: 847/358-7082 Control 531/07' Treateds5/31/07, Contro0 6/21/07'` Treated 6/21/07

(#28100),

Control 6/28/07

(#28129)

(#27999) (#27999) (#28100)

Soluble I Insoluble Soluble I Insoluble, Soluble Insoluble7 Soluble Insoluble Soluble I Insoluble I ____ ____ +/- I ____ ____

i59. Bfromate as Br03 C

.61.'.

0.0 Cyclohexyiamine 6 asCsH 13N ...................

62. Diethyiamine* . as C4HN p,

0-

~63. Diethylaminoethanol* asCeHisNO .............

Ul 64. Ethylamnine* as C2H7 N_

as C;4H5NOý

65. MorpLhllne=!

n __ ........ . .........

d iethyLeneGlyco % by weight 67.- gEtylene Glyoil %.byw*ight Propylene Glycor 3/4 by.,weight 1-69; Aerobic Plate Counts otrg's/ml -I M 70. Anaerobic;Plate C'ount org's/mI

71. Fecal Coliform org's/i00ml C 72 Iron Bacteria-r.' 73' Mlold---- .. . org's/mi 0

b Niitrate Reducers . org's/mI ............. ..............

9 75' Slime Formers org's/mi 0 76 Sulfate.Reducers ogsm I. 77. Total Coliform org'siOOml

78. YeaSt ogs/hin RI . . ...... 00

@esidue.by Evaporation Volatile Solidst

,a ,'81. Sstem Capaci- gal. ----

82. .Pro.lonate ___ as C3 502 ý 0.00 0.0c

83. TotIalOrganic Carbon' ___

Ttal raicNtogn __

2.5 w15

LABORATORY REPORT - WATER ANALYSIS jCustomer.No.: 01001392ý H-O.H Chemicals,,Inc. Regarding: Indiana and Michigan Power Company Report No.: as indicated 500 S. Vermont St. Locatiorn: Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Report Date:'

Palatine, IL 60067 1 Cook Place Analysis Date:

Bridgman; Ml - " Sample Date: as indicated 847/358-7400 Fax: 847/358-7082 Treated 6/28/07 Control 715/07 Treated 7/5/07 Control 7/i12107 Treated 7 2/07

(#28.129) (#27190) (#27190)- (#27190) (#27190)

Phh*,I InI,,hthm Q 1-hle, I I solubt - I I ~

Q I ble l= IIen~l I I SOWN Ql, hL*

iqblý I

I Ie h=i 1-11-ki-

nh IhlA " Inenhhl* i*ni,,hl, cduhl I I,~ni, Jhlo 1 1 oluble Alkalinity "ac03 o 0 0 10 2_ Alkaln!*(ty"*M. CaCO3 . .

a2~5" 126 134 :134

,3 Alkalinity (iOH) i=cav as CaCOj w 4. Free Mineral Acidity as CaCO 3 _

'5 6.6 Chemical Oxygeni Deriand (c.O.D-), 15.6 6 .9 1 a

Chloroform Extractables

219 208 re

7. Dissolved Solid 84 2141 Hardness (Calcium) asCaCO5 . 84 81 831 .81 Hardness (M4gnesl) .. as CaCO 3 45 44 44 44 45

.131 "128 125 127 1261 pH 8:1 7;8 8&2 12, SSpecifle-ond uctanc~e "rmhos* :31 327 310 .. .. 318_ 307 e0 Spendidic "Oviy m

14. 2.0 245 8.0 002 174 Aluminum es Al 0.01 1.78 0.02 0.03 0.01 2.00 0.01 .0.09

.......o.o.... 0 02

16. Barium as.Ba 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 1.*52 Calcium as Ca 33.7 -33.4 ..... *3 0.97 3.3.1 17.

Chromium. asVC 0.01 0.060 -0.00

......... -9' 001 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003

.ro... .asL Fe... 0.00 2.73 0:00

'20. _0:12 10E0 0.01 0.00

28. 0.000 0.00 0.000 *0.000 0.01 0.00 Lead as Pb 0.000 0.00 10.002 o.00 0..oo 0.01 0 00 Lithium. as Li 0.00 ........... 6.'66 0.00 0.00C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0:00

.,11.2 10.8 3.87 10.8 110.7 Maqg!neim __s Mg 251 0.00

.o,o 0.18 0.0...0.0

........... 0.00 001 23,. Nickel asNi ... 0.00

. ....... ... 0.00 ...... `-11 0.00C 0 00 Potasiumas K, 1.43 0-00 1,34 10.81

.... Silver asAg 0.00 0.00 .0.00 0.01 0.00 28, 7:12 01.3 Sodium' as Na 7.23 0.00 2.829 ,6:82 Strontium as Sr 0.05 0.003 0.02 01.99 0.00 a 29. 0.11 30; Zinc as.zn 1.21 0 34 ......P

__0.01 : 0,9 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.09 3-1,T talCatio M equvalents ............ 2.950ý ...... :0-_o 2:839 I,

32. Acetate: -asC 2 302 6.0.0 0.11 20.0 S.........

.2.. =

33., Bromide- as Br

12.2 Chloride asCi* 11.9 120 1220 0.00 Chlorate. .... a 0.01

. 0.00 o7 S0oo

.38.: Chromate as Cr0 4 . 0......

0:09 0.00 0.00 Fluoride as F . 000.......*- 0.00 0.00

37. Formate _as CHO, .....0..

000......6 6006 0.00 Molybdat o as Mo4 0:00 2.68 1.10 a0.0 Goyalate Nitrate 'as as C 2HO NO4 3 0.09

. .og 0:00 1.35 1112 438 02.08 trogn as N 0.00

......,: . . . I...... 03 0.00 0.00 odiua rte as.C 042 ..

46. 0.....

00; A

P~hosphaite eNiotritezola (oýrgano) _ a P042 N-as NOH as P 0.05 0...

00_.3 0.I1 0:03 n 1---......Pophorus:(tota.lL

.as SO4 .......... o..6 22.3 22:3 22.7

52. Sulfate 0;84 0

Sulfur (tqoýtl). asS 0.60 1.08 *68C .1.23 6.83

53. ......... 42 *3.586

48. T~otal Anion Miliequivalents 3,5653 3.509 457. Ammniaa NHA.

485.Benzotniazole as C56H5NL 3 0.009 0.00 0.o00 2.146 0.00 54..

- Boroni 2-- 2.-14 6.62 . 7:54 2.55 1 .99 :433 8.27 0.98 Sodium Nitrite ___ asNaN--

Sodium Sulfite as NaSOi Totvltriazole as C,H.N;

- M4ai =pi pfl~ p~t$pmna~on~

W- AHd8t.-P1PH1npw*W.M..Wnd-t" Uonutnued on, reverse sio.

LABORATORY REPORT- WATER ANALYSIS. ICustomer No.: 1001392 H.'O..H Chemicals, Inc. Regarding: Indiana and'Michigah Power Company "ReportNW: as indicated 500 S. Vermont St. Location: DonaldC. Cook Nuclear Plant Report Date:

Palatine, IL 60067, 1 Cook Place Analysis Date:

Bridgman, Ml ,,, Sample Date: asindicated B471358-7400 Fax: 847/358-7082 Treated;6/28/07 Control 7/5/07 Treated 7/5/07 Control 7/1*2/07 Treated7/112107

.(#28129)i (#27190) ,(#27190) (#27190) (#27190)

'Ra{Uthe.; tnsdubie ,l,,hln 1 I ~aI~hI~ In,,nI,,hk.

I I . i -- -- Insoluble Soluble I 16Wtsble I Soluble-1 Insoluble -Sol.bleý I Insoluble I Soluble I Insoluble' iBromate, as Br0 3_

C

ý6 Chlorite as clo2

!asC H1 3N rin 60. pl*;

i ne. , ........

Pý as Ct1-115N 61.

0*

U- _as C2H7N Diethylene lycol* a~s CAHNO

d. 66. %by weight 67, %,by weight

68. Propylene Glyco-. .%bPyyweight Anaerobic Plate Coun A 71, Fecal~conform org's/mt M

72 Iron Bacteria, 73.' Mold org'simi

14. Nitrate ýReducer Is 7&. Slime Formers' 0 Sulfate Redcr org's/IOml Total Coliform%

ao org's/ 0m[

R'esidue byEVapraoi

".-ui o ............

. Solids.

IVolatile B-80.

propionate .. 5AL 0.00 -";0.0o 0o00 0.00 0.00 TotalO rganic, Carbon:

.Total Orgaicj Nltogný_

Mexel (A-432) 3.0 2.5 2.5

- .-. . . . .-11 0 ADS d, - M WtonWa ,mr lon ofn Ind,*atsd a~naivsbv Gas Chromstaaranl.

k17

LABORATORY REPORT - WATER ANALYSIS Customer N&:` 1001392 H-O-H Chemicals, Inc. Regarding: ndiana and Michigan Power Company Report No.:, as indicated 500 S. Vermont St. Locatlon: Donald C. Cok Nuclear Plant Report Date:

Palatine, IL 600671 1 Cook Place ,Analysis Date:

Bridgman, MI " - Sample Date: as.indicated 847/358-7400 Fax: 847/358J7082 Control 7/19/07

...#28250)

Treated 7/19/07

(#28250)

Control 7/25/07

(#28250) 1j Treated 7/25/07

(#28250).

Control8/207

(#28301)

Soluble I Insoluble I esolublS l uSolub le I olubl S ule i I Insoluble Solublei I Insoluble

1. Alkalinity (',") _ as caCO3 0 112 " 012 0 . . .. 0 2.Alkalinity ("M)._ as CaCO, 130 128 132 128 130

~~ ~ ~

a Ch mi a Oxy g en D e11:

Aklnt(OH)eluidl asCaCO 3 ma nd :( ..... . --0) , ..... ,1. 8 I ... ..... .... ,-............... 5 °' *

. . .... .. ---- -------- ( -..

Fre Min1eral' A idity as CaCO 2 _ _ _ _ - - ------- - ...........

a 5: ChemicalOxyen Demand- (COD.) 806.____815 4 _10:2

6. Chlorofoim Extractables 2

~

pS~ c~ic1 r. vi* _.. ..... .... g...l.

er 11. Dispelved

14. )H' Solids "_. _1 8:1 88021 8:4 42009 8.0 84 8 2 8.0 8 o 12:. specificC~onductance . p.mhos .... -305 ,312 311 309 ....-- _ 309......

r I17. CalciumT t), .

15. Aldminume as asACCaO 1231 0801 08 '2152 0.01 00 005 125-001 808 1.10 -02 31 000 04 .0011204 3 08

--18. Barium -00 asaa _ ..- 002............

2 '---0 001.00.000 ........ 002 001 002 000 0.02 ... 01 e 18. Chromium_ _ .0.00asOr 0.00 0.00

.000

.0.00 000 000 0.00 0-00 0.0

24. Manganese .0 .8 00 0 4.sM .0 012 009 200 00 09

21. Lead -as: Pb .0.0*00 0.000 _ 0000 00.00 0.000 0. 000 0000 000 00 ... 00.

23 agnesp c Mg 10. 1. 1 0(0 . . .............

34- .106 000 07 - 3

25. Noikel as NiA 0.00 000 0.00 00 0.00 000 000 0.00 Copperc a Cu~ 0.02 0.04 0.010 0 01 03 0 0 0 0.00 0

28. n Potassium

27. Sliver :_as K ......... .....................

1.34 ... ...1 ................

30 00 .......1.28 0 "60 0.00 1l.23 0.00 1-"

'30'---: 0.00

.aAg 000. 0.00 00 0 00. 000 00.00 000 0 '0.00 03.

n 2. Aetate.1.-1. as.P2 3 2 U0.0 010 000010 0 6,000 900_0_00 C 28. Sodium 3 r 8.227.09 880 36. 0.0 8.53 6050 3 850 a 29. strontium .as sr 0.01 0.01 0.10 0:00 010 001 0G10 0.00 0110 0.00

i~~~ioi-*

. . .... [e.... ;~~~............... ...... __.o0 o-o .----.......... 0o ------ , ..

33.

2 Bromide asBr 0.000 0 O0000 00;00 000 o 000

23. GPyoiate

39. ChlorMae _

asC as C1!2 O 0004 0.00 5 1.300 0.,00 0006 0.00 .3 4 003 10 0

.00 000 0100 .. 33

37. Fluoridel asFN .0.05 0.05 0.05 .0.07.0 0.05 .

a. Formale 45., Zin

.o as Pný0,200 o0 _ ---....._...............o.11.1.......I 00 000 1 0 000.1 01, ..............

000 00 0 .. .................

000o-oo 000 .." .................. 00 ?................

00002 4

40. Solvere al~o g a o as as.MgP... ---------- _- 000

_----_ ... _ 000 00000 000 000 4-2.Nirte -- ... .000 00 . asNo

...... 0.00 000 000 43.Nitrogen (.ta) .. asN. . ..

'42. OXalate -as CO 4 000

1) . V 1 .00, ... .. 010 00 0.-000 0.00 ...

53. enzortraoeý as C105 3 0_0__6 A 49 Ph2s7hat62(oly) as PO8

........................ -. - -0.00----- 0-00_ 0-0 - - --------- 2 537,Silurica as.l0 03059 36505 53 3 5i6 4 40.0711 8 ! ,

56. ChodimaNtrte as CrO 2 _ _4_

I _48. phosphorus;(total).. .......asP - . ......... ?.000 : 3.......003 00.00(

.;9...... ..... 00?1 00........

5 ........ 0091 000.....;;/ 000

' -' 003~i-o 49. Sulfate. asSo4 _ 204 195 20.0 2008

~50.;~if~*total) asContinue 0

.020 e~ae~p~nsn,~'das 741~00 720 0.00 onorevers ....7.32 side 000 73o 6.79 .000 -

51. Total Anion in Mil...........le............... ;5quive..............lent.........

3504... 3345.... ...... 3.518 .......................

M 341O..................................3:494 I i ...

52a Ammlornia as NH3 11A 1 .4 ... .3

54. Boron as. 000 0.00

_ 0000, 00 357Sodium Sulfite as Na 2 0O. 3 -I

LABORATORY REPORT - WATER ANALYSIS' ICustomer No.:. 1001392 H.O-H Chemicals, 1ihC. Rdgarding: Indiana and Michigan.Power Comnpany, Report No.:: as-indicated 500tS. Veirmont Stý Location: Donald.C. Cook Nuclear'Plant jReport Date:

Palatinej.L 60.067 1 Cook-Place lAnalysis Date:

Bridgman, Ml _______ ___ISample-Date: as-indicated 847/358-74 00T I Fax:-B47/358-70 B82 Controlt71910

(#2825,0),

Treated 7/19/07

(#28.250)

Control 712510T-ITreated 7/25107

(#28250)[ (#28250) J Control 8/i/07

(#28301).

.oluh~e-

____bt InsoIuhte SoIhbje 4nStuhla Insoluble___ -

Ilnsc*k*bI II Insduble- I

____bl 5Rokubla

- -Iu Inscluble 59, Bromate as Br0 3

,60. Chlorite asdO 2 '

0 m Di~tylamne~__ as C4H13N P Diethylaminoethanol -as C6H15NO 0'

60. Ethylalilne- as C2H7N

n Morphflneas C4H-9NO d Diethylene Glycol . %. eiglt

'8.

m hylej ,;n-Gly.col* yWb: igji

73. Piopylene GlycolW % by weight

74. Aerobic-Plate Count orgs/ml M Aniaerob ic Plate Counto-,~ vm __

rc 0-Fecal Coliform

72. Iron Bacteria Mold_ _

Nltrate' Reducers org's/1 ooml org's/mt org's.*-mi _

I- -

69. Slime.Formers oirg'sfrnl I

0* SUlfate. Reducers orgs/m..

-rt._o~

Total Coliform . .................... or '* o0 or's/1 o_ O0ml=

0 78.

Yeast org'mI

.bE..siduepora__pn_

,Re tionn..........

=

Volatile Solids 81.

a: Systm Capacityý__

0;60 0 00 0.....

0.

Total Organic Carbon I .......... 9 - 00......

Total-gai;c Nitroge.

Mi el,(A -43............2).....

...... .. . 2:5 ....,25*.

-------- - ----- I..

G-W 1 indlwm LABORATORY REPORT . WATER ANALYSIS ICustOmer No;: 10Imoob6 H-OH Chemicals, IncI Ma Mi InAinn. nnri ft/lihi qn Pý ..p,(--

'~*~'*'~~* "'~"-'*'~' ~' *~ ~ S

'*I.""'l 0.

4~'"-I--,

-f Kl" -ý 'ne inliýcitari 500 S. Vermont.St, Location: Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant IReport Date:

Palatine, IL60067 1' Cook Place [Analysis Date:

Bridgman, MI ISample Date: as indicated 847/358-7400 Fax: 847/358-70.82 Treated 8/2/07, Control 8/8/07 C TreatedS8/8/07 Cbntrol08/1 5/07 'treated 8/15/0*7

(#28301), (#28301) (#28301) (#28332) (#28332)

R lh I .Innnh,,htn. I 4:~qn

~ni,hia I In~nhihi,. Rnh,,ili I In~nhi,hhf *nnhlhf.t I Inf,,ihhln "nnl,

,hil h!4 I ifn~nhihlA 15 insoluble Alkalinity ("P")."as CaCO 16 0 14 8 AlkalinitY, (M' a-s-Ca-COi, 128 134 130 Alklinty("O")(cacunici)as-CaC-O'3-Free Mineral Acidity as CaCO3 w 4,,

a Chemical Oxygn Demand (C.0 D). 7.0 - 7.2

,1 -2L Chloroform Extractables e 7, Dissolved Solids 204 206 205 202 212 8; Hardness (Calcium) as CaCO3 ..............

ý_*_4 :80 178 85 83 Hardness (Magnesium) as CaCO 3 43 42 45A 45

- ----- 43.

P '10, Hardness (Total)_ as CaCO, 122 123 120 '131: 128 oH r Specific Conductance, j, mhos___._

3.4: 8.0 8.4 7.9 8.3 0 .12. 308 300 315 13.. Specific Gravity. ...... gml-t i.11 Suyspended Solids__ 351 213 8.C 166 7.0 ra ,25. Aluminum asAl 0.02 0.04 0.01 2.55 0.01 o:oe 2.05 0.02 0.08

16. Barium as Ba 0.......o02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01: 0.02 0.02 -0.02 0.00

17. Calcium as Ca 31 :g 17.5 -31.1 OOC 33.9 12.2 -33.1 0:00 0.00 e 14..

Z'1 copp*r* Chromiumas Cr 0092 0------

.. ...0..,00. 0046 0.00

---*---o 0:00 O.OC o:0o S .. as Cu 0.00 0.00 ý0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.000 0:000

20. Iron as Fe 0.00 4.04 0.00 .0.00 3.41 0.00 0.20 0.000 0.10* 02000

21. Lead as Pb_ 0.'000 06.000 ý0.004, 0o.000 0.000 0.004 0.000

-Cli.llur . .........

.......... ...........asiL .... . 0.00 0,00 M.ag n~e~sum ............ as..........

@ ..Mg....... 105* ;0 00 0.00 0000 10.4 3.04 10.9

24. .Manganese! .N**_.............................. *as Mn*. ... . 0 00 ..........

0.02 .......to:oo o r0 o.....

0.01: ,0.00 0.22

25. Nickel_ aisN1 0.00 0.00

-A641*

0.00

'-0.0

.0.00 0.00 0.00

--- 0..00..

. 0:00 00Ol Potassium as~K' -- .0-.00

........... 0.00 Silver " __as Ag 1.32 1,26 0.04 '0.00 SOC* 0.00 -------------- 0.00 ...600 c Sodium as Na.

6s6 0........ :0.00 636 86.72 6.37 a 22. 0.10 Strontium as Sr 0.111 o.......

oo* .......... 0.11

'!0.01: 0.011 0.11 492 237.Zinc as Zn OM0 6 67

.......... ý0.10o 0

60 0 01: 0.06 0.18

-I" 0 TotlCationw Mlleq'-uivalentsý. 2 753 2.756 2.701, 00 n Acetate.asC 2H202 0. 00 09.009

$ 0.00 Bromide as Br 0.00 0:00 10.3 10.4 10.6

-10.3 ,0.00 31:

26. Chlorate as:CIO3 0:00 0 00 0.010 0.00 Chrornate ... ... as Cr0b4 . 0.00 0.00 Fluoride as F ----05 0,00 0.00 0.05 0.05 Formate a CH 0.00 ,0.0 0.00

!gycolate aýs C21-30 3 0.00 0.00 0.00

.0.00 0.00

50. ---

as MoO4__ 0.00 0.00 0.00 ............ 7900 e 0.00 0.'72 .. 0:73 Nitrate as.NO. 0.83

52. .ooo 34 Nitrite 350 as NO2 0.00 0.00 Nitrogen..(total)* as.........

.§N~ -0 00 Oxalate as C 20 4 0.00 ............ oo 0.00

37. 0~pao ........... o.o 0_00 0.00 as P0

38. Phospshate (porty) . as:PO4 ............_o0 A 347 Phosphate (organo) asP04 n

Phoshorus (total) as 0.00 0.16 0.12 0,00 0.00 30.50 0 42. Sulfate as S04 21.:3 20 2 20.8 20........5** 21.5 n 6.74 0.86 6.57 7..21.*-- 0.61

.5 0.01 7.11 0.00

44. Total Anion Milleouivalbirts-3:i55 3.3 73 -3:333 3.407 Ammonia. as NH3 ienzotriazole as 6 5N3ý Boron as B -0.00 7m 0.00 0 00 Silica as SiO. 2.31 2.791 10.67 -1.04. 0.62 3:62 10.58 1.35 11.72 Sodium .Nitrite as'NaNO2 Sodium ,Sulfit as Na2SOj Tolyltriazole as C7H6N3

- NJISal eaxcpt pHin pars p. nal- . o. aidi.aed Continued onmreverse-side.,

LA BORATORY' REPORT - WATER ANALYSIS ICUstomer ,No.:. 1001392 H-OMH Chemicals, Inc. Rbgarding: Indiana.and MichiganPower Company Report No.. as indicated 500S. Vermont St. Location: Donald C. Cook NuclearPlant Report Date:ý Palatine, IL 60067 i Cook Place IAnalysis Date:

Bridgman; MI Sarmple Date: as indicated 8471358-7400 Control 8/8/07 Fax: 847/358-7082 Treated 8/2/07

(#28301). ý(#28301) [ Treated 8/8/07

(#28301),

Contirol 8/15/07

(#28332)

Treated 8/15I07*

(#28332)

Soluble I Insoluble; SolUbl., I - ~niutsi~ I In uin I ~ I ,Rnluhle Inenlirile.

insoObie I Sbiubie I lnsoWý I Sol6ble I Insoluble ýSoluble Insoluble Bromate, asBrO3 60.

c Chlorite ýasC10 2.

,61. C*yqohexylamin&n" m as C6H, 1 N

-62. Diethylarninet ,as CIOjN 0.

63. y.a*

ý t.anql*....

64__..

U Ethyl1amnin&

Morpholine' as CAH 5NO d 66. % by we ght 8

M

67. Ethylene Glýcol'

69. AerobIc 70; Aerobic Plate Count.

Plate Count

__by~weight org'siml org'st.mrrI.

I ________________

-It Fecal Coliform ,

c

72. Iron Bacteria r'

0*

NitratReducers

o

,75.- Slime&Fo6rersý

76. Sulfate Reducers .... . org's/100mI

77. Total Colifrm-7*.

a.

!Residueby. EvaporatIon

80. Volatl Solids',

a

'gal.o

0....00 82.. ProM nae as C3Hi02 . 0..002 0:00 0.00

........ 0-06 ----------

Toalrgnc Nitrogen 85s.= Mexe!l LA-432 A04M ilý. lndhý.d I - 7.=: -

0

~

LABORATORY REPORT - WATIER ANALYSIS ICustornier No.: 001 o i92*

HO-H Chemicals, Inc; Regarding: Indiana and Michigan Power Company Report No.: as indicated 500 S Vermont St. Location: Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Repbrt Date:..

Palatine, IL60067 1 Cbok.Place Analysis Date:.

Bridgman.Ml _ Samnple Date:. as indicated 847/358-7400 Fax: 847/358-7082 Treated 8/23/07 Control 8/23/07

(#28436) (#28436)

,C,.hHt. I C Inetlh *hl* 1-n 1'hhl. QMI,hi, 6'lnll hk!

________________________ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ __ _ _

nl= =ht*

ýlub

____2 I.

I___

tnenl=*hl*

- '*s "t____

1-f-

1. :0 .ll Alkalinity ) as CaCO 3 A RlYainity AM):tS as CaCo3 w

a Clienilcal Oxygen DOerand (C.OD:.) 8.51 2..

Chloroform Extractables-Dissoived Solid s:

8. Hardness (alcum

. ------- . . 222 4E.

r aSCaCO3 92 Hardness(Magnesium) as CaCO_ --- 47 10.

Hardness.(TotaI)- .... as:CaCO 3 139 I 12E 7*9- 8.1 mhos :332 30I....

. 7 17.

15. Codutnc Specl......

Spcfic,Grdvity g/ml ii.............

177 Aluminum as.AlL 10.

0.01 1.88 ............. I0.02 -0.00 O0.0

12. Barium as Ba '0.01 0.00 i3., Calcium sCa ...........

367Z 891

_ ---32.81

.£op~~~er:,.,.i.

........... . . ...... 0.00 Copper-as CU 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 000

-0.02 Iron as Fe 0.02 0.07 21, Lead as Pb .0:000 0.006 0.002 gsium as Mg 0.00 2:34 0.00 Manganese as Mn -6 0~0 '0.16 .0.00 Nickel . as Ni 0.00 ~1.l29 O--"oc6

26. 0.00 1.20 Potassium as. K 1.27

57. Silver 185. asAg 0.00

28. Sodium 0.0o 0.00; .0 ...................

c _____ as Na 6.82 6.74:

17. Strontium as Sr a 0.11 0.11 0.00 130.

206.

Zinc as'Zn 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.00 01 21. Total.CationMilllequivalents 31108

23. Acetate* aS:C 2 H302 n 22. 0.00 a

2s4. B e.. .. asBr 0.00 ........0.00g chioridbie . -_ as Cl' 1068 Chlorate as C1IO 0.00 0.00 Chromate "as CrO,

32. Fluoride as.

528.. 10.31

.0 03

33. Formate asCHO2

_____At4 _as 21-1303

......0.0~0 0.00 347. Molybdate a MO 0.00 Nitrate. as NO3 0.00 0.75

35. Nittite . .. asNO2 ... 0.00 Nitrogen (total) as N

-- 6o-I Oxalate as- 004 "0:09 0.00 38.

A Phosphatee (rOan) as PO..

n 40. P~hosphate (orgno) a 0 41.- Ph~dsphorus (total)__ as P: 0.05 0.0, 0.0c 0.00 Sulfate as SO- '21.0 -19.4

.n .7.52 7.41 7.02 6.88 a

458. 3.568 3.183 Ammonia. as NH -,

6o70 iezotrlazolq X T:*L :...............

e , as C6H: 5N3 Boron .. asB: ...............

Silica as S,. 2 10.2 8E31 3;34 0 40 Sodium Nitrite as NaNO-Sodium sulfite asiNa6SO3 Tolvitrlazole as CH,,N, az pH I An dat4sa=aept l a . 7H.... N L _____ I _____ J. _____ .1. _____ .L _____ .J. _____ I. _____ I _____ I _____ I.

inpwil perer~in wras ndereed Continued on reverse~side:

LABORATORY REPORT - WATER-ANALYSIS jCustomer No.:ý 1001392 H.OAHChemicals, Inc, Regarding: Iridianaz and Michigan Power Company Report No.: as indicated 500 S. Vermont St. Location: Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Report Date:

Palatine, IL 60067 1 Cook Place Analysis Date:

Bridgmani MI " " Snmple Date:' as indidat6d 8471358-7400 Fax: 847/358-7082 Treated 8/23/07 cohtiol811823/07

(#28436) (#28436)

Soluble: 1 Insoluble Soluble: Insoluble Soluble I Insoluble Soluble: Insoluble Soluble lhsolubl"

- -- 4 4: 4 Bromfite, as Br0 3 -3 C

0 Cycloexylmine as C5H13N m Diethylajine as C 4H 1 1N. ------------

p Diethylainoethanrt as CsH 15N0 u Ethylarnine . aspc 2 H q-7 n M-orpho-Line! as C4 N d: Etheqne Glycot . .b weight

.pyjen*yc G :ly9

......... , y weight Aerobic Plate Count org's/mi Anaerobic. Plate Count org's/mt .

Fecal Coliform- org's/100ml Iron Bacteria ....

aMotd org's/mI, C,

Nitrate Reducers- or-s/i Slimne Formnersý - Fr's/mi--

sulfate"Reducers org's/mI.

I.

0 TotalIColifor ........... ' o m Yeast,- - --- g-s/mi Re!sidue jy vaorto Volatile Solidsý

-'a. ysytem:Gapacitr .... gal

.--P-o.--- ..........

Prbpionale ... .....

_asCHj0 .. * ; 22 ... 0.00 Total Organic Carbon ..

T..... ........ ]

ta( g - Nitrogen.

I,:.,,,,

M M dý .1 Hth .. ft ýA- iýdkztd

H-0-H CHEMICALS, INC.

500 SOUTH VERMONT'STREET PALATINE, FAXNO:ILLINOIS 60067 847/358-7400 847/358-7082 DATE: November 7, 2006 TO: Tom Armon FROM: HR. A. Becker

SUBJECT:

American Electric Power

.Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 1 Cook Place.

Bridgman, MI Analysis of reverse, osmosis membrane.

Dear Tom:

r Attached you will find our laboratory analysis reports pertaining to the above. referenced deposit.

sample(s), our laboratory number 26782.

Ihope this information satisfies your requirements. If any further work Or discussion is needed, please get back to me.

Very truly yours, Hi. A. Becker 1HAB;ld Enclosure, cc- Darius Barkauskas

LABORATORY REPORT - DEPOSIT ANALYSIS lCustomer No.: 1oo1392 H-0-H Chernicils; Inc. Regarding: American Electric Power Report No:: 26782 500 S Vermont St. Lo.cation: Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant . Report Date: 11/7/06 Palatine, IL60067 1 Cook Place Analysis Date: 9/25/06 Bridgman, MI -Sample Date: 9/21/06 Eax: 847/358-7400 Fouled Reverse New Reverse Fax: 847/38-70-82 Osmosisý Osmosis, A-432 Membrane Membrane' Percent; I EQuivalents- PercentI EuuivaPents Pere Eaivalents Percent I Eaulvalents Percent I Eguivalents

.1. Aluminum - as A120 3 0.20 .0.012 .0.31 0o019 2 Barium as BaO O003 0o000 0.01 6.00o

3. Calcium asCaO 51 .70 J1844 ;2.22 0,079 4Chromium as.Cr 2O3 - 0.01 0.060 0.02 0.001

5. Copper as CuO 0 14 0003 0.06 0.002 e..Iron as Fe 20 3 029 0:0.11 0.34 0.01*3 7, Lead as PbO . 02 0. ooo 0.00 o.oo0

&. Lithium as LiU2 0.00 oo o0o0-ooo0.00 ...........

9. Magnesium as MgO 4.44 .0.220 0.15. 0.007 io. Manganese as0.01 0.000 0.04 0.001 1.. Nickel.as Ni 0:07 0.1002 0.02 0001.-

-2. Potassium___ as K20 0:07 0.002 -0.26. 0.006

13. Silica' as SiO 2 0:22 0.007 1.81 0.060

14. Silver -- i . Sd um as a Ag N a2 00 0.00

..... *0* "5 .......... ,o............

8 0.00 3.......

.3 0.000

.04:*.................... ....... ..... ..... ..... ....... . .. ........ ..... .................

i.Sodium as Na 0 0:25 6.0008 32.30 1.042

16. Strontium :as SrO 0.13 0.002 0.00 0.000

17. Tin- _ as sno 0,00 o_ 0.60 o.ooo 18.. Zinc . .. as ZnO 0.48 o0012 1.11 0.027 20., Boron as B40 6 000 :o0oo 0.00a

21. Carbonate as CO2 39.24 11784 0.00 2.Chloride :_as Cl U0.0 2n. Molybdenumr

4. teNitra as MoO 3 .............

~........... 0.00 0.000 . 0.05 . ....

..... 0.0o0 .......... .... . . ... .. . . . . . ... .

24. Nitrate ____ As NO 2 - __ __

.25. Nitrite as NO________

28. Phosphate ,as P205 : :0.14 .0006 1.72 0.073

27. Sulfate' as SO3 2.57 0964 59.58 1.488

. Tlltriazole aS, C7HsN: __

29. __ _ _ _ _ _

30*_. on Loss lg n iti__ . ..-..............-

31. Undetermined ___

.si,2U n dt e rm n e ..... .. ...... .. ..o-o- -------- - ..............................

2T*taC l 100.00 100.00. . 2.4-33.Chloroform Extractable ;2.661 1.861___ 2.40%. -___ __

Physical Properties and Appearance-

H-0--H CHEMICALS, INC.

500 SOUTH'VERMONT STREET PALATINE, ILLINOIS 60067 847/358-7400 FAX NO. 847/358-7082:

DATE: August 30, 2007 TO: Tom Armon FROM: H. A. Becker SUBJECT; Indiana and Michigan Power:Company" Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant I Cook Place, Bridgman, MI.

Analysis of reverse osmosis memibrane.

Dear Tormn Attached:'you will find our laboratory analysis lreports pertaining to the above referenced deposit sample(s), our laboratory number 28351.

I hope this information satisfies your requirements. If any further workior discussion'is needed, please get back to mre.

Very truly yours, H. A. Becker l-AB:Id Enclosure cc: Darius Barkauskas

LABORATORY REPORT - DEPOSIT ANALYSIS ICustomer No.: 1001392 H-0-H Chemicals, Inc. Regarding: Indiana and Michigan Power Company. Report Nb.:. 28351 500 S' Vermont St. Location: DonaldC.-:Cook Nuclear Plant Report Date: 8/30/07 Palatine, IL60067 1.Cook Place Analysis Date: 8/24/07 Bridgman, MI Sample:Date: ;8/23/07 847/358-7400 Reverse Osmosis.

Fax: 847/358-7082 from Treated Strearm of Test Mexel Riq

-~~~~~~~~~~~_____________________ rulu I cuuiyarwnis Percent 1 Zuuivarerns verceni j migivaignis Percent:i nuuiva;ernt .. ci ai. tuvi

1. Aluminum as A620 3 0.09 0.005

2. Barium as BaG '0.o00

3. Calcium as Ca- 0.01

4. Chromium as Cr2 0 3 COpper. as CuO 0.10 0.002 6.

Ilron

%-.-a.--. ........ . . . . . . .......... as FeAO 3 0.13 0.005 Lead__ as, PbO. :0.02 0.000 Lithium: as LU 0.00 20 0.000 Magnesium ...... as MgO 2.42ý 0.120 Manganese* as MnO 0,01 0.000 Nickel as Ni 0.02 --------1-.......

T -:.......:-

T "

Potassium as K20 :0.03 ----

0.00 1

.8.. Silica as SiC 2 0.19 0,006 Silver as Ag 2 0 0.00 0.000 15..

Sodium as. Na2O 0.004 I.

Strontium. as SrO ý0.14 0.003 Tin' as SnO 0.00 Zinc:. asZnO -0.03 0 .001 21.

0:000 Boron as B406

.0,0011 0.000 Carbonate: as CO2 40.11, 1.0o3 -----------

27.

Chloride as Cl Molybdenum- as'MoO 3 0.00

24. Nitrate as NO2

................... .:=

15,.

Nitrite.

as,, NO.

--,--.---v-v :

,Phosph!*ate .............as .P2o0 5 0.14 00016 230.

Sulfate .as SO3 3.01 0075 T0lyltriazole as CAH N.

Ignition Loss Undetermined 0:27 100.00 Total flhlnrnf~rm IPvfrnrtf*hlI_

Physical Properties and 1"wide cross-Appearance: section.

H-O-H CHEMICALS, INC.

5b00 SouTH VERMONT *STREET PAL .ATINE. ILLINOIS 60067 847/358-7400 FAX NO. 8471358-7082 TO: Tom Armon DATE: October 19, 2006 1001392 FROM: H. A. Becker

SUBJECT:

American ElectricPower Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 1 Cook Place, Bridgman, MI Evaluation of corrosion test-coupondata

Dear Tom:

Attached you will find our laboratory report pertaining to the above referenced corrosion coupons, our laboratory reference number 26910.

The rate0f corrosion experienced.by a corrosion. coup on is derived through a very precise determination of anyvWeight lossthat may have occurred as a result of exposure of the coupon to system conditions for a period of at least 30 days.

Given thedimensions of the test coupon, its material Of construction,,:and the time of exposure;weighit'loss data may be equated to an average thinning of the coupon.over its entire surface. Coupon corrosion rate data should be evaluated accordingto thefollowing criteria.

.Evaluation Steel Stainless Galvanized, Aluminum Copper Brass Excellent 0.00-0.99 0.00-0.24 z.00-0.49 0.00-0449 0.00-0.24 0.00-0.24 Good 1.00-2. 99 0.25-0149 0.50-0.99 0.50-0.99 0.25-0.49 0.25-0;49 Fair 3.00-4;99 0.50-0.74 1.00-1.99 1.00-1.99 0.50-0.74 0.50-0474 Poor: 5.00-6.99 0.75-1.24 2.00-3199 2.00-3.99 0.75-;1.24 0.75-1e24 Unacceptable 7;00-Over 1.25-Over. 4.00-Over' 4.00-Over 1.25-Over 1.25-Over Corrosion coupon data pertaining to this evaluation may be summarized as follows:

Coupon Days System Weight Loss Corrosion Rate No. Material Exposed Treatment Type :(Om) (MPY) Evaluation

1. TB751 Steel 43, None OnceThrough 0*6537 8.51 Unacceptable 2'. T-75K Steel' 43 A-432 Once Through 0.29.89. .3.89 Fair, I hope that this information satisfies your requirements. If any further laboratory work or discussion is, needed, please get back to me.

Very truly yours; H*A Becker HABIld

H-O-H CHEMN IICALS, I'NC 500 SOUTH VERMONT STREET PALATINE, ILLINOIS 60067 847(1358o74 . 8471358- 7082 NO. ZFX CORROSION TEST- STRIP TYPE' Please complete the'important information below, being sure toinclude your full company name-and address, andthe name`of your, H-O-H representative. Return comp!eted, form with the exposed test strip to our laboratory for determination ofcoirrosion rate. Laboratory data will .be relayed to you throUgh' your sales.representative upon completion.

CUSTOMER IDENTIFICATION,/ INFORMATION Company: American Electric Pbwer Address:' Donald.C; Cook Nuclear Plantq 1 CookiPlace Bridgman, MI Your H-OaH:Sales Representative: Tom Armon Water Type: Condensate Open Recirculating Cooling Water Closed x Once Through Other.

Treatment, None Llocatobn in System:ý Coupon rack on Mexel test rig installation Dat-T 8/30/06 Removal Date: 10/12/06 Hý

ýH-0 -LABORATORY DATA Test StripNo.: T-751 Metal: Steel DaysExposed: -43 Laboratory No: 269.10 WEIGHTS (in grams) Original: -16.9772 Final: 16.3235 Loss: 0.6537 Mils Penetration p6erYear (MPY): 8.51 CORROSION'DESCRIPTION:

x Severe MOderate' Slight Negligible x Even Uneven General Localized 4.0 Maximum Pit Depth (mils),.

H -O- H0iHENMICALS, I INC.

500 SOUTH VERMONT STRE ET PALATINE, ILLINOIS 60067 847/358-7400 FAX NO. 847/358-7082 CORROSION TEST - STRIP TYPE Please complete the important information below, 'being sure to include your fullcompany name and address, and the name ofyour H-O-H representative. Return completed form with the exposed test strip to our laboratory fo&determination of corrosion rate. Laboratory data will be relayed to you throughoyour sales repre-sentative uponmcompletion.

CUSTOMER IDENTIFICATION I INFORMATION Company: American Electric Power Address: Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plaint 1 Cook Place Bridgmani MW Your H-O-H Sales IRepresentative: Tom Armon Water Type: Condensate Open Recirculating.

Cooling Water Closed x QOnce Through Other Treatment: A-432 Location in System:ý Coupon rackon MeXeltest rig Installation Date: 8/30/06 Removal Date: 10/12/06 H-O-H LABORATORY DATA Test Strip'No.: T-75K Metal: Steel Days Exposed: 43 Laboratory No.:, 26910:

WEIGHTS (in grams) Original: 16.6354 Final: 16.3365 Loss: 0.2989 Mils Penetration per Year (MPY): 3.89 CORROSION DESCRIPTION:

_Severe x Moderate Slightý ,Negligible

_Even x Uneven General _ Localized 4.0, Maximum Pit Depth (mils)

H-O-H CHEIFMICALS, INC.

500 SOUTH'VERMONT STREET PALATINE, ILLINOIS&60067

-8471358-7400 FAX NO. 847/3587082' TO:: Tom Armon DATE:' November 7, 2006, 1001392 FROM:* H1 A. :Becke.r

SUBJECT:

American Electric Power DonalddC. Cook Nuclear.: Plant.

1 Cook Place. Bridgman, Ml Evaluation of corrosion test coupon data

Dear Tom:

Attached you will find our. laboratory report pertainhing to the above referenced corrosion coupons, our laboratory reference number 27022.

The rateof corrosion experienced by a corrosion couponis derived through a vetyprecise determination..of any weight loss that may haveloccurred as a result'of exposure of the coupon to system conditions for, a period of at'least;30 days.

Given the dimensionsof the test coupon, its;material. of construction, and the time of exposure; weight loss data may be equated to an average thinning of the.*coupon over its entire surface. Coupon corrosion rate data:should be evaluated accordding to the.following criteria.

Evaluation, Steel Stainless: Galvanized Aluminum Copper Brass, 0.00-0.99 Excellent: 01.00-0,24. .0.00-0.49 0.00-0.4A 0.00-0;24 0;00-0.24 Good 1,00-2.99, 0.25-49: 0;50-0.99 0.50-0.99 0U25-0.49. 0:25-0.49:

Fair 3.00-4.99. 0.50-0.74: 1,.00-1.99 1.00-1.99 0.50.0.74 0.50-0.74 Poor. 5.00-6.99: 0.75-1.24 2..003.99 2.00-3.99 0.75-1.24. 0.75-1.24 Unacceptable 7.0o-Over 1 .25-Over 4.00-Over 4.00M-Over 1.25-Over 1.25-Over Corrosion1coupon data pertaining to.this evaluation may be' summarized as follows:

Coupon Days System Weight Loss Corrosion Rate

.No:. Material Exposed Treatment Type. .(gm) . (MPY) Evaluation

1. T-75J Steel 43 A-432 Once Throiugh 0.2947 3.84 Fair,

2. T-75L Steel 43 None Once Through 0.6093, 7.94 Unacceptable I hope thatfthis information satisfies your requirements. If any further aboratoryiwork or discussion is needed, please get back to me.

Veryy truly yours,.

HA. Becker HAB/Id

H-O-H CHENICAL$, INC.

500 SOUTH VERMONT STREET PALATINE, ILLINOIS 60067 847/358-7400 FAX NO. 847/358-7082 CORROSION TEST -STRIP TYPE Please complete the important information below, being sure to include yourfull -company name and address, and the name of your H-O-H representative. Return completed form withjthe exposed test strip to ourlaboratory for determination of corrosion rateý Laboratorydata will be relayed to you through your sales representative; upon completion.

CUSTOMER IDENTIFICATION I INFORMATION Company: American Electric Power Address: Doriald C. Cook Nuclear Plant:

1 Cook Place Bridgman, MI YouroH-O-H Sales Representative: Tomn Armono Water Type: Condensate Open Recirculating

,Cooling Water Closed x Once, Through -Other Treatment: A-432 Location in System:

Installation, Date: 8/30/06 Removal Date: 10/12/06; H-O H LABORATORY DATA T.estiStrip No.:ý T-75J Metal:. Steel Days Exposed: 43 Labo ratory No.: 27022 WEIGIHTS (0i grams) Original: 17"I.117 Final: 16.8870 Loss: 0.2947 Mils Penetration per Year (MPY): 3.84 CORROSION DESCRIPTION:

Severe X Moderate _Slight Negligible:

Even x Uneven General Localized 5.0 Maximum Pit Depth (mils)

H-O-H CHEHICALS, INC.

500 SOUTH VERMONT STREET PALATINE, ILLINOIS 60067 847/358-7400 FAX NO. 847/358-7082 CORROSION TEST - STRIP TYPE Please completethe important information below, being sure to include your full company name and addressi and the name of your H-O-H representative. Return completed form with th.e exposed test stripoto otur laboratory for determination*

of corrosion rate. Laboratory data will be relayed'to you through your sales representative upon completion.

CUSTOMER IDENTIFICATION i INFORMATION Company: American Electric Power Address:- Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 1 Cook- Place Bridgman, Ml You r.H-O-H Sales Representative: Tom Armon

-waterType: Condensate: Open Recirculating Cooling Water. Closed x Once Through ._Other .... ..

Treatment:* None Location in Systemrn installation Date: 8/30/06 Removal Date: 10/12106 H -0G- H LABORATORY DATA Test StripNo.: T-75L Metal:. Steel Days Exposed:, 43 Laboratory No;!. 27022 WEIGHTS (in grams) Original: 16.8973 Final: 16.2880 Loss: 0.6093 Mils Penretration per Year (MPY): 7.94 CORROSION DESC'RIPTION:

_ Severe x Moderate%_ _ Slight _ _ Negligible x Even Uneven General Localized 8.,0 Maximum Pit Depth (mils) 1<

H-O-H -CHEMICALS, INC.

500 SOUTH VERMONT STREET PALATINE, ILLINOIS 60067T 847635874400. FAX NO. .847/358-7082 TO: Tom Armon DATE: January 8, 2007 10013912 FROM: H. A. Becker

SUBJECT:

American Electric Power Donald-C. Cook Nuclear Plant 1 Cook Place Bridgman, MI Evaluation of corrosion testcoupon data

Dear Tom:

Attached yoU will find our laboratory report pertaining to the above referenced Cdrrosion,coupons, our laboratory reference number 27212.

The rate of corrosion.experienced by a corrosion coupon is derived through a very.precise determination of any'weight loss.that may have;occurred as a result~of exposure of the coupon to system conditions for a period of at least 30 days.

Given thedimensions of'the test coupon, its materialof construction, and thetime of exposure; weight loss data may be equated to an average thinningof the coupon over its entire surface; Coupon corrosion rate data should be evaluated according to the following criteria.

Evaluation Steel Stainless Galvanized. Aluminum Copper Brass.

Excellent 0.00-0.99. 0.00-0.24 0.00-049' 0.00-0.49 0.00w0.24 i0.000r24 Good 1.00-2.99 0.25-0.49 0,50-0.99 0.50-0.99 025-0.49 0.25-0.49 Fair .3.00-4.99 '0.50-0.74 1.00-1.99 1.00-11.99 0.50-0.74 0.50-0174 Poor 5,00-6.99 0.756-1;24 2.00-3.99 2.00-3.99 0.75-1.24 0.75-1.24 Unacceptable 7.00-Over 1.25-Over 4.00-Over 4.00-Over 1.25-Over 1.25-Over Corrosion coupon data pertaining to this.evaluationnmay be summarized as follows:

Coupon Days System Weight Loss Corrosion Rateý No. Material .Exposed Treatment Type,. (gm) .(MPY) Evaluation

1. T-80P Steel 56 A-432 Once Through 0.4109 4.11 Fair

2. T-80Q Steel 56 None: Once Through 0.3446, 3.45 Fair

3. T-80R: Steel 56 A-432 Once Throug.h 0.6190. 6.19' Poor

4. T-805 Steel 156 None, Once Through - 0;3594. 3159: Fair hope that this, informationsatisfies your"requirements. If any further laboratory work or discussion is needed, please, get backto me..

Very trulyyours; H.A. Becker HAB/Id

H-O- C H EMIlCA L$, INC.

500 SOUTHVERMONT STREET PALATINE, ILLINOIS 60067 847/358-7400 FAX NO. 847/358-7082 CORROSION TEST - STRIP TYPE.

Please. complete the-important. information below,: being.sure to include your full company nameand address, and'the name of your H-O-H representative. Return completed form.with'the exposedtest strip toour laboratory for determination of. orrosion',.rate. Laboratory data will be relayed to you through your sales eepresentative upon completion.

CUSTOMER IDENTIFICATION I INFORMATION Company: American Electric Power.

Address:. DonUald,. Cook Nuclear Plant 1 Cook.Place Bridgman, MI.

Your H-O-H Sales Representative: Tom Armon' Water Type: ..... Condensate

Open Recirculating

...._ _ Cooling.,Water Closed x Once Through _ _ Other.

Treatment: A-432 Lbcation:in System: Test, rig.over Unit2 discharge. platforfmf Installation Date: l0/l 2/06- Removal Date: 12A7/06R

ýH ýH LABORATORY DATA Test Stdi No.: T-80P Metal: Steel;.

Days Exposed: ý56 Laboratory No.: 27212 WEIGHTS (in grams) Origihal: 17.1763 Final: 16.7654,.

Loss: 0.4109 Mils.Penetration Per Year (MPY):. . 4.11 CORROSION' DESCRIPTION:

Severe xA Moderate Slight ___. ___Negligible Even Ix Uneven 'General' Localized 0.5 Maximum Pit Depth (mils)

H"-O-H CHE'IICAL$, INC.

500 SOUTH VERMONTS'TREET. PALATINE, ILLINOIS 60067.

8471358-7410 FAX NO. 8471358-7082 CORROSION TEST- STRIPTYPE Please complete the important information below, beingesure to include;,your full company name and address, andthe name of your H-O-.H representative,. Return completed form with the exposed test strip to our laboratory for determination of c6rfosion rate. Laboratory data will be relayed to you through your sales representative upon completion.

CUSTOMER IDENTIFICATION /INFORMATION CQmpany: .American"Electric Power Address: Donald 0. Cook.Nuclear.Plant I Cook Place .Bidqman, Ml Your H-O-H Sales Representative,; Tom Armon Water Type' _ _ CondenSate Open Recirculating

_Cooling'Water Closed x OnceThrough _Other Treatment:' None Location in.System: Test rigoverunit2 discharge platform Installation Date: 10/12/06 Removal Date: 12/7/06R H .Hr LABORATORY DATA Test Strip No.: T-80Q Metal:' Steel Days Exposed: 56 Laboiratory No!: 27212 WEIGIHTS (ingrams) 17.2254 1Original:

Final: 116'.8808 Loss:- 0:3446' Mils'Penetration per Year(MPY):. 3.45 CORROSION DESCRIPTION:l

__ Severei x Moderate Slight . _ Negligible

'Even x Uneven Generali Localized 2.0 Maximum Pit DepthK(mils)

H-O-H CHEMICALS, INC.

r I7 o 500 SOUTH VERMO -NT STREET PALATINE,.ILLINOIS 60067, 847/358-7400 FAX NO. 84,7/358-7082 CORROSION TEST - STRIP TYPE Pleasecomplete theimpqrtant information below, beihg sure toinclude your full company name and address, and the, nameof yourH-O-H representative. Return completed form With the exposed test strip to our laboratory for determination of corrosion rater Laboratorydata will be relayed to you through your, sales representative upon completion, CUSTOMER,!DENTIFICATION/ INFORMATION Company: American Electric Power Address: Donald Cý Cook Nuclear Plant, 1 Cook Place Bridgman, MI Your H-T-H Sales Representative: Tom Armon Water Type: Condensate Open Recirculating:

Coolingl Water Closed x Once Through Other Tieatment: A-432 Location in System: Test rig over unit 2discharge platform Installation Date: 10/12/06 , Removaq Date: 12/7/06 H :. H LABORAORY DATA.

Test Strip No.:, T,80R Metal: Steel Days Exposed:- 56 Labo ratory No;: 272112:

WEIG H-TS (in grams)- Original: 17.3501 Final: 16.731.1 Loss: 0.6190 Mils Penetratio0n per Year (MPY): 6.19 CORROSION DESCRiP.TION:

i x Seve~re Moderate, . Slight __ _ Negligible'

x. Eveni _ Uneven General Localized 1,5 Maximum Pit Depth (mils) nn

H-O-H CHEHICALS, INC.

500 SOUTH VERMONT STREET PALATINE ILLINOIS 60067 8471358-7400 FAX NO. 8471358-7082 CORROSION TEST - STRIP TYPE Please complete the important information below .being sure to include your full company name andaddress, and the name of your H-O-H representative. Return completed form with the:exposed test strip to our laboratory for determination of'corrosion rate. Laboratory data willibe relayed to you through your sales representative upon completion.

'CUSTOMER IDENTIFICATION I INFORMATION Company: American Electric Power Address: Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 1.Cook Place Bridgman, MI Your H-O-HoSales Representative: Tom Armon Water Type: %Condensate _Open Recirculating

. Cooling Water - -_ Closed Other X Once Through None; Treatment:

None:;

Location .inSystem: Testrig over unit 2 discharge platform Installation Date: 10/12/06' Removal Date:. 12/7/06, H H LABORATORY DATA Test Strip: No::. T-80S Metal:. Steel Days Exposed: .56 Laboi ratory No.: 27212 WEIGIHTS (in grams) original: 16.9964 Final: . 16.6370 Loss:: 0:3594 Mils Penetration per. Year..(MPY): , 3.59 CORROSION DESCRIPTION:

_Severe x Moderate Slight Negligible

Even. x Uneven General Lo calized

.0.5 Maximum. Pit Depth. (mils)

\O~~ I

H-O-H CHEMIICALSo, INC.

500 SOUTH VERMONT:STREET PALATINEj ILLINOIS 60067 847/358-7400 FAX .. 84. 35. 082 TO: Tom ArmoniDarius-Barkauskas DATE: September 12, 2007 1001392

.FROM:: H.A. Becker

SUBJECT:

ý Indianaiand Michigan, Power Company Donald C. Cook;Nuclear .Plant 1 Cook P!ace Bridgman, Mi Evaluation of'corrosion test coupon data

Dear T-om.1Daribs":

Attached you will-find our laborator-.report pertaining to the above referenced corrosion cdupons, our laboratory~reference number 28856.

The rate of corrosion experienced by ýa corrosion coupon.is derived~through.a very precise determination of'anyweight loss that may have-occurred as a result of exposure' of the coupon to system conditions for a period of at least 30 days.

Given the dimensions ofthetest coupon, its matera of cofistruction,*and the-time of exposure; weight loss data may be equated.to an average thinning of the coupon ovqe itstentire surface. Coupon. corrosion rate data should be evaluated according;to thefllowifn criteria, Evaluation steei Stainless. Galvanized Aluminum Copper Brass, Excellent 0.00-0.99 0.00-0.24 0.00-0.49 0.00.0.49 0.00-0.24' 0.00-0.24 Good 1.00-2.99 0:25-0.49i 0.50-0.99 0.50-o.99 0.25-0.49 0.25-0.49.

Fair 3:00-4.99 0.50-0.74 1.00-1.99: 1.0041.99- 0.50-0.74 0:50-0.74 Poor 5.00-6:99 0:754.24 2.006-.99' 2.00-3199 0.75-1.24 075-1.24 Unacceptable 7.00-Over. 1.25-Over 4.00-Over 4:00-Over 1.25-Over 1.25-Over Corrosion coupon data pertaining to this evaluation maybe summarized as follows:

Coupon, Days System. Weight'Loss Corrosion Rate No. Material Exposed Treatment. Type. (gm) .(MPY). Evaluation 1., T-83K Steel 200W Mexel Once Through 0.4594 1.29 Good

.2; T-83L Steel 200 None Once Through 0.4761' 1.33 Good I hope that this informnation Satisfies your requirements. If any furtherl aboratoryWork or discussion is needed, please, get back toý me.,

Very truly yours, H.A. Becker HAB/id

H-O--H CHEMICALS, iNC.

50.0.SOUTH VERMONTSTREET PALATINE,,ILLINOIS 60087 a47/358-7400 FAX NO. 8471358-7082 CORROSION TEST-- STRIP TYPE.

Please complete the important information below, being sure to includeyour full company name and address', and the name of your.H-O-H.representatiVe. Return completed form with the exposed test strip to our laboratory for determination of corrosion rate. Laboratory datawill be relayed.to you through your sales representative uponcompletion.

CUSTOMER IDENTIFICATION 1/INFORMATION Cýompany: Indiana and Michigan Power Company Address: Donald C, Cook NUclearPlant 1 Cook Place Bridqman, Ml Your H-O-H Sales Representative:: Tom Armon/Darius Barkauskas Water Type: __ _Condensate. _ _Open Recirculating"

"__ _ Cooling Water -_ Closed X Once Through Other _

Treatment: Mexel Location in System. Test rig over unit.2 dischargeplatform Installation Date:. 2/4107 Removal Date: 8/23/b7R H H-LABORATORY DATA Test Strip No.: T-83K Metal: Steel Days Exposed: 200 Labo ratory No.:. ' 28856 WEIGP ITS (in grams). Original: 17.3728 FinaF, 16.9134 Loss: 0.4594 Mils Penetration per Year (MPY): 1.29 CORROSION DESCRIPTION:

_._,,,___Severe x Mbderate., ._..... Slight Negligible Even X "Uneven " General ' Localized 0.5 Maximum Pit Depth (mils)

~9C)

H-O-H CHEIM4ICAL$, INC.

500 SOUTH VERMONT STREET PALATINE ILLUNOIS 60067 8471358-7400 FAX NO. 8471358-7082 CORROSION TEST - STRIP TYPE!

Please complete the important information below, being sure to include your fiull c6mpany name and address, and the name of your H;O-HHrepresentative. Return completed form With the exposed test strip to our laboratory for determinatibn of corrosion rate. Laboratory data will be relayed to'you through your sales representative upon completion.

CUSTOMER IDENTIFICATiON I INFORMATION

,Company- Indiana and Michigan Power Company-Address: Donald C. CookNuclear Plant 1 Cook, Place Bridgman, MI Yur&1H-O-H Sales Representative- Tom ArmonDarius Barkauskas:

WaterType: Condensate Open Recirculating Cooling Water Closed x Once Through Other.

Treatment:; None Location in Systerni Test rig over uniit 2 discharge platform Installation Date: 214/07 Removal. Date: 8123/07 H -0a- H LABORATORY"DATA Test Strip No.: T-83L Metal:. Steel Days Exposod. 200 . Labo ratory No.: . 28856 VVEIG"HTS (in grams) Original: 1.7.2034 Final:. 1617273 Loss: .,0,4761 Mils: Penetration per Year (MPY): 0.50 CORROSION DESCRIPTION:

Severe: Moderate -Slight Negligible Even Uneven General *____Localized Maximdm Pit Depth (*is) t

APPENDIX 8 Assessment Number:, SA-2003-REA-003-QH-i Assessment.Dates:12/15/03.to 01/25104, Condition Report: CRT03344013 Assessment Topic:* Zebra MusselrMonitoring and Control Program Lead Assessor: Eric Mallen Peer Evaluator: Richard F. Green, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Reviewed B y/ Oq Apporval ?IAhAIjui 1 Lead Assessor I Date Responsible Managemerft/Dae" Executive Summaryý introduction!

The Zebra Mussel Monitodng and Control program Is dictated by the requirements described within AEPO:NRC: i104, Generic Letter 89-13; Service Water SystemProblem Response Action hem .:Contiol f ServiceWaterSystem Biofouling. The plant requirements currentiy exist as,

.commitments within'the NRC Commitment Database and are implemented by ENVI-8913 Rev. 3.

Zebra Mussel Monitoring and Control Program. This program document satisfies the objectives of Generic Letter 89-13..

One crlticalattdbute of the program document was reviewedIn -this self-assessment. This attribute being, maintaining the6intake tunnel zebrarmussel infestations to <2 inches to mihimize dumpsbreakinng off and challenging the traveling screens and systems downstream. A preventivetreatment strategy using adaily bidcide applicatitn specified in Step 4.7.,.Chenica-Control Methods, of E'VI-8913,.Zebra Mussel Monitorngand ControlProgram was-employed!n 2003'to control zebra mussel infestation In the Intake tunnels. The self-assessment will determinetihe efficacy'of the'preventive treatment strategy In Its being able to control zebra mussel n6,festations In the Intake tunnels.

Results in*atneral terms,

'The objectives of the self-assessment were achieved. Mr. Richard Green. a peer evaluatorfrom the Constellation Energy Nine Mile Point Nuclear Plant In charge of their zebra mussel monitoring and control program assisted In the self-assessment. IntervIews were held-with Ms. Carol Grandholm, a contract zebra mussel monltoringtechnician, an d Mr. WiliamrJung, a contract chemicalapplications engineer for GEBetz. Reviews of Reqiuest for Proposals and chemical vendor responses, letters of request for blocide approval and responses from the MDEQ, the application procedure, settlement monitoring system and data, chemical residual blo-box'and unit discharge data, and personnel interviews were valuable In assessing the crilical attWbute.

Primary Chal*egnes Results ofAdiVing inspectionsof the North and Center Intaketunnels reveaIled that zebra mussel infestations were S2 Inches on the tunnel walls. From review oftheblo-box settlement data and discussions, this infestation level.was kept In check for the most part via tunnel flow (6-7 ftJsec) as opposed to the chemical treatment- Results from the preventivebiocidetreatments were not as favorable as expected due to; 1) Very restrictive MDEQ discharge limits (706 ppb), 2) Low system demand that was available to reducethe discharge concentration In the unit discharges.

and 3) Inadequate dilution flow due to the intake fbrebay design not providing a perfect 2/3 reduction In concentration before the effluents are discharged. Despite these restrictions to the preventive treatment regime, zebra mussel sloughage from the IntaketunnelsIn 2003 was NgpeIlo~f P,

c '

managed by the traveling screens without impacts to components downstream..The plant should continue to maintain an aggressive posture In controlling zebra mussels In the intake tunnels to prevent under-deposit corrosion of the tunnel wails, and prevent an event that occurred at the Palisades Plant(OE #11308, 611612000) where an unexplained die-off of mussels from the plant's intake tunnels occurred resulting in large'clumps of mussels being swept into theintake bay and challenging the traveling screens.

Assessment Strenoths None Assessment Findings and Prescdbed Corrective Actions, None Recommendations-and Proposed Actions

1) The preventive treatment program was Implemented as designed. There are no findings but

a. recommendation to review this assessment with peers and vendors to develop a more effective chemical preventive treatment program, mechanical cleaning, or revisit targeted shock treatments to the intake tunnels.

2), The peer evaluator noted that the blocide application procedure could be enhanced Including more contingencies into the procedure such as strainer pluggage, power reductions' etc. The biocide application procedure 12-EA-6090-ENV-109, Intake Tunnel Molluscicide Treatment should be revised to includethese contingencies.

3) Investigate the possibility of Installing a in-Situform"r sock as a means of making the tunnel walls smooth. This technology Is employed often ln the repair to sewer lines.

4) investigate a non-chemical means of controlling zebra mussels In the Intake tunnels via hypoxia, The tunnels could be shut for a period of time to deplete the dissolved oxygen level to the point where the mussels suffocate. The use of sodium bisulfite could bee used to hasten the oxygen depletion process and minImize the tIime period that the tunnel was removed from service.

Areas Fbund AcceptabLe

1) No spill eVbnts or chemical discharge exceedences 0ccrred during the application period.,

Thevendor and plant proved that the preventive blocide application could be controlled within its MDEdf permitted conditions. This is the first known zebra mussel preventive blocide application of this grand a scale performed In the U. S.

2) The settlement monitoring system was able to provide feedback as to whether the settlement goal was being achieved. An upgraded blo-box pumping system Was used for the first time uring this project. This design was able to perform reliably for four months as opposed to one month as inthe past.

3) Many lessons were learned. A betterknowledge ofour intake tunnel corrugated pipe design being conducive to zebra mussel settlement due to the eddying effect of the pipe corrugations is better understood. The demand and dilution characteristics of the lake water and Intake forebay are better understood, eof 1P 13

Objectives and Scope.

The objective of thls-self-assessment-was to assess the effecitiveness of the preventive treatment strategy using a daily or other periodic biocide application In implementing the required action specified In Step 4.7.1 Chemical Control Methods, of ENVi-8913, Zebra Mussel Monitoring and Control Program. This attribUte being:

Maintaining intake tunnelzebra mussel infestations <2iniches to minimize clumps breaking off and challenging the traveling screens. These requirements are:

a) Requests for proposals and responSes were adequate for successful treatment.

a Chemical feed and lab analysis.,

Performance monitoring,

, Training and qualifications.

a Procedure development.

Material and system compatibility.

Compliancewith regulations.

b) Letters requesting approval ofthe blocide that were sent tthe state requested, applications In a manner that-would achieve a successful treatment.

Review state authorzation letter and compliance with the letter.

c), Procedure 12-EA-6090-ENV, 109, Infake Tunnel Molluscicide.Treatment, was revised to incorporaterthe new treatment procedure and met the requirements of' ENVI-891,3.

d)- The settlement-monitorlngsystem wasable to provide feedback as to whether the settlement goal-was being achieved. This g0al being that no more than10%

of the post-veligers measured'on the slides would exceed 500 microns.

e) Chemical'residuals were monitored in the blo-boxes and' unit discharges. No spilleVentsW or chemical discharge exceedences-occurred during the applicaudn period. The chemical residuals specified by the Vendor were achieved inthe intake tunnel bi0-bOxes.

Attdbute evaluation was performed by:

1) Review of Request for Proposals and responses from Chemical Vendors.

2) Review of letters of request for biocide approval and responses from the MDEQ.

3) Review of procedure 12-EA-6090-ENV-109,. Intake Tunnel Molluscicide Treatment.

4) Review of settlement monitoring system and data.

5) Review of chemical residual bio-box and unit discharge data. -

6) Personnel Interviews.

Page 3 of 13

Assessment Methbdology Mr. Richard Green, a peer evaluator fiom the Constellation in charge of their zebra mussel monitoring and control Energy Nine We Point Nuclear Plant program assisted in the self-assessment.

Interviews were held withMs. Carol Grandholm, a contract and Mr. William Jung, a contract chemical applications zebra mussel'monitoring technician, engineer for GEBetz. Reviews of Request for Proposals and chemical vendorresponses, letters of request for blocide approval and responses from the MDEQ, the application procedure,settlement data, chemical residual blo-box'and uni discharge data, monitoring system and Performance&Observation Program (POP) ob§ervations, condition reports, Operating Experiences were performed. A site tour was given to the peer evaluator (OEs), and personnel Interviews plant systems and lay-out, and equipment used for for him to gain familiarity with the the project. The peer evaluatoralso hadthe opportunity of observing Ms. Grandholm performing standard method zebra mussel countsron artificial substrates during his visit.

Self-Assessment Team.

Mr. Richard Green, a peer evaluator from the Constellation In charge of their zebra mussel monitoring and control Energy Nine Mile Point Nuclear Plant program Jon Namer, a Cook Nuclear Plant Environmental Supervisor assisted in the self-assessment.

and objectives of the~self-assessment and reviewed applicableassisted In developing the Scope.

Experience events. EricMallen, a Cook Nuclear Plant condition reports and Operating Mussel Monitoring & Control Programowner, was responsible EnvironmentalSpeclalist and'Zebre of self-assessment team members,,developing scope for the overall planning, recruiting and objectives, scheduling, coordination, and writing the self-assessment report. All self-assessment assessment report and comments were Incorporated team, members eviwed the self-herein.

Assessment of Critical Attibutes.

1. Maintaining intake tunnel zebra mussel Infestationsto breaking off and challenging tie traveling screens S2 Inch6s tO minlmizeclumps via a preventive treatment strategy using a diaily¥or other periodic blocideapplication.

a) Requests for proposals and responses were adequate for successful treatment.

Request for proposal RFP23525 was sent out to three pro-bid meeting was held on Jan. 14, 2003 and proposals vendors for bids on December 20, 2002. A The RFP requestedvendors to provide a proposal to were received on February 7, 2003.

furnish materials, equipent, andI management oversightto provide a non-oxidizing chemical colonization in the circulating water Intake tunnels. The treatment to prevent zebra mussel sothat the accumulation of zebra mussels In the tunnels treatment strategy was to be structured did not Impair plant operation. The treatment season was to run from April I thru November recommendations. The tunnels were to be treated sequentially 30UP subject to the vendors dilution water supplied by the two untreated tunnels during as to take advantage of the the treatment Chemical detoxification was not desired for the prpoject. Plant labor was originally envisioned perform the lab analyses; however in addition, theplantrequested to operate the system and the vendor to'provide this service of which we opted that an option be provided tfo to take.

The plant wasto perform a cumulative settlement study'during zebra mussel monitoring vendor. A goalwas set that the treatment season with their no more than 10%.of the post-veligers measured on the slides during the treatment season would exceed 500 microns.

Page.4 of3 13

The vendor was to work with the plant to develop a site application procedure and supply the plant with analytical procedures for determinling both process and discharge effiluent chemical residual concehtrations. The vendor was to evaluate the treatment chemical formaterials compatibilIity to ensure there would be noimpact to plant seals, gaskets, structures, and piping components. The vendor was to also determine and report Impacts if any that the chemical might have, on the Plant's Make-up Plant and the chiemicalbeing used simultaneously with continuous, chlorination of the service water systems.- In addition tomeeting the above criteria, award of the contract wasicontingent upon approval by the MDEQ to use the vendor's-chemical at the Cook Plant.

Bids were evaluated on their technical merit, the chemical's ability to be approvedby the MDEQ for use at1Ithe Cook Plant in the manner being proposed by the vendor, and cost.

The three chemicals that wereevaluated Were GEBetz Spectrus CTi 300, Ondeo-Nalco EVAC, and HOH Chemicals A-432 (Mexel)..

The A-432 (Mexel), would have required longer lead times for delivery due to its beingiproduced in France. The proposed method for delivery to the.onsitebulk tank utilized plant compressed air to pressurize the delivery tank: This methodis Unlke methods used at the piant, as the delivery trucks are equippeddWith theIr own chemical off-loading system. Static mixers were also proposed~tobe locatsd between the dilutionwatersupply header and the screenhouse connection points to the 3-Inch PVC chemical feed lines which route tothe intake cribs. This arrangement would have possibly needed additional supports, and would have taken up additionaliscreenhouse floor space. The-CT1300 and.EVAC productsare prduced inthe U.S.

and have been used successfully in the past at-Cook Plant.,

The proposed treatmentlreglmes for CT1300 and A-432 were quite compeilingdue to their.

relatively short durations. The proposed application rate for the CT1 300 was 1.5 ppm for"2 hrJday per tunnel and theA-432 was 2-2.25 ppm for 20-30minutes per dayper tunnel. The EVAC treatment regime was less desirablelat 0.25 ppm'for'4 hrs./day per tunnel. iThe:CT1300 and A-432wemr the most competitiveas far as cost was concerned. CT1 300 was selected for the project based onltechnical, cost, and MDEQdlscharge suitability, the last~of Which will be addressed later in this report.

Afllthreevendors evaluated their-products for compatibilitywith the Plant's Make;up Plant, component materialseand continuous chlorination of the service water systems. None, anticipated any problems posed by their products In the concentrations and durations being applied. None anticipated problems with the Make-up Plant provided thepre-treatrnentisystem was working as designed. A problem with the Make-up Plant R/O membranes being plugged by colloidalfmateral was had during the daily CT1300 applicatiorns. A conrsultant from Water&

Power Technologiesi Inc. hypothesized thatthle R/O element failure was due to the addition of,

,the CrT300,o which is a very surface-active cationic surfactant He thought-that CT.300 modified the negative surface charge of the col.oids In the Water and/or the negative charge characteristics of the poly-amide R/O membrane surface. This allowed the colloidal material to come out of suspenSion-and grow larger and plate out on the RIO membrane. It wasthe opinion Of the consultant that neither the vendor staff, Cook Nuclear Plant, nor himself, could have foreseen the occurrence of this situation in advance. The application procedure needed to be rpevsed to use the Lake Township Water supply during periodswhenthe CT1300 was being appl!ed.

During the first few applications, Chemistry reported that they were seeIng an increase in circulating water system demand andhavihg to.raise chlorine residuals during the'period of biocideinjection. ItUis surmisedthat the blocide was stripping off bio-mass causing an Increase- in demand during the period of blocide addition. As such, the intermittent chlorination of the.

circulating water system was scheduled and completed before the 6-hr. bioCide application each day.,

Page $of!3 5

'o:1

b) Letters requesting approval of the biocide that were sent to the state requested applications in a manner that would achieve a successful treatment.

Letters of request for the two most competitive products, A-432 and CTI 300 were sent to the MDEQ for review.

A letter requesting the use ofA-432 was sent to the MDEQ, Surface Water Quality Division on May 22, 2003 (2003-690). The request was In accordance with the-vendorlsbld proposalto apply the blocide Independently to each tunnel up to a maximum concentration of 3.75 ppm for up to.30 minutes each day during the vellger spawning season to remove existing mussel colonies and to prevent further settlement. This would result In three 30-minute discharges of A-432 out each Unit's outfall (001 & 002) averaging 0.5ppm with no one sample exceeding 075 ppm. as measured at each outfall's near shore sample point. The MDEQ replied in a letter dated May 29, 2003 (2003-744), that based on the toxicity information available for A-432, a discharge concentration of 0.5 ppm will exceed the daily maximum discharge concentration of 0.021 ppm that had been established for the prodUkdC. They in turn disapproved the application under the conditions set forth in our May 22, 2003 request letter. The vendor has since run additional toxicity testing on A-432 and isengaging the services of a Michigan water quality lab versed, in the state procedures todevelop a higher discharge limit for the product.

A letter requesting the use of CT1300 was sent to the MDEQ, Surface Water Quality Division on May , 2003,(2003-596). The request was In accordance with the vendors bid proposal to apply the b6oc6de Independently to each tunnel at a concentration of 1.5 ppm.for up to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months each day durnthe veliger spawning season from April thrn November. Theýreuest described that there woUld be imperfect ingdue to the preference of effluents from the North intake tunnel'to be discharged out the Unit1 Dischargetunnel (Outfall 001) and the effuents fmmthe South Intake atunnel 1 ppmto discharge be discharged out the unit2 concentration Dischargeattunnel as measured ( 0utfall002)and each outfall's approval sample point wth awas 10:1sought mingfor

zone.

Discussions were had with the MDEQ and Environmental management and it became apparent that the MDEQ wasdnotgoing to applh a mixing zone tothe Propsed descarge concentration2 without further demonstraon. SubsequentY, the CT1300 vendorwas able to Prsenttoxicity data to theMDEQ to support raising thedischarge lt from 0.038 ppm to 0.070 ppm. In a letter to the MDEQ on June 12, 2003 (2003-803). the Plant modified Its request to apply the biocide independently" to each tunnel for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months measured fromneachoutfall's sample poinper day~with the resulitng t to exceed0.070 discharge ppm. concentrationi The plant as:

als statedthat letter dated June 13, 2003(2003-839), the MDEQ granted peirnisslon to discharge up to 0.070 ppm of CT1 300 from each outfall for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months per tuninel per day with no changes to the mixing zone.

It is implrtant to note, and will be discussed furtherin this rmpor, that the final discharge n concentratIonthat was granted by te MDEQ was much lower(by aafactor of 14X) thancenhat was requested bythe plant. Therefore, the possibility of a successful trewatent 6ucome Was jeopardized by theestsrctive discharge limits granted by the MDEQ. It was thought that even at

'thee ws ao~sbilty o Inreaingthenfoing:ppeto 5baed'n sudie byAldn Lbs.Iwa this lowconcentration, there Would leter bateseoe p effet Jue on the zebra mussel larvaeIn 1i 2031,00-119),theMDE grnte'pemisionto iscarg.thatthe ulo tunnels;

.07

,would exhibit unde.eath theanadult environment Opm orf CIhous mussels not 30 fomprtoel thatconducive would- use eck utfll to settlement er~dy Wth~o cangs tothernlin!

and anover them to release effect on the slime layer time.t mPaglonfl3

~t

c) Procedure 12-EA-6090-ENV-109, Intake Tunnel MoliuscicideiTreatment, Was revised to incorporate the new treatment procedure and met the requirements of ENVI-8913.

Revision 4,of 12-EA-6090-ENV-i 09, Intake Tunnel Molluscicide Treatment Was issued on June 20,2003. The revisIon incorporated-a method to perform preventive treatments to the intake tunnels on a routine basis that are targeted at the microscopic settlement stage of the zebra; mussel. ItWas expected that applying a biocide on a daily or other routine schedule does not necessarily kill'the zebra mussel, but provides an unsuitable environmental for it to settle and colonize asystem. The scope of this-procedure revision isrconsistent with pare. 4.7.1a. of ENVI-8913 Rev. 3, Zebra Mussel Monitodng and Control Program, that states; "A preventive treatment statey. using daily or othrperiodic biocide applications Is under evaluation'. Revision 5 of 12-EA-6090-ENV-109 was Issued on supply for the Make-up Plant from July 29,2003 to provide a method for switching the water the.NESWto LakeTownshipwater dung the period of blocide treatments so that theLNESW treatedwaterdid notenter the Make-up Plant and cause fouling of.

the RIO membranes. Both procedure revisions pefo'rmedas expected.

The Peer evaluatorcommented that In reviewing the site bicide procedure 12-EA-6090-ENV-109, IntakeTunnel Molluscicide Treatlment, that the .MDEQ limits for preventive treatmentsLwere not mentioned In the pr.oedure. We explained that the MDEQ granted permission to perform preventive treatments late In thespring of 2003. Because of this late approval,we purpseily did not state the type of biocide to. be used.or the actual discharge limit values, butreferred the user to the limits as specified in the MDEQ'S approval letter.:

TheiPeer evaluator also commentedithat more contingencies are Written Into their site biocide procedure than wererienuded in ours e.g. lossof power, loss of heat exchangers, etc.

A condition report search for the years' 2002 and 2003 was performed-on the key wordsearch,

'Detailed Condition Description' =mussels or clams or CT1 300 or molluscicde,. The search, produced four condition reports (CRs 02159030 of 6/8102, 02290055 of 10/17/02, 03079007 of 3120/031& 03326033 of 11/22/03) related to traveling screen carryover of mussels and debris due to spray nozzles being plugged ormisaligned.. One of the screen panels on 2-OME-43,4 (CR-02159030 had broken screen mesh due possibly to corrosiodi. It Is important to note that this degraded mesh condition due to corrosIon was identified later as a failure mechanism in the fish Intrusion event:of April 2003 (CR,031 14044). All condition reports Were classifiedW'OR' (Operations Review) at the 0900 Plant Managers meetings and concluded 'thatthe WorkControl Processis adequate to resolve this issue and no furtherevaluations are needed In this CR1, New miultldiskdesign traveling screens (12-RPA-5191).made of matedalsthat are corrosion resistant

.and result lnzero carryover, have been tested and'are planned forinstallation In 2004. The 2003 preVentive .biocide treatment hadhno noticeable effect on traveling screen carryover;.

The original treatmenrtschedule of Apnrl 1 thru November:30 subject to thevendors' recommendations could not be met. This was due to the late MDEQ approval of the chemical discharge received on,6/13/03 which Impacted an earlier start, and WMO-17 needing t0'be cldosedtosupport. Intake forebaydiving operations in November during the Unit I Refueling Outage which cut off two weeks toward the end. Even If the blocide had been deemed effective, this reduced schedule window would have had little Impact, as the first zebra mussel peak spawn, of 185,500 veligers Per cubic'meter (Attachment 2) did not occur until 6/19/03anid we started the.

daily bicide treatments shorty thereafter on 6125/03. When It was confirmed by'divingj inspections of the Center-and North intake tunnels during the Unit'l Refueling Outage that the, biocide applicationswere having iittle effect, t was decided that continruing theblocide' applications would'be of little value. Insteadi we opted to concentrateour efforts into ensurng that all needed screen house diver cleaning activities of the Intake forebay were completedduring the Unit 1 Refueling Outage. Should preventiVe treatments be considered In the.future, a blocide application schedule of May 1 thru November 30". schedule should be considered similar to the schedule for service watertsystem contlnuous chlorination.

tage 7 1f 13'

d) The settlement monitoring system was able to provide feedback as to whethetr the settlement goal was being achieved. This goal being that no more than 10%

of the post-veflgers measured on the slides would exceed.600 microns.

The plant had prior experience with a sampling system that consisted of placing 8 gpmn well-,

pumps down the Intake tunnel manways and feeding extension cords and tygon tubing through the plant perimeter fence to direct the water flow to bio-boxes placed on a table on the west wall of the screenhouse. These blo-boxes would then drain to the Intakeforebay. In previous shock treatments, the blo-boxes were,seeded with live adult zebra mussels and left exposed to the treated water from the Intake tunnels during the treatment.. The efficacy of the treatment could be assessed by;counting the number of live and dead zebra mussels in the blo-boxes In-the days that followed the treatment. -WithIn two weeksI f1oowing thetreatmenti, the count was completed.

The blo-,boxand well pump'arrangement also served as a sampling system for the treated water to determine the biocide residual. This system worked quite well forthe approximate 4-weekI period it Was called upon to pump water for chemical shock treatments.

The challenge was to either find a new pumping system or upgrade the existing system to pump 24/7 for 8 months in a 6-71/sec. intake tunnel flow. Our previous experience was that the well pumps would typically give out after one month of continuous operation. This short running life was difficultto accept, as well pumps In ahome can last in excess of 20 years. After an, evaluation, an air operated diaphragm pump was tested. It would not lift the 14 f11head from the, water surface to the screenhouse grade and the idea was discarded. An Environmental Technician explained the problemwilth the well pumps to our well pump Supplier and he was able to recommend fitting out our well pumps:with aPVC sleeve and a wire reinforced tubing length with a screen at the end. This assembly'allowed the well pumpto remain submerged In the water:

that rose Into the manway, but out of the swift flow ofthe, Intake tunnel. The wire reinforced tubing and screen extended down Into the Intake tunnel flow. The flow of water rushing pas.tthe pump motor and Into the pump Inlet cooled the *motorand greatly enhanced its running life. This configuration Is similar to how awell pUmpis situated within avWell casing(..

For the settlement study,. test tube racks filled with microscope slides were placed into the blon-

,boxes to serve asartilfcialsubstrates to monitor settlement in each of the North, Center, and Sbuth Intake tunnel manway blo-boxes. For a control, microscope slides placed in test tube racks surrounded by metal cages were attached to a weighted rope anddeployed In the center of the Intake forebay west of the trash racks.

The system was set up In mid-June and operated continuously until early October when flow was observedto be diminishing on the North Intake manway blo-box. About a week later, fioWrwaS observed to.be diminishing on the South intake manway blo-box. The North and South pumps were replacedwithrnew pumps and the Intake scmens-and wire reinforced tubung.was cleaned and backflushed. From this experience it can be concluded that the pumps have a pumping.life of about 4 months before they wear out. Inthe future, well be able to anticipate this diminished performance, and schedule a pump changecut before It occurs.'

The settlement monitoring system did provide feedback as towhether the goal of no more than 10% of the settled .post-veligerswere greater than 500 mlcronswas being met. Referringto the chart (Attachment 1), with the exception of the 10/30 sample on the North intake Tunnel Manway bio-box, the average size range and individual average size Increased In all bio-boxes. Within abouta month (7123) after commencing the daily treatmentsithe South Intake Tunnel Menway, bio-box showed that 14% ofthe settled post-veligers counted Weregreater than 500 mIcrons.ý By:

the next sample date on 8/7 all of the test blo-boxes showed more than 10% of the settled post-;

Veligers greater than 500 microns. The Control slides did not show more than 10% of the settled post veligers greater than 500 microns untilo10/2. This could have been due toqthe fact that thedse slides were getting a longer duration though'!ower concentration exposure being that these slides, Page.8of13

were positioned downstream of the Intake tunnels, or that they Were suspended in'-a flow as opposed to the slides in the bio-boxeswhere the flow was virtually stagnant. At any rate, the, samplingsystem was able to determine whether the goal of no more than 10%.of the settled.

post-veligers were greater than 500 microns was being met. The sampling results~showed that the goal was not being met.

During the monitoring season, discussions were had as to whether the~blo-boxes simulated the conditions in the intake tunnels, being that the flow rate through the tunnels'was6,7 ft/sec. and the flow rate through the blo-boxes was virtually stagnant. Running the sample stream through a smallscale corrugated'pipe was discussed, however-the volume of water pumped by the sample.

pumps would have had to be much greater to simulate the 6-7 ftJsec. flow rate. This was discussed with the peer evaluator dudng the self'assessment who explained that our pipe corrugation-design creates small eddies or low flow areas on the downstream side of the corrugation which causes zebra~mussel'settlement;. This being the case, the bio-boxes do simulate the eddies orlow flow areas inthe pipe whereozebra mussel settlement occurs. itwas surmised by the evaluation team that ifour Intake tunnels were smooth, therewould be little Ifany settlement Inthe tunnels at a flow rate of:687ft.sec. This is the .casewith the Nlne Mile PoInt 2 intake concrete tunnel. The peer evaluator reported that they only-see settlement at the joint gaps where eddies occur inthe concrete tunnel.

Video diving Inspection tapes were reviewed with the Peer Evaluator from the Center and North Intake-tunnels performed inthe fall of 2003. These were ;ompared with the diving Inspection

'performed on the North Intake tunnel inthe spring of 2002. The 2003 Inspection results show that-there arettwo layersiof'3/8"zebra mussels growlng~on the,downstream side of the corrugatlonsand beginnlng to fill the Invert of the corugation, From these tapes, the Peer, Evaluator was able'to develop a theory as to how mussels Infest the intake tunnel Inthe presence of a high flow-velocity (6-7 ft./sec) through the tunnel., He stated thatmussels settle.duetothe pipe being made of corrugated.steel. Flow velocity Ismuch lower along the tunnelwalls, probably onthe order of -2'ft./sec. Eddies are created on the downstream side of,the corrugation that allows iarvai~and juvenile mussels to settle and accumulate onI the'downstream sideof the

corrugation. These settled mussels intum move the eddy further downstream and allow mussels to settle and eventually fill Inthe entire inverted corrugation. This eddying effect could be*-

mitigated by making the tunnel walls smooth. He mention the possibility of Installing a Irn-SituformW sock as a means of maklngtheltunnel walls smooth. This isldone by introducing an epoxy sock at one end of the tunnel and allowing itto expand out to the tunnel wails and harden inplace. The result iSasmo0th'plping surface. He reported thatthis technology is employed often In the repair to sewer lines&

Twenty (20) Performance Observation Program observations (POPs)'ýwere made in2002and 2003 on the zebra mussel monitodng and chemical apprications vendors. This POPs entailed observing these persons 'performing tasks on various aspects of zebra mussel monitoring and blocide treatments. No performance'deficiencies were determined from the review of the POPs.

Asit~ tour was given to the peer evaluator for him to gain familiarity with the plant systems and lay-out, and equipment-used for the project. The peer evalUator also had the opportunity of observing Ms. Grandholm performing standard methodzebraemussel counts on artificial substrates during his visit. The peer evaluator concluded that the equipment used for the project.

was consistent With Industry practices for performing zebra mussel monitoring and:control. Itwas also concluded that Ms. Grandhoim'was using the standard protocols for determining zebra mussel counts and sizes on artificial substrates.

Page:9 Of 13

e) Chemical residuals were monitored In the blio-boxes and spill events or chemical discharge exceedences occurredunit discharges. No period. The chemical residualsspecified bY the vendorwere during the application intake tunnel bio-boxes. achieved In the Attachment 2 shows the daily chemical residual data collected boxes. This data was taken from Data Sheet I of procedure Inthe IntakeltunnelmanWay blo-Tunnel Molluscicide Treatment. The daily blodde treatments 12-EA-6090-ENV-109, intake were tunnelsfrom June 25,2003 until October 28, 2003. Daily treatmentsperformed on the Intake as the emergency service water gate WMO-17 needed to were stoppedafter this date diving and MOV maintenance-workduringL the Unit I Refuelingclosed to accommodatevoutage be resumed on November 19,2003 to deplete the chemical Outage. Daily treatments were thatremaIned In the semi-bulk container and flush the System. The tunnels were treated daily for 113 days.,

The MDEQ discharge limit of 0.070 ppm (70 ppb),Was never within the tunnels had to be kept low during thebeginning exceeded. Chemical residuals of the season, but could be raised as circulating water system demand Increased as warmer lake blooms, and In the fall, turbulent lake conditions resulted water temperatures led to plankton in more material In-suspension., The highest chemical residual obtained during the treatment season tunnel on October 13,2003. The average chemical residual was 298 ppb In the CenterlIntake concentration for the 113 day period measured in the North Intake Tunnel Manway blo-box was Manway blo-box It was .102 ppb and for the South Intake 66 ppb, for the:Center Intake Tunnel Tunnel In theirproposal, the chemicalvendor recommended that 1.5 Manway. blo-box Itwas 64 ppb.

hours per tunnel per day. At best we Were able to deliver ppm (1500 lppb)beo:applied for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months per day, lthe Center tunnel. Therefore; thechemical an average residual of 102 ppb1for 2 not achieved as measured Inthe intaketunnel blo-boxes. residualspeclfied by the vendor was The blocide vendor believes that flow In the tunnel atea velocity Therefore, the blocide distribution in the tunnel Is homogeneous.of 6-7 ft.isec Is turbulent by the tunnel corrugations. The low concentration of chemical The velocity profile is disturbed treatments is either not getting down in the lower dips Inthe being applied during preventive corrugations due to the eddy effect or existing mussel populations remove the available chemincalresidual exposure., The chemical. never reaches the-slime layer between and recover from the thus mussels do not release from the tunnel walls. the mussels'and the tunnel wall,.

Upon his retum to Nine Mile Point Nuclear'Plant, thePeer Evaluator discussed our corrugated steelintake pipoedesign with their system engineers anddevelopedthe Regardless of pipe corstruction, the normal velocity profile following theory.

would be lower at the tunnel wall. The pipe corrugations-magnify this effect resulting In stratification tunnel wall with the bulk flow. Any chemical reSidual in thislow of the boundary layer of water atthed quickly consumed by the chemical demand from mussels, Velocity boundary layerwould be slime, andsediments residing on the.

pipe walls and not replenished by-the chemical residual experienced in the past while doing shock treatments. In the bulk water flow. This has been When we brought the chemical residual

up slowly In a swiftly flowing Intake tunnel it would take a long time'to overcome the chemical demand. Conversely, where welve brought the chemical chemical demand is quickly overcome, and We can easily residual concentration up quickly, the.

maintain aresidual concentration In the tunnel:

In contrast, good results can be achieved when performing temperatUres'2>68 degrees F by slowing the Intake tunnel shock treatments in water circulating water pumps In run during outage periodS. Thisflow using a stoplog or having, fewer alIows the higher concentration (4-6 ppm) bioclde better contact with the mussels residing Inthe tunnel corrugations and results In a Page,10 of 13

better kill. Decreasing flow velocity-in the intake tunnel may decrease theeddy effect at the tunnel walls and result in a chemical 'soak type* envirohment; During the self-assessment, the Peer Evaluator mentioned a non-chemical means of controlling zebramusselsIn the Intake tunnels via hypoxia. The tunnels could be shut for a period of time to deplete the.dissolved oxygen level to the point where the mussels suffocate. The useof sodium bsulrtecould be used tohasten the oxygen depletion process and minimize the time period that the tunnel was removed from service,.

A restrictive MDEQ discharge limit ofý 0.070 ppm, aslow circulating water system demand especially early In the season, and an inadequate dilution of the Intake tunnel effluent before being discharged to the lake Impacted our ability to achieve the vendors recommended residual concentrations within the-intake tunnels.

A discussion of this inadequate dilution phenomenonis worthy for purposes of planning future treatment strategles of this kind, Intake tunnel residualdata Was comparedwith'the corresponding Unit I and Unit.2 discharge data from October lr17',j 2003. Both unitswere In operation~durng th!stme period andthe clruating water system wasin Itsnormal'alignment with all threetunnels open and tunnel flow rates in'the 6-7 ftsec.'velocity range. Underperfect mixing'conditions, one would expect a 2/3-(67% reduction) dilution of the Intake tunnel effluent when it mixes with the two untreated tunnels before being-discharged to the-lake. HoWever, due to the-plant's intake forebay design, this is not the case. Because of the baffle wall configuration

'In the Intake forebay and the uneven-number of circulating water pumps (3 for U1 & 4 for U2),

effluents from.the North Intake tunnel have a preference for being discharged out the Unit I Discharge and effluents from the South Intake tunnel have a preference foirbeing discharged-out

,the Unit'2 Discharge tunnel. Due to the additional circulating water pump on:Unit 2, effluents -

from the Center lntake tunnel have a tendency to be drawn toward the Unht-2 side of the Intake forebay and be discharged out the Unlt%2 Discharge. A percentreduction of the Intake tunnel residuals dueto mixing 'and system demand.wasdeterminedfor thisdata and Is presented below:-

Tunnel'Treated %Reduction in % Reduction In Average Reduction In Effluent Concentration Effluent Concentration Effluent Concentration Dischargedfrom Unit Discharged from Un it' Discharged from Both

.... __1__.. 1 ... 2 Units North 3 15 9

-Center- 60W 61 61 1South 18, 12 15 The bestpercent'reduction in effluent concenthationd n the plant discharges occurs when treating the Center Intake tunnel (61%). Very little reduction In effluent concentration-occurs when treating the North (9%) or the South (15%) Intake tunnels. One should be cognizant of these percent reductions in-effluent concentrations when planning future preventive treatment applications.

Summary Site Request for Proposal and Contracting procedures were used to obtain a chemical vendor to supply-chemical, equipment, and laborforthe project. The cTI300treatment was selected for the project based on technical,-cost, and MDEQ discharge suitability, Two unforeseen issues arose as a result of using-the product. A problem with the Make-up Plant's R/O membranes being plugged by colloidal material was had during the daily CT1 300 applicationsI itwas the opinionrof an Independent make-up plant consultant-that:Oneither the vendor staff, Cook Nuclear Plant, nor himself, could have foreseen the'occurtenceb ofthis situation Inadvancer,. The applica on procedure needed to be reVisedto use the Lake;Township water supply during periods when the CT1 300 was being applied. Also, during the first fewapplications, Chemistry reported that they were seeing an increase Incirculating watersystem demandand having to PageIltofI3;

raise chlorine residualsduring the period of blocide Injection. This was remedied by scheduling the daily biocide treatments after the daily intermittent chlorination treatment to the circulating water system.

Letters'of request for the two most competitive products, A-432 and CTI 300 were-sent to the MDEQ for review. The letters requested use of the products In accordance with the vendors' recommendations described In their proposals. The MDEQwould not approve discharge of the products as recommended. The plant elected to submit a request to the MDEQ and obtained approval to discharge the CTI 300 product at a much lower concentration (0.070 ppm) than specified In the vendor's proposal., It was thought thatevenat this low concentration, there would be someeffect on the zebra mussel larvae in that the tunnel would exhibit an environment not conduciveto settlement and have an effect on the slime layer underneath the adult mussels thatz would cause them to release Over time. The low concentrations applied to the intake tunnels did not have this expected effect.

Plant procedure 12-EA-6090-ENV-1 09, IntakeTunnel M01luscicideTreatment, was revised to incorporate the new treatment procedure and met the requirement of ENVI-8913. The procedure had to be revised again to provide *a method for switching the water supply for the Make-up PIant from the NESW to Lake Township Water dubing theiperiod of blocide treatments so that the NESW treated water did not enter the Make-up Plant and cause fouling of the R/O membranes.,

Both procedure revisions performed as expepted. The peer evaluator commented that more contingencies could be written into our biocide addition procedure e.g. loss of power, loss of heat' exchangers, etc.

The settlement mbnitoring system was able to provide feedback as to whether the settlement

.goalwas being achieved. This goal being that no more than 10% of the post-velgers measured on the slides would exceed 500 microns, An upgraded blo-box pumping.system was used for the "fitsttime during this project. Thls'deslgn was able to perform reliably for four months-as opposed to one month as ,in the past. The sampling results showed that the goal was not being met.

Chemical residualswere monitored in the bio-boxes and unit'dlscharges. No spill events or chemicaldischarge exceedences occurred during the application pedod., The vendor and plant proved that the preventive blocide application could be' controlledWithin its MDEQ permitted conditions. Save for spent analytical reagents, there were no waste application products to dispose of at the end of the project. The chemical residuals specified by the vendor were not achieved in the Intake tunnel blo-boxes, because of the MDEQ discharge !imits being too l0W, low circulating water system demand, and inadequate-dilutiondue to the flow characteristics In the..

intake forabay.

Strengths Nonei Areas Found Acceptable

1) No spill events or chemical discharge exceedences occurred during the application period; The vendor and plant proved that the preventive biodde application could be controlled within Its MDEQ permitted conditions. This Is the first known zebra mussel preventive biocide application of this grand a scale performed In the U. S.

2) The settlement monitoring system was able to provide feedback as to whether the settlement goal was being achieved. An upgraded blo-box purnplng system was used for the first time during this project. ThIs design was able to perform reliably for four months, as opposed to one mMonth as in.the, past..

ag of 13' 9Ai

3) Many lessons were learned. Abetter knowledge of our Intake tunnel corrugated pipe design being conducive to zebra mussel settlement due tothe eddying effect of the pipe corrugations Isbetter understood'. The'demand and dilution charactedstics of the lake water and Intake forebay are better understood.

Findings None Reponmmendations

1) Review thls assessment with peers and vendors to develop a more effective chemical preventive treatment program,minechanical cleanIng, or revisit targeted shock treatments to the intake tunnels.I

2) The peer evaluator noted that the blocide application procedure could be enhanced Including more contingencies into the procedure such as strainer plugging, power reductions etc. The biocide application procedure 12-EA-6090-ENV-109, Intake Tunnel Mollusclclde Treatment should be revIsed to Include these contingencles.

3) Investigate the possibility of installing a In-Situform7msock as a means of making the tunnel walls smooth. This technology is employed ofthenIn thebrepair:to sewer lines.

4) Investigate a non-chemical means of controlling zebra musselslin the intake tunnels via hypoxia..The tunnes could be-shutfora prod of time to depletet dissov oxygen level'to the point where the mussels suffocate. The use of sodium bisulfite could be used to hasten the oxygen depletion process and minimize the time period that the tunnel was removed from service.

Page 13 of 13 \9)

Attachment'l ZEBRA MUSSEL SETTLEMENT MONITORING RESULTS 2003 PREVENTIVE TREATMENT North Intake Tunnel Manway DATES 7112003 7117/2003 7/23/2003 8/712003 8/2112003 91412003. 9/1812003 10/2/2003 10116W2003 10/30/2003 Density 15,467 74,311 108,800 782,933 249,493 958,720 >914 TNTC (1) 130,844 Size Range (1L) 200-.330 200-460 160-830 200-1490 200-1190,. 230-3300 200-4290 230-4030 260-1600 300-1190 AvglSize (I) 248 304 352 472 357 611 941 1026 752 '522

>500 p . .0 3 '10 8 13 13 34 36 .23

.%ý500 P. 0o 0 6 20 16 26 26 68 72 46 Center Intake Tunnel Manway DATES -711012003 7117=2003 7M230/203 81712003 812112003 914=2003 911812003 101212003 1011612003 1013012003 Density 4,000 25,244 41,600 300,267 TNTC 1,040,000 >9/4 TNTC (1) 228,267 SizeRange (p) 200-400 160-600 160-700 ,200-1160 200-14W0 200-1550 200-3130 200-3070 230-2110 230-4290 Avg Size(p) -242 264 301 446 400 403 550 678 674 852,

>500 i 0 ,3 2 14 8 -4 8 19 24 28"

% >soojl 0 '6 4 28 16 8 16 38 48 56 South Intake Tunnel Manway DATES 7!1012003 7117/2003 712312003 .81712003 8121/2003 .9/41200 9/1812003 101o 0 10116/20o3 10/3012003 Density 23,467 -79,289 98,667 509,333 TNTC 702,933 >9/4 TNTC 168,533 - 172,089 Size Range (pI) 160-360 160-600 160-830 230-1420 200-3140: 200-660 200-1190 200-1980 230-2400. 300-2145 Avg Size,(p) 244 321 362 436 499 385 398 422 557 860 0: 13

>500 It 7 9 8 5 9 11 25 32

% >50o0p 0 6 14 18 16 10 18 22 50 64 Control Forebay DATES 7/10/2003 7/17/2003 71232003. 8712003 81=2003 914r003. 911812003 1012/0 1011612003 10130f2003 Density ND 159,467 149,333 358,400 2j383,200 1,553,600 1,888,500- 1,565,300 406,933 404,000 Size Range (p) ND 200-460 160-400- 200-430 200.530 230-500 230-600 23D-730 330-930 300-1680 Avg Size(IL) ND 273 288 315' 357 355 364 376 547 623

>500 I.1 ND 0 0 0 -1 .0 1 8 17 23

% >500 IL ND 0 0 .0 2 0 2 16 34 48 ND - No-Data TNTC - Too.

NumerousTo Count (1).- Too Mych Deus Page 1 oial

Attachment 2 2003 PreVentive Treatment Blocide Residual & Zebra Mussel WhoIle Water Monitoring Results Date North Center South.

CT-1300 CT-i300 CT-1300 Whole-u4,'l wh/ yO/ 'Water 5/1/2003 - - 75 5/8/2003 - 50, 5122/2003 - , - 2,075 5/2912003 -275 10 61512003 16..i97-5 6/19/2003 - -1 8-6§1-500 6/25/2003 55 ' <50 60 ND 6/26/2003 . 50 <50 55 10,725

.6/27/2003 55 <50 50 ND 6/28/2003 70 70 70 ND 6/29/2003 50 50 50 ND 6/30/2003 90 80s 90 ND 711/2003 65 65 50. ND 7/212003 70 85 95 ND 7/3/2003 105 80 110 120,750 7/4/2003 ,95 110 100 ND 7/5/2003 65 <50 .ND ND 7/6/2003, <50 ,,50

-50 ND 7/7)2003 ,<50 <50 '<50 ND 7/8/2003 80 <50 50 ND:.

7/9=2003 - - - ND 7/10/2003 - 107600 7/111/2003 "

- - ND 7/12/2003 85 120 90 ND 7/13/2003 82 70 88 ND 714/2003. 70 80 80 ND 7/15/2003 68 87 63 ND 7/16/2003, 62 80 59 ND 7/1712003 54 'ý65 - 55' 60.500 7/1812003 67 99 69 ND 7/10/2003 - ND 7/2026031 - - - ND 7/21/12003 ° " - ND 7/22&2003: - - ND 7/23/2003 - -331750 7/24=2003 72 1286 -.72 ND 7/25/2003 - ND, 712612003 .. _ - - ND 7/2712003 - ". - ND 7128/2003. - - - ND 60 99 56 ND 7/29/2003 7/30/2003, 52 131 86 ND Page Iof4

Attachment 2 7/31/2003 771 52 571331.000 811/2003 65 81 65 ND 8/212003 53 98 55 ND 813/2003 54ý 868 52 ND 814/2003 <50 76 <50 ND 8/5/2003 <50 70 <50 ND 8/6/2003 53 73 56 ND 8/7/2003 <50 89 55 18050 818/2003 51, 89 <50 ND 8/9/2003 :56 76 <50 ND 8/10/2003 53 94 56 ND 8/11/2003 51 89 <50 ND 8/12/2003 <50 67 <50 ND 8/13/2003 61 83 58 ND 8/14/2003 60 90: <50 450000 8/15/2003r 57 74 .50 ND 8/16/2003 58 127 62 ND

/817/2003 82, .72 89 ND 8/18/2003 76 119 74 ND 8119/2003 74 84 80 ND 8/20/2003 68 88 56 ND 8/21/2003 76 139" 68 926,400 8/22/2003 81 113 84 ND 8423/2003 . 76, 167 54 ND 8/24/2003 64 95 72 ND-8/25/2003 64 92 . 80 'ND 8V2612003 60 102. 56 ND

8/27/2003- 67 163 . 66 ND 8/28/2003 . 87 169 62 88100 8129/2003 . 57 182 57 ND 8/30/2003 931 180 175 ND 8/31/2003 72 159 91 ND 911/2003 75 110 67 ND 9/2/2003 <50 86 <50 ND 913/2003 88 138 "7 ND 9/4/2003 <50 60 511 .i3,950.

9/5/2003, <50 118 63 ND 9/6/2003 55 . 60 <50 NDO 9/7/2003 556 5 53 ND 9/8/2003 55 . 75 53 ND 9/9/2003 <50 132 <50, ND 9/10/2003 60 <50 63 5,925 9/11/2003 .80 102 81 , .ND 9/12/2003 . 56 80 55 ND 9/13/2003 57 110 75 ND

<50 50 k60 N.ND 9/1!4/2003.

9/15/2003 <50 60, <50 ND V91I12003 51 89 55 ND Page2 of 4

Attadhment 2 911712003 58Its 149 531I ND 9/18/2003. 79 125 59 37,650 9/19/2003 70 134 70 ND 9/2012003 72. 120 61 ND 912112003 50 128 <50. ND 9/22/2003 100 108 <50 ND 9/23/2003 50 103, 55 ND 9/2412003 95 105 75 ND 9/25/2003 <50 134 <50 21,025 9/26/2003 52 90 52 ND 9/27/2003 55: 105 <50 ND 9/28/2003 <50 130 54 ND S9/29/2003 .<50 <50 <50 ND 9/30/2003M <50 70 52 ND

.1011/2003 82 73 67 ND 1012/2003 <50 <50 <50 ,

10/312003 58 98 63 ND 1014/2003: 50 204 <50 ND 10/512003, <50 110 57 ND 10/6/2003 75 70 100 ND 10/7/2003 75, 72 100 ND 10/8/2003 8631 89 50 21,625 10/9/2003 65 265 '91 ND 10/10/20031 <50 112 <50 ND 10/11/2003' 67 '193 72 ND 10/12/2003 50 1921 <50 ND 10/13/2003 69 298 64 ND 10/14/2003 51 117 <506 ND,

.10/1 5/2003 <50 , 93 <50 ND 10/16/2003 62 89 71 36,425 10/17/2003 50 130 57 ND 10118/2003 <60 130 '<50 ND, 10/19/2003 - - - ND 10/20/2003 <50 <50 <50 ND 10/21/2003 <50 <50 .<50 ND 10/2 2J20 03 <50 141 <50 ND 10/23/2003

- ND 96 82 ND 10/24/2003 ND 166 75' NDI 10/25/2003 104 166 161 NDI 10/26/2003 209 183 131 ND 10/2712003 190 73 83 ND 10/28/2003 94 89 90 ND Page 3.of 4

Attachment 2

_ North Center South Max. 209 299 16i Avg 6 102 64 Min. <*50 <So 5so 0 _

No Treatment ND No Data Page 4 of 4

Attachment 3 Self Assessment Plan Assessment Number. SA-2003-REA-0030QH AsSbssment Topic: Zebra Mussel Monitoring and Control Program 1.Scope of Assessment.

Evaluate the effectiveness of the preventive treatment s-tategy using a daily or other periodic blocide application in implementing the required action specified In Step 4.7.1 Chemical Control Methods, of ENVI-S913, Zebra Mussel Monitoing andContro Program. This action being maintainingintake tunnel infestations k 2 inches tominimize dumps breaking offend chalenging the traveling screens and systems downsMtrearr. ENVI-8913,:Zebra Mussel.

Monitoring and Control Program satisfies one of the objectives of NRC Generic Letter 89413, thatbeing Action 1- Flow Blockage andBlofoufing MonitoringlConttol.

2. Expectations ofthe Assessment.

A'review of contracting activities, obtaining an MDEQ discharge permit, procedure revision,

equipment mobilizatIon and Operation, and chemical residual and settlement results monitbring, will reveal any program weaknesses in the goal to maintaln intake tunnel infestations <2 Inches to minimize clumps breaking pff and challenging the traveling screens and systems downstream.

3. Critical Attributes:

The'Planfintake tunnels were'treated dally with awbiocide to control zebra growth in the Intaketunnels to<02 inches.

-a)' Requests for proposals and responses were adequate for successful treatment

Chemicalfeoed and l6b analysis.

Performance monitoring.,

Tralning and qualifications.

Procedure development

Material and system compatibility.

Compliance wlthlregulations.

b)Y Letters. requýting approval of the biocide that wiere sent to the state requested applications in a manner that would achieve a successful VeatmenL

Review state authorization letter and compliancewith the letter.,

c) Procedure 12-EA-6090-ENE-1 09, Intake Tunnel Molluscicide Treatment' was revised to incorporate the new treatment!procedure and met the requirements of ENVI-8913*.

d) The settlement monitoring system was able to provide feedback as.to whether the settlement goal was beintg achieved. This goal b:eng that no more than 10%

of the pcst-veligers-measured'on the slides would'exceed 500 microns.

e). Chemical residuals were monitoredIn the bi0-boxes andunit discharges. No spil events or chemical discharge exceedences occurred during the application period. The chemical residuals specid bythe vendor were achieved in-the Intake tunnel.bc-boxes.

,Page :1of 2"

Attachnment, 3:

Attribute evaluation will be performed by:

1) Review of Request for Proposal and responses from Chemical Vendors.

2) Revlew ofletters of request for blocide approval and responses from the MDEQ.

3) Review-of 'procedure 12-EA-6090-ENV-109, Intake Tunnel Molluscicide Treatment.

4) Review of settlement monitoring system and data.,

5), Review of chemical residual bb16-box and unit discharge data.

6) Personnel Interviews.

4. OrganIzatlons to be NotWfied:

1. Environmental and contractors

5. Assessment Schedule:

Start 12/10/2003 Completion: 01/30/2004 Milestones-12/3/03 - Arrange for a peer evaluator 12/5/03 - Collect data and send out familiarization packet topeer evaluator-12/10-.Peer Evaluator Arrives from New York. Introductions, Site ToUr, Review of Data 12/11 - Interview wlthCarol Grandholm.

12/1 1-Interview with. William Jung, .Complete data collection.

1116/04 :- Draft Assessment Report Complete..

W/30104 - Final Assessment Report Complete.

6.Assessment Checklist:

1. Perform introduction swith peer evaluator and familiarization With Cook Nuclear Plant.

2. Tour of screenhouse and vicinlty for understanding of equipment placemient and sampling activities.

3. Review of Request for Proposal and responses frtomchemical vendors.

4. Review of letters of request for biocide approval and responses from the MDEQ.

5. Review of procedure 12-EA-6090-ENV-109,'lntake Tunnel Molluscicide Treatment.

6. Review of settlement monitoring data..

7. Review of blo-box and unit discharge chemical residual data.

8. interview with Chemical Vendor - Willliam Jung

9. Interview with Settlement Monitoring Technician -Carol Grandholm, 10! Discuss concluding remarks with Peer Evaluator.

LeadAssessor: Eric Mallen Team Assessor: Jon Hamer Peer Evaluator: Richard Green, NineMile Point Nuclear Station Reviewed By ~ / /~r pprovedByI 3 Lead'Assessorl Date Re nsible Management/Date Page 2 of 2

APPENDIX 9

,1

Cof TECHNICAL A NALYSIS REPORT Indiana Michigan Power Company Donald

' C. Cook Nuclear Plant One Cook Placei Bridgman, MI 49106 Juldy.28,2003 Walter & Power T~e-d'no~gi es,fur, ob# 757 EArth Tech Contract NumlberA-1'94844 3740 West 1987 Southi Sat LAC City, Utah 84104 Phone: (1) 974-5500 vkix (801) M97393 WW~wpt~coni

\_

0:a1818 U U Z TECHNICAL ANALYSIS REPORT July-28,2003 INTRODUCTION This repont summarizes the findings and recommendations from the conslting servces.

conducted by Water &Power Technologie Inc. (WPT) for Indiana Michigan Power Company(AEP), Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant in.Brkdgman, Michiga Blair:Zordell of Indiana Michigan Power Company. ordinated the consuting. seces.

wPT and Nonnan Norvele would likJeto thankJay Adamis John.Caron Jr., Jonathan Cross, Jon Hlze, Eric Mallen, Tom.i Summers, Jeff Weam, and Blair Zordeil for their time and efforts duringthis consulting service.

BACKGROUND Indiana Michigan Power Company (AEP) owns and operates Donald C., Cook Nuclear Plant, an electcic facility in Bridgman, Michigan. The water at this facility is suppliedfromLake Michigan. Water teatmentplantuedwateri s LakMichigan wateuthat i'sprovided hum the plantsno-n-e'ssen'tial service water. Supple0ental revemi osmosis (P.) system feedwater can bepurchased frm theLake Township water supply.

Th water fteaftnt plant provides high'pufrfy mke-up water for the steamgeneration plant and .oterplt needsTh watau* mtpl*t isof a standard designusmng pzireiatment a 2-stage RO system~ and a three-bd,= deicu iersstemi (cation exchange, anion exchanger, and mixedbed) with a acm degasifier. Overall, the 1"system mn RO system has provided eliable serviceand opermions.

. rm trg ions and operaiona.l conditions..

necessitateda diffen*t water treatment prgrm orzebra mussel courbL A biMocide fibm GE.1Betz (SpearsC 1300)was chosenfor an ealuation'thatcomniýc on June25,2003- Within one week theRD sygstemý 14 soag fbed rsm nraed over 100%/.'The MDelements were, chemically cleaned andthey retutned tooigienal performance. After refturing to service thcyimmeately fiulyed again w'ahintwwo-weeks following ead*fio of thi biocide*,

the RO elements failed due to high diflenhl pese.Also, salt rqection decreased.

A decrease fin saltrejcto is a-Jfailure of the me Mbrn torjqmtepasg ofsalt i,ons.

This isoibsered and measured by an increase inrm c, which is usually an increas in permeate dlissolvdsolids.

The e t w plac One"a fth*eROede mw it,toAvista Technologies, Incf*.r a membrane autopsy. GE Betz pafmed micrombological analysis ofthe*ater. Anoui consultant and&co ig seMrvie (Water & Power Water & Pow Technologies. Inc. Page 2 of IS

' 3

03188002 Technologies, mc) was retned to assit wiM a recommendation. The pupose of ths consulting service was to address the following concerns:

I. Find probable cause ofhigh differential presstue in reverse osmosis (1O):system.

2. Find probably cause ofdcreased salt rejection (uinc permeate conductivity).

3. Provide recommendations to resolve high differential pressures.

4. Provide recommendations to prevent future decrease membrane salt rejection.

INFORMATION"& DATA The following inbOrmation and data were used to write this report

1. On-site plant meein& discusion of water system operation, review of data, and

'walk down of system on July 15, 2003 with operatlor% eineers, supervisors, and other technical stafftodiscuss operational problems and R)Osystem failure.

2. Follow-up m" fting and exitmei repot on uly 16,2003.

3. Betz brn MawtAl Safety Data SheekEffecive Date 27-of-1988.s

4. Ondeo Nalco EVACMolHusk Contl Tieatm Confidential Product Profile.

5. Cook Nuclear Plat Poced ur Numbe 12-OHP-4021-062-01 Rev.3A,

Title:

ReversemOsmosis Operations.

6. Cook Nuclear Plant ProcedueNumberN 12-OIP-4021-062-012 Rev. la, TYide:

Revere Osmosis Membrane laing.

7 Change of Procs Notification for NPDES Perit No. M10005827 dated October 28,1996 Meining to two modifications of RO unit and dry lay-up ofboiler.

S. Process printout of data and charts ofRO System for past three weeks.

9. Make-Up Plant Flow for Cook Nuclear Plant 1-0-1 Chmicas- # B0903.

10o Lake Michigan Water Analysis Summay and plaatotak water analysis.

11. Cook Nuclear Plnt, Infrmation PM -2291- - Rv. Data Sheet 1.

Troubleshooting Control For Plant, (Pages 25-30).

12. GE Betz Microbiological Aalyi LabotoyI: 83416, Repoted 14-JRL-2003, Cook Nudemr PlantAEP CORP.

13. Avista Membn Au"o Repo AE3P at Cook Nwh Plant, July 2003

14. Betz letter ofJanuary 4,1994from W.K. ek to R oMos, wvoith alttchment, petining to wam-Tio CT-2 and CT-4 products.

15.ýEmal mm .C. Malln tofWroam J an w-lbur e c e g di mIea-tisudft addition to rteCtinank

16. Printed o tiled, "Bjncde Teatment, i Coriati Make -

UpPln Opcrzting PlaALt.ý 17,HawlG..]T'dC * .y OFA 9M - VanNostrand Reinhold Company. 1977.

is. WhitGo.Cliflbrd. THandlxokofC!kinationandAUfk aive' D.sit ecftwzI Ee Van Nostrand Renold Company. i992..

19.]Kim,Pulsig Ymng-Hn.1995.'

C ua~ ntawndF&=a dm- heoyaqPra=6. TallOas

20. AWWA. 'O=peinalCotnhuof Coagulaionwrd~iratinPwcesse(AWWA M. mIM37). t'Ed American Water Works Association. 2000.

Water & Power Technologie Inc. Page,3 of8 I

21L Byrneý Wes. Rewverse Osmoisis -A.Prawical Guide.For ndusfial Users 2 E4 K Tall Oaks Publishing Inc- 2002, 22.,Fditec TecdlumcaMwm* The Dow Chemical. Cbman. 1995.

WATER TREATMENT PROCESS I -

Reactio iTar*

en~nuiLi Mukkeda Frain Syte I

-Ie) I 2sets.of3

-1 *beds' OBSERVATIONS &,FMIINGIS

.1. The. existin Rd systan was deIsigned and biiltyby oics, Incorpone&

2. The R0 systemcbnsistsftwo sepa*eparal-eski -EmEchrytm is a two-stage design consisting of09.pr e vessels in thc firststage an46,pressr vessels in the second stage. There ar 6 elements per r essurevessel

3. The RO elmets areDowFilmtec membran( BW30-365), wch are high.

surface ame brackih Water RO delenkes.

4.T*i RO.pereate flow ranges from 250-305 gpm and RO reject

5. l r er w all RO5= e tu Lake biclU a And Hrqur a permit.

6. The RO system process has been succefd Waed for many yea with few*!*blms

'Water & Pwer Technologies.. Inc Page 4 of 18 5 -.

0,318,88002

7. Nonnal make-up for the water treatment plant is raw water from Lake Michigan with an alternative supply available fiumthe lake township municipal supply.

8. The LakeMichigan raw water quality is very good with an average temperature of22C (720F). The water has a positive LSI and could frmncalcium carbonate scale without pHadjustment with acid or scale inhibitors, 9.. The RO system feedwater p1H is-adjusted with sulfiuic acid to a pH of 5.7- 6A to prevent'scaling and overallidepositionon the RO element membranes.

10. GE Betz peformed-a microbiological analysis of the ;aw lake water (July 14h).

and found that overall the water contained only low lemvlsof biOts.

J1.. A new biocide program for zebra mussel control was s*a Iedon June25

12. The biocide used was GE Betz Sctus CT1300 (alkydimethyl benzyl a n chloride). This is also known as an ADBAC qua.

13'. About 70 ppb cfactibiocide is injected for about 6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months per day. It takes about Ior 5-30 minutes the biodderto dear the forebay.

4. Within several days after the addition ofthe e~wwbiocide there was!a rapid increase. in* dstage sit denitmide, (sl):feed pregum, diffe*

SDIwasg.atrthan n *i*re sinthe RO a fedwat.

desst stae and in

15. The SD lfor e raw l w is ty pcally 1'A , andfor iz meae municipal water 3-3 4. With'the addition ofthe biocide the SDI'was >5.

16. ITe biocide appeared to.rquire about 4-6 days to migrt thugh the water treatmnent system and produce, high pressures inthe RD system 1i'stae.o

17. RO system failure resuled fiom hydraulic ptun and failure ofthe elements, producedfrombhigh 'fedand idifferentipresrs l .pressureresul rom inoganc prilesfouingi the ILO elements.. Excessive pressure resulted in elements telescoping,. being compressed, and outer fiberglass shells splitftig 18, Avista.Technologies peribrmed a membrame aut :.The primay goal oftbe autopsy was to determnine whether-Spectnus CT130D fuldW the memibrane. In their ons they concluded that Cr 1300*fuls F'dmte* BW3O0 membranes and that a diflrn materia beevahiated.

19. Th autopsy fouant deposit f-om the membrane consisted of dy possiblysome aluminum hydroxide, baceria, and bacterialslime.

20. The autopsy revnaed at 10-poundl gain in the clement weight dire to particle foligThs s onidre'mden~t olng u ol result in very high-pxsuredropa pu gggdue tothe very oft p .

21. The 5.0 bag filters,at changed weeky. .

.;Z Thse 1.0 ~&cartridge filters= iarecnged eivery' thre ees

23. iron levelsini 'the lake makeý-up waiter recicfup toA097 mgIL and an orange, precip~itate has beentnoticed on the 1.0~ ciartridge filters.

24. ThieRO elements were replaced about 2 yýears. ago.

25. The RO eements areýdmicaly ded'about every 2 yeams...

26.. The RO elemenits wer dremically, cleaned afte .rthe first fouiling and the elements; to 115e1tooginial 1pera0FFIting CORditionprior Wthfoing.t

27. The water treatmn system haisno on-line pro-ess particle or turbidity anayzers.

.Opertional and Maintenancedata art recorded, logged, abd can be trended.

However. a software prpgram, suchas 'FTNORM", to normalize nd-trendi Water & Power Technologies, Inc., Page 5 of 8 CR.

0 8 80 02 membrane-operat* data isnot used. Normalization software could not be found totrend water atithe cooler Lake Michigan-watertnemperature, which is 220 C..

29. The atopsy also revealed a positive Fujiwaa test that is indicative for membranes damaged by chlorine oxidation. Avista recomended that plan dechlorination procedtrs-should bereviewed.

30. A decrease in sat.rejection(imcrmse in conductivity) appeared within the same time fiame as the fouling.. Note - 0,cal* corine (*di*'"O?

31. Chlorine is injecein frontof screens at the fretbay for 90 minutes daily, Monday through Friday, for slimew cot. Also, chlorine is used to disinfect other variolusplantsystem& Chlorinuisadded as partof* tphemmsystgem

32. Chlorine is remoed prior to te RO system with granmular activated charcoal, beds.

31.The granular activated charcoal (GAC) beds are changedout (rplaced) yearly and are due for replacemet

34. Lake Township water supply is a supplemental supply to the plantiand adds only chlorine and alum to their municipal water teannent pMocess-35; The Lue Township municipal Wt sup*l was used during the past 3o days&

36. The plant treated water is chlorinated to about 0.5 mglL as free available chlorine (FAC) and the Lake Township,muncipal ater range'sfrom 2- 3mnWL FAC.

37. Lake Township water issadded afer the GAC beds andis not dechlorinated.

38. The water treatmntsystem hias no on-line prcess 'chlorine analyzms or oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) analyzers to detect chlorine resi&duasrbefor the RO)system elements.

DISCUSSION.

The main objective ofths rportis to fid teprobable caus of high dffcmrndda pressure infthe O system and prvide a to resolve theproblem. Other bj es include finding the probable cause of decreased salt rejection and provide recommendations0t resolve the problem. Also, provide rec m datis to prire these two reoccurrencs and increase RO eement lonevity.'

Based on the, fA ondaa identified Ab and other fidfmation, the -causeof the element faiflure was due.to high differentia pressure. Th high differential Pressure res&led fiom mostly inorganic colloidal fouling and sequevnial plugging offthe WC) membrane. bThepubable ofthe coMMi fingwas.thediinofa newbiocide, (GE Bel zSpectrus Cr .1300).into the waterteamn program fbrizbra mussel1 control..

Thbe use of the decreased salt rejection was'duetlopoxdation by,chlorination. This may have been qused by a hilure ofthe carbon filer (GAC) beds to remove the clrine. The following will be divided into -individu b*ut relat topics to stpport this vonclusioný..

Mollusk Control and.Quats Zebra,mussel control is difficult and the options are few. J1a-naietiiin n treatment co=sts eliminate many options 0)ep=&dng,,on the restrictions and:

cces the mostviable chemical ta i ons am chlorinatiog chlorine dixdquaternay ammonum compounds(quats),and other~mateials combined withi Water & Power Technologies, Inc, Page 6of 18i C,

0 31880 0 2 quats, such as ONDEO Nalco's EVAC mollusk control treatment that is a combination of endothall id and dimethyl alkylamine.

CookNceawPlntprevious ind cUorindi for zebra musscontol. After carefl evaluation f options, the change was made in June to a new program provided by GE,Betz (Spectrus CT 1300) Spenais CT 1300 isau a ammonium compound called akyldime-tylbenzylammonium chloride (ADRAC).

Ouaternauv Ammonium Compounds fausts)

This general family of cationic wettin agentsjis soetimes rferdý to as cationic surjfctor cationic deterents. They are also called quaternary ammonium salts, qate*nary amie compounds, quats, and. QACs. Quats are atypeof organic nitrogen compouindin which the molecua stfructreincludes a centalnitrogen atom joined to four origanc groups-as wellastoan acid radical Peaavaletnitrogen ring copounds are also considered quaternazy aummmium compounds. They ae A cationic surfmce-active compounds and' tend to ]be adsorbed oto,sunfces . Theire are hundreds oficationic; detergents. dassfid as quats. They have the following uses: dtelagenk. dinfctank-cleanse, fungicide, etcp. Not all quats are chemical!y the same or perform the sam, Alkvldimethvbzlammoninm choride (ADBAQ.

ADBAC is an abbreviatinand genel name for atypeof quat. The are many typesof quaternry detaigents called ADBAC. Al are includedin the geea dassification as an ADBAC, but each compound is a lttle differept An example ofa diffrent t Ofu that is notan ADBAC is bmnzalonium chloride. Spectnus CT 1300 is an ADBAC quat Smvface Adsorpgon of ADRAC Aquote from aBeta report states, -ADBAC has a simng affinity formany kinds of uspended solids and subsrumes ich e anionically (negavly)chrd? A series of laboraty and field studies conducted by Rohmband Haas Company eva.ated the degree, andratethatthe ADBAC Quatis le a y bound to suspended mt and other subsrates. Radioactive labeled Quat soltonat c e o of 0.01 ppm and ppim were ue Or studies to detennine adsorptive caateitc with dfifferent types of matials. Thuge studies appeared to be conducted with-natura surface wvater. MAO 400W ppm turbidity, a~ndl30ppm alum concentration the ADBAC was 100% adsorbed in 30 minutes. Howver, this is a consiiderable amount of surface-active adsorptive m ateria the quat to be-adsorbed 'onto. The'av~eage L~ake Michigan,turidity I's les thanop andonly 5 ppm alum is added to the water treatment sys.nlThis may not be enough sus 1pendedsolids (sil and coWlid) snd alum to rmnovethDMBAC quat T pial, ADBAC and other quats ame removed from waeer by their adsorption onto. day,particles.,

,i'lmingTendeny of ADBAC and Other Oaats Quats act in-A manner Vpry'shInilar to ar filming amn.They form a monomolecla film on almosta srfaces (concrete metal filter media, 'Cand RO -m bnes). Some qu afeus.d a filming (bariýr)=crsion idhibis. Mast colloids and 'day havea, av uface cha U.T cationic. charge and filming tend y ofthe-quats wvud alow D rmovalby adsorption oto c particles. Due to this fihmand adsorption Water & Power Tedmologm, Iuc. Page 7oflS A3

0' 1,8 81 0 012 tendency:and the low level of ADBAC administrated (70ppb), several dayswould probably be required for the ADBAC quat tomigrate tbhough the piping, multimedia filtem, and GAC beds to reach.the.RO element membranes and affecttthem.

Sicaling and Fouling of RO Membranes Deposition Of depositsin RO elements is the result of scalingand/or fouling. Scaling occurs when'the'solubility limit ofa salt is exceeded and the salt crystal precipitates-near the surface ofthe element membrane. High feed pressures are produced when a_

sufficientramount of scale is deposite& Depending on the type of scalethat has the potential tozbe depositedscaling can usually be cntoedby adjustmentofthe pwith an.acd, chemical scale in*ibitor, or decreasing RO recover rates (reject on)

Fouling is more complex* Them are two general types of fouling: biofouling and particle u.iooung Be msltsfaro the gowthof living bacteria and/or fungi on the membrane. ice lg isw he material deposits on the membran* b not grow on the membrane. Paclescan be from living (or once iiving) and limliving materials. L!vig(or onm iving) *plidsare the bateria,: Ilmg, algae,,protma or t dead components. Nonliving particles are inorgaoic minerals and organic materials; Partide Srzes hnoganic particles can becassified-based-on their izes., These sizes areas follows

Sand: 50 microns to 2 millimeters (visible to the.uman -eye)

Silt: 5 - 50 microns (the'largest ofthese may be visible)

Clay. 1- 5 microns (not visible to the un-aidedeye)

-Colloid:; Less than 1 micron are too sall for a light mic pe)

Sand,ýsift; andc*ly are partiles that will settle. Coloidsare very smai),,f y divided' solids!(that do not dissolve),that remain dispersed in water due to their small size and.

electrical charge. -Most of the colloidal patile in natural surface water haea negative electricalcharge andtend torepel each othe. This repxusion mp nts the parti*les from%

clumping together, becoming heavier, and setltligout. -A well-designed and operated psystem can typicay remoe particles 1.mictrnand greater.

Colloidal fouling ofteVere osmosielementsj s-acommn problenL It. lcan sriousl impair performanice by.lowiing producd-tiviy aind somietime decreasing' sat eect~ion An early sign of colloidal fouling is often.anineadprsueifrntlamsth sysem.Colois iclue mneal lay, isoubl inrgaicminerals colloidal silica on,corrosion products, and water U.eatinent chemicals such as alhmn, frric s*il. or catioic polyelectrolytes (polymers).,

The tam cay can have twom I*can re. to day as a particle sine dassifibation or day.as a mina inorganicsilt and colloidi that istay s innat rface watr mineral cays. Clayis a rock term and like mmot k it is made up of a number ofdiffe min varying proportions. They am a family of hydrous aluminum silicates. Clays may also contain magnesiumn, 'nun potassainu sodium, and are Water & Power TechnologiesI. Page Sof 18 qI

usually mixed with other minerals. Also, they have the ability to adsorb many different materials. Mineral clay could be used tordreove phosphate from water, but would not be as efficient as alum and line. Therefbo X-Ray surface analysis (EDX XRD, etc.) of a membrane or SDI filter showing aluminum, silica, oxygenandlOr any of the above-mentioned minerals could just be colloidal day particles and nothingdse.

Ouantification of Particles Early quantification ofpartides was performed by total suspended solids (TSS) analysis.

A known volume of water was filtered through a 12.micron filter, and then the-filter was dried and weighted. The need for lower levels of measrement.and in rmI-tie resulted in turbidity measurement becoming popular. Turbidity is an inirect measurement of pa ticles by passing Ig h a waterisolution andmeasurn how uch t is reflected. by the particles in the iquid. Turbidity ismeasured in Ne*qpheometjC Turbidity Units (NTQs). The lowetheNTU, W efewer partiesin thewat. Dueto rotcen advances in technology, particle coutem sing ers and computs can now measue the exactnsize and n of pariclesina liquid. The higher the TSrtrbidity value ofth wa, theWgea th mberofpMaicles and ins te.hbig thefoungp na The best available tedology fo determining fouling potential of reve smosis feed water is the wiue ntof the Silt Density index-(SDI). This is sometimes refenred to as the Fouling Index (F).AnSD)Iis det*rined by the initial time it take to filter water tho au0.45- (micron)membanm.fierat 30 PSIand filla .5,00macoainer. Afilr the waer isallowed to flow to drain for-15 minutes a second 500 nl container isfilled and timed. These two.ited valuesarc used ina fbrmula to calculate thelSDI. Awell-operated m pal drinking water treatment systm, using surface water asthe soume water, should be able toD remove most paiticles greawtertan'0.5 micronik produce a water quality of 0.-0.2fUs, andaSD1of 3,-4. T feWaMr to,an ROcement should have a <55DZandan SDIof <3'spre&br Rartide (Conoii) Removal Thie best multimedia filters can only remove particles down to about 10 microns.

Cartridge filters can elcffcively rmne particdes'down to I micron, but this is only cost effective with nominal filtration, One-mironremoval with absol.u9tfilfftion isusualy too expensive Typical, in a conventionalwater treatmentpad particles smaller than 1o micrns rremoved by coapation, foccatio, s me on, and then fltmution.

Coagulation: is the chrn,`n together of vainy fine partices clod)it lre atce (floc)"cauised by.the use 'ofchemicals (coauns) Coagulants ar"usually catoni.,

eidnics, such as alum, feriC choride" and synthetic organic cationic poly-lectrolytes (poymr). *The coagulants partially n ae electrical chrg of fine particles allowing them to come closer tVOehe and to fism large clumps. This' clumping together makes a easier to sqarae. solids from the water by settling and Mateing. The gatherningtoieher of the fine partidles after coagulamtiontof~rm larger particles by a press'ofgentlmixing is called,.fc La Th sedimentation and fltration of the floc is how the very fine paticles (coIloids) areremoved from the water Water & Power Tecinologies, Inc. Page 9 of .8 1,9

03S188s0 02 Usually, the greater the,number of colloids present, the better the coagulation and flocculaion p~rocess.

Theprocess used in a conventionaltwater plant is called conventional i1tmtion. This process usesr a clarifier (sedimentation basin). The water btreat plant at-Cook does.

not have a carifier and this process is called,direct filtration. The sedimentation step is omitted and is notrequired due to the'water quality of the lake. In conventional filtration a largewfln particle is developed and removed by sedimentation. With direct filtration the ce islnot allowed to grow as large and is removed with themedia (usuallysnd).

Also, in direct filtration, particles ame removed by sticklng to media that.has a cationic (positive) charge given to the media by the coagulanti The particle attraction to theý charged me~dia isiweak and the particles arxe mnoved by backtwashing.

Hypothesis for Why the RO Elements Fouled The behavior of colloidal particles is of fmlcm. importancie in water treatnmen processes, especially for reverse osmosis systems The R() system rMUMnoMve A particles greater than1 micron sothat the only particles "mainihg we colloidal, i Sia. The autIopsyr*veald the f*doantpositconstedof very fine clays and other colloidal materials n w fouling wasprincipally inornic-in naure and was:a resul Of

.colloidal claydeposition. The intectioncbtwe'ooidal paiclcs in supensionad

other*meiasurfhces depends on many variables:

a Water chemistry.

- Surface chemistry and charge of particles.

Sturfacechemisry nd chargeof media srfaces.

Kinetics, ofib particles,5ýthe wate~r, MAnd surfaes each interact with,

.Most of these variables are intaated. Options foraltaringthese variables canincud, bp am not limited to: addition andior adjustment oflcoaguiantsl pH polymers, othe polyclectrolytes, oxidants, mbiing conditions, And. biologcal activity.

Coalias and natiOnie MaMAteIaS Colloids tend to cqfry. a negative charg on their carte surfce. ]BY havin thisngaiv common charge they win tend to repel each other.. They resist.coming into lose 4:

proximity with each other and do not, combine to form large partcles. Withths-cag neutralized orwnoved,-fo example: w ith the addition of a cationic p olyme, the ýclloids are mor hlely to coajgula into lar particesandfllouttofsoltion Tischarecan, be neutrali*d or frucied by,positivly ca*d (cationi) materials such as alu*mium femic coagult;cationic poIyclectmlyt*e*(polymers) and other cationic materials.

These positively.charge materials att lmselvesto de RO Plvarmide WPA Membranes and Cationic Materials Most RD membrane elements used today rene plyamide (PA) thin-film membranes. This

-isthe RO membraneelement that is usedlat C*oAkNuc Plant. PA mebranesare a thin layer of aromatic polyamide extruded'ont a less dense polysulb'nMsubstrat, The.

PA thin-ftil membrane most commonly used-in water puwifcati.onintentionally has a ne.gative surfie charge characteristic. The negative char of the colloids andthed A Water kPower.Technologies, Inc. Page 10 of 1S ii,

0 31 8 0.0 2 negative charge of the membrane surfice repel eachotherand this helps prevent colloidal foling. Only chemicals that are compatible with thispnegative charge should be allowed to comeinto contact with a PA thin-film me brane. For ammple, only anionic (negative.

charged) suritctas should be used to clean an anionic (negative chaged) PA membrae. ,Cafinic.(positive charged) suifictants should not be used" Condusion Based on the above information, I hypothesize that the RO element ailum was due to the addition of the.GE Betz Spectrus CT 1300 (ADBAC quat), which isa very surfac-active cationi surfactant I think that the SpectsCT 1300moded the negative surface charge of the colloi.ds in the water and/or the negative charge characteristics ofthe PA membranesurface. This allowed the colloids to'come outof suspensioand grow larger.

Additionally, I believe this mateW couldalso affect the surface charge of the media in the mutimcedi sand filter and decremparticulate removaL Alsq, I believe the GAC beds were affected and chloprne removal effidency mayhave been.reduced Alsc, since it was time to replace the GAC beds, thebeds may have been exhausted and unable to removethe choine, A is the opion ofthis consultant tha neither the stafrofGE Bet Cook Nuclear Plant, nor myself could have tbreseethe oocwrewe of this situation in advance This hypothesis could probably be roven* exprimentally by measiing the overall chaw - ofthe water versus the addition of.the biocide Themeasurement However, I recommend using a streaming current detecto (SCD) instead of a ZP; meter because a more accurate and repeatable esr ofcharfge ca be accomplished.

Salt Rejection Salt rection is thep t ofdissolve* salts (ions)that re* x*td (removed) bythe

-ROmembrane An 6nwease in permeate codctvy usuly idcates a decrease in salt rejection r laking04-ings. DCM=esed salt rejectionoccurs When theRO membrane isr dm ed by chemicalattack. G .enerafl, three diff.rent conditions canproduce chemica attack on polyamde(A mbne E xe ding operating and cleaning limi Organic solvents ame iprobable in this situation andvwill not be discussed-Onmfing and Qeamift Limits The Fidmtec membrane (8" BW30-365) is an aeelent membrane and a good choice for this.application. The pH rne ontous h aon is 24 f and the maxmu operatingitemperature, it 113F. These have not been xceeded fbr normal opeation.

Water &Power Technologies, Inc. Page 11:of is I'-

03188,002 arsh and frequept chemical.cleaning will shorten membrane life, typically by incieased.

saltp while mild and seldom cleaning will-extend the membranelife. For regular cleaning the preimue pH for acid cleaning is nolower than 2.0 and the ed pH for alkaine (caustic) cleaning is no higher than 12.0. Both of these are at 300C (860V). For extended element life, it is best.not to oexed this tempeatur A 6-hour soak is usually adequate. The pHnge for short-tem cleaning (30 min chemical contact) of this membrane is 1.- 12. Adjust and maintain the pH during cleani 'possiblef Always, acid clean first and then follow with an alkaline cleaning. Acid deai;gremoves inorganic.salts and caustic cleaning removes inorganic colloids (sit) silica, biofihms, and orgnics. Please refer to the FUmtec Technicalmanualt for moreinformation.

Oxidation Chemical attackon PA membranmes usually occsfromoxidation by chlori . At present, I feel that Filmtec has themost chlorine resistant PA,Umemb es.ý The Dow; Fimtec Membranes Product inmnrmaton sheet has the operating limit for the free ailabe clhlorine (FAC) toleance: of the BW30 membrane as <0.1 ppm, but in reality the chlorine toleane is more important The I010ing is a quote from Dow Tech Facts,"When Filmtec membranes (PA) are used in the reverse.osmosis process*, the RO eed must lb6edechlorinated to pwet:

oxidation otfthe mmbra Fdlntec membranei have some chlorine tolera nc before noticeable ossof salt ejection is observed Evental degradation nmy ocau' afiu app mate 200-,o1000 housofexposure to 1m*iL offrdeeblorine (FAC). Therate of a depends on various feedwater characteristic Under anline OH conditions. chloie a kis atea or.acidic p. An acidicpH is

-prefrrdfor a bettbiocidaleffect duingchorWnatio ChIrineattackisalsofasterat:

higher imp ueand at higher

ofheavymetals (e-g. imo), which catalyze membrane degradation. Ifdechlorinationupsasoccur ina Filmteq RO system, and ifcariected'in a.timely manner, membrane damage can be minimized."

This means that the PA membnm has 200- 10W ppm-h toleranCM of free available chý i FAC). Ifthebacuiaer is ony 2O0 ppm-h tk membr*a*could operate 2W hours at 1 ppm.FACG(.3 days), or 2000 bou.nat 0.-ppm FAC (83.3 daysj) or 20,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months at 0.01 ppm (2.28 yeaýr)i h wds, lyamide RO membrancs are essentially zeocblin m toleknt The pe of any free hblqfoe wiff result in some damag to tie rembrane. Howev;,this da might not be noti6eableif not,,sev=e.

Chlorine Tolerance *nd'nLA Please note.,that at*be eait meetingl was'in error about chlorne exposure at low pH being more aggressive than chlorine-exwposr at high p11 Accord~ig to Fimftec, chlorine atter is leiss severe at neutral or acidic PH1 than alkaline p1 When chlorine is ýaddedwt wateir, hypochlor=usacid (Hb)iintalyfre.Dpending on pff and temperature hypchkuusacid separates into ante opnn nwater which is thehypoclIlorite ion (6wr). HypochlNowusoai a almost twice the oxhdaton power and more than 10.

fimesthe disnfectm ability of-hypochlorite ion. However, hypochiorous acd is a weak acid and because of incomplte disassociation is poorlyionized. Hypodclorite ion, which water & Power TeclMoogies',Incmae1 Page!2 of, f111

03188002 formisat a higher pK-is more completely dissociated and ionized. This must W the reason that the hypochlorite ion is more damaging to the RO membrane than the hypochiorous*acid. At a pH of 6.0 and 20°C, about 95% ofthe fiee available chlorine~is as hypochiorousacid and about 5%is as hypochorite ion.

Dechlorination Free available chlorin, also known as free chorine, is best removed fromw by fihtein ough grmramar activated carbon (GAP andlor ig'ecf`ng chemical reducing aguts. TheGAC system must be properly designed for the amount oftClorine to be removed. The-GACis consumed and exhauksed in the tmoval ofeclorine., Also, GAC can be a growth media for biological'activity. ThereRfr GAC should be replaced on a regular basis. Depedingon service conditions, GAC beds are usually replaced every 6 to 12 months.

Chemical reducingg agents that can be,used to remove chlorinewae sodium-metabisulfie, sodiumbisuMte, sodiumisulfit, sodium tiiosufa* andc mlfia dioxide. Sodium metabitulfite (SMBS) is themost common agent used and most cost effective The SMBS should be of food grade quality or better, fiee of impurities, and not contain a-ivtm (catalysts) such as cobalt Som.eimes SMBSisscobalt-actva o shorten reaction time with chlorineand oxygen. Cobalt and iron can catalyze and enhance the effects ofchlorine oxidation on PA membranes. Aso, do not use sodium thiosulfate because this material dependin on water chemistry, can fo~rm colloidal sulfu.

Intheory, L-34 mg of sodium nmetabisui&e will remove:1.0 mg/L FAC. Bu, in actual practice, 3.0mg of SMBS.ii normally used to remove 1.0 mg/L ofFAC. Th'eactual amount .required.can be better detrmined with a good on-lie process analyzer for free:

chlorine. Solid SMBS.has a shelfl of 4-6.months under cool dry stora condition&.

However, in a day tank the sluioncan oxidize when .eposedto air. The following is a typical solution rife in a day Pik t.N Solution Lire

.... 0 2-.3 days 20 1month.

10L30 6lmonft-Itnmay be more costqetietieto purchase this material as a'30% aqrueousliquid than as a dry solid. Permeate or deionizedwater should be used for dilution water if thesMBS solution is to be made from the dry matera Monitoig :. '

In the past, the existVminwae treatment system mnoorouring has been adequafte Howemer due to the,recent developm~ents, monitoring for particles and chliorine, should be considered. Monitoring can.b perOrmed by grab samples (pointii tim) 4r process inst ion(real-ime). Monitoring for particlesis presey p mWithSDI analysis. 1do not believe that turbidity monitoring is necessary. H.owev, ifthe decision Water Powe" Tecinologies, Inc. Page 13 of is

03 1818002 is-made to add turbidity monitoring I feelthat the best turbidity and particle monitofing equipmept is manufactured and sold by the HACH Compaiy.

SDI Analysis SD! analysis-is the best indicator of RO fouling. However, this test is-time cnmin and suffers froAmiacrcy and precision (repeatability). I do, not believe an on-lin~e process unit is ncpessaryo perorm this test and that a reguar grab-sample would be-adequate. Opeitions can determine the fiequency that SDI analysis is required. The pudIase*ofa portableSople SDIanalyzerfrom SDI Solutions can increase.Adcuracy andprision ofthe* SDI analysis and save valuableopatortime. lhave personally used these unft and can.reicmend teL Their phone numbe is 972422-1212' and-website is www.,simplesdi.com. They sell for about $,

Chlorine Monitoring, Due to the poor free Chlorine toeranwe of PA membranes, the low level presence or

-absenceof chlorine should be,monitored with on-linei -id netto istrumentation can activate an alarm to alert opea'ators and shut down the RO system when frchlorine isdetcted. There are three e a type ohlorinean : ORP, Coloknimetic, and Amprometric.

Oxiatin-Reduction Potential (OMP analyzes do not measure fmu chlorine. directly.

They measure whether the water is under an oxidative or reductive environment. A disadva g ofORP is that the readings may be affected by other components-in the water.. For exmple. the reading is affected~by water pH and combined'chlorine.. ORP analyzers'are not specfic, but due to,the low.co~st, owmfnce and simplicity, this ania e has been commonly used in place; dfc rine analyzers in indusaprocesse.

ColoriMetric analyzers are primarily used'by therdrink[ing Water indsty. :Colorimetric analyz*e onsist of apphotodectric cell and a light sourtwdetects a variation in color prducedina sample. steam with-the addition ofa reage specific for chlorine. This analyzer uses consumable reagents that mst be refilled each month. Whiletheseý analyzersýare very eedbeand'acculratthey ar, mad tI deetWlrnei h g of 0.5 to 5 mgfL. Tý low levdeof detection is not elia6te eno6ugh fo tiappliction.

Amperomearic ainalyzes have gained populait during thfast severa year*du to new innovatioms lpicialy they eonsist oftwo le*tids that arm mersed in a continuous water supply., The electrodeswae made offtwodissimilar metals that measurea cangein-urrent-flow bwe n that is diecly r" uondl to the =munt ofdarine sidual, Iin hewater. They can be used to measure free or comnbined chlorine. ThIereare many variation& For this application fee that thbest chlorine analyzer Woud be the Hach 9184. Polymetonmakes.this and Hach now nst . At aofpU <7.5, this unit hasa detection l of10ppb*rOCand20ppb.feeh repeatability s 5 pbfor HOCI and -10 W6pbtfrice chlorine.- After the pH is adjuste for your RO system, almost all free available chlorine in the feed water wou** exst as HOCL Thfis means that he detection limit would. be 10ppb.. Due to an ion selective-membrane, the Hach 9184 measures o re chlorine and has almost no intediuincet fiom Water &Power TOchnologies, Inc, Page 14 of 18

0 3 1 t80.02 combinedchorines or other materials The reonse time <90 seconds. Immial Iainna nce isrequired for this unit The bc entcostofthis analyzer is $3,400.00 fEnersenc, Procedure In an RO system, fouling usually occurs in the lead element of the Id stage. Ifhigh, pressures develop in the I' stage, consider removing the lead element in each vessel of the i* stage, pushing the other elements forward in Oach vessel and then iýstalling a clean clement as the tail.element (6A in each vesseL This is good for emergencies.

Wate &Power Technologies, Inc., Page 15. of714

O3 818 002 RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Do not allow ADBAC quat bioad into the make-upwatergoing into the water tratmentplantor the RO System feedwater. Use an alteraive sourceý such as.

the'Lake Township municipal wat when feefin the biocide tothe intakes

2. LakeTwsi municipal water must be dechlorinated beforeetrngteR system. A sodium metabisulfte (SMBS) injection system -isrecoipmended., The SMBS shoulddhe injected upsrem of the retention/blend tank Adequate m g should be etnsred with a staic mxeror adequate downstream pipelengths after, injction. Add onl enough SMBS toxrtmove tcýýhand no exess SUBS.

3. Replace the granular activated charcoal (GAC) in theg carbon fitersat least one a year. Change out more often if Jsot adequft.

4. Free available chlorine houldbe lessthan 0,020 Mg/L (20Mppb)fr allwater entingte Ri se The greatthe expo e of the RO elements tochine-the shortr the life of the elemean

5. Installa fiee advilable chlorine (FA) analyzer before tfe RO:system. The analym uld have an aarm toalt the oprato and ,shut down. ithe RO system should the FAC exceed.20 ppb.

6A iat and main*an a trending pop for Net Permeate Flow,(NPF):and noraliedsaltcontent such as Dow Filmtec's MFORM .Thisfis a-flee rga that is used to nomal memb me data ToTefctively evaluate systmuperformance, it is cessaiy to-compare permeate flow and salt passage data at the same conditions. Ask DOW for help and assistance with'this program Their program was developed'for their membranes and they wiprod6-te"hnica

assistance ifyouaret persisten Talkttothe du hat sold you the Fil*.tec RO elemens This is a rivsupport ervcett they wilQ.prde

7. Stop,and cbeically dean the RO whenevt s The nbormalizedprte flow draps by 160/0,"

6 tlie normaiedlsalt cont*t ofthpomeate waternc* amsesiby 10%

TU diffrellntial pressure, (feed pressuecncentratepressure) increases by, 15%K from the refterene conditions (initial'perfibnance established durin the first 24-48 hours of oprto)

,8., Continueto adjust the RO feedwater pH to 5.7-61.1However, consideration should be gven to lower the p11 even more to a range of 5.5-5.8. Below a.p1R of 6.0 the aluminum ion;s are solu~billized and'cannot produce any precipitates.

9. TheADBAC qua biocide may have coated the graiu media inthe multimedia filters Consi~der cleaningthe fil~ters withigh pH water (II) and bleach (5,ppm FAQ with,a 6-hour soak. Then back.was and flush the filters .svenrdatimeLs.

Water & Power Technologes,,Inc.

Wll. ,rO~l.Tg~o~l*,* Page

16ýof 18; i /7O K

0 3 88409 APPENDIX (Exit Meeting Report of Wednesday July 16,2003)

Date:, Julr 16, 2003 Location: Cook Nudear Plant, Bridgmrn, ML Fromn: Norman IL Norvele, Water& Power Techndogies (Earth Tech)

Subject:

Exit Meeting Report (Wednesday 1:00 pm - RO System Failure.Analysis)

Problem Definioun

1. Th plaun ROsystem is eperiencing high dffeni pressmn min the firststag. Th system failed due to high diffrnti p w.sand the esulting rupture ofthe RO elements.

2. TIhRO system .is also expez6iencng a-decrease in salt rejection (an incream ,in condudiv).

crent Expectations

1. Find caus of hi~gh diffrenial(A delta) pressure and high SDIs.

2. Provide r-ommendations to resolve.

3. Find cause ofde*esedzsalt rejecWio

4. Providercomme tons to re Summary ofdobswations and infomation Gathered

. Operation and performance offtlRO sysm was good.until the addition.ofbiocide.

2. Afer new bioide was added high SDIs (>5) were fou&

3 After new biocide was added high.Als were producedlin th firs stages.

4. After new blocide was added element failum ozured..

5. After new biocde was added salt reection decreased-

6. The only changein operational and chemical parameters was theaddition ofbiocide.

Hypothesis of Failure ..

There are two,major control metod for mollusks, chlorine and Qualernay ammonia compounds (Quats).:Quats are also called qateary amino compounds and QACs. TIh term Qu is ageneral name and rvf*ln to over 100 compounds., Quat are cationiC.

suractnts(4terent).They ae xcellent. cleaners and biocides., They areused in many household prodcts such as 409 Cleaner, Lysodisintn 'and Odor Ban-,

Indusrill they arc-usdas eanera, disinlfetats boioies,; iamcorrosion inhbitor, GE Bez CIam-TI (CT 1300) isa Quat biodie."

Theat i amanner very similar to a filmng amine.. They fofm a mono'molecularIlm (coating) on l surfaces (cocrte, meta% filter media. ganular activated dharoa, and' RO membiknes). Quats can removed from water by beingadso)e on cay particles-Water & Power Technologies, Inc. Page 17 of 19

. *I '

03188002 Most colloids, such as clay particles, have a negative charge. RO elementmembranes also have a negative char. Theseneaive chargeS repel each other and prevent colloids from sticking to the vmebran smface and produghih p .

Quats arestrong cationic muflctants. I think that the Quat biocide (CT 1300),has coated the colloids and membranes and allowed the colloids to stick on the xsuitce of the mmbrane. Thi respuled in a high diffrential pressure. Also, I believe this has changed the nega on the colloids and allowed them to stick together, much like a cationic coaglant polymer. A# ony, I think that the Quat has also coated or filmed the zraiula activated dOarcoal (GAC) bed and that the GAC bed is no longer effective for dhlorine removal. The available chiline could possibly be oiizing and, damaging the membrane.

Low-level analysis of Quats may be difficuilt to detect because-Quatdecomposes rapidly inthe eirone is adsoedonclay, and iadsorbed on thewalls of sample container. There is also a reaction between alum and Quat Recommendations

1. Do no allow any. fith Quat (CT 1300) to enter the RO andsstem

2. Replace the GAC media immediately. Rent GAC skids if necessary.

Consider cleaning the MMF with,high pH water,(I) and bleach (5 ppm FAC). Then badkwash and flush with dean wate.

4.. When usingCT 300,. obtai make-up water from other inlets or soues such as city water.

5.: If detentim time and' nwralizmn time is inadequate for the higher chlorination

levels in city water, consider renting or,using additionalII GAC bedsonly for city water or injecting sodium metabsufit (SMBS).

6. Consider jadig additional, p essmonitorn equippment:sui as cdoueanalyzer and particle or tubidity monitos ..

7. You shouldconsidet the addition of sodiummetabisufittbe ohelp reduce chlorine residuals bero~re the RO elements ,prelfably before the retention tank in order to have adequate contact time between tho chlorine residual'and sulfite.

Nor"anit.Nrvenle, Ms.

Water& Power Technologies, Inc. A division ofEarth Tech Water& Power TednolOgII In:. Page 18sof 1

AEP-NRC-2009-32, Enclosure to AEP-NRC-2009-32 - Donald C. Cook, Units 1 and 2 - 2008 Annual Environmental Operating Report, Appendix V Through End

Text

Dear Mr. Weber:

SUMMARY

Background

Title:

References:

References:

References:

SUMMARY

Title:

6.1 Photoperiod

SUMMARY

6.1 Photop'eriod

SUMMARY

Contact:

SUMMARY

Contact:

SUMMARY

DearMr. Mallen:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Contact:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

Dear Tom:

SUBJECT:

Dear Tom:

SUBJECT:

Dear Tom:

SUBJECT:

Dear Tom:

SUBJECT:

Dear T-om.1Daribs":

Title:

Subject:

Navigation menu

Search