ML031960464
| ML031960464 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/2003 |
| From: | Purcell R Tennessee Valley Authority |
| To: | Urban R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, State of TN, Dept of Environment & Conservation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML031960468 | List: |
| References | |
| CN-1090 TN0026450 | |
| Download: ML031960464 (181) | |
Text
i DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION ADDRESSES All addresses must be completed even if the same address is used:
NPDES PERMIT NUMBER: TN0026450 CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS (where permit should be sent):
CONTACT PERSON: Stephanie Howard Environmental Engineer TELEPHONE: 423-843-6713 Name Title COMPANY NAME: Tennessee Valley Authority - Sequoyah Nuclear Plant STREET AND/OR P.O. BOX: SB 2A, Sequoyah Access Road, P.O. Box 2000 CITY: Soddy-Daisy STATE TN ZIP CODE: 37384 PERMIT BILLING ADDRESS (where invoices should be sent):
CONTACT PERSON: Stephanie Howard Environmental Engineer TELEPHONE: 423-843-6713 Name Title FACILITY NAME: Tennessee Valley Authority - Sequovah Nuclear Plant STREET AND/OR P.O. BOX: SB 2A, Sequoyah Access Road, P.O. Box 2000 CITY: Soddy-Daisy STATE: TN ZIP CODE: 37384 FACILITY LOCATION (actual location of permit site):
CONTACT PERSON: Stephanie Howard Environmental Engineer Name Title FACILITY NAME: Tennessee Valley Authority - Sequoyah Nuclear Plant STREET AND/OR P.O. BOX: SB 2A. Secuoyah Access Road, P.O. Box 2000 CITY: Soddy-Daisy STATE: TN ZIP CODE: 37384 COUNTY: Hamilton rnunWy TELEPHONE: 423-843-6713 DMR MAILING ADDRESS (where preprinted Discharge Monitoring Reports should be sent):
CONTACT PERSON: Stephanie Howard Environmental Engineer TELEPHONE: 423-843-6713 Name Title FACILITY NAME: Tennese VaIley Authority - Sequlnynh Nuclear Plsnt STREET AND/OR P.O. BOX: SB 2A, Sequoyah Access Road, P.O. Box 2000 CITY: Soddy-Daisy STATE: TN ZIP CODE: 37384 CN-1090 RDAs 2352 AND 2366
Please prrt or type i the unshaded areas only (1t11inareas are spacedfor efite type, i.e., 12 ctwacterinch). Form Approved. OMB No. 2040-0086. Approval expires 5-31-92 FORM U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 1. WIA .D. NUMER Sl I
GENERAL l EPA GENERAL NFORMATION Consolidated Permts Program s TN1 6'40020 5 01 4 rCM D
(Read the -Uenerattnstructions' before starting.) 1 2 13 14 15 LABEL TEMS ENERALINSTRUCTIONS_
If a preprinted label has been provided, affix in the NI.S N Bet \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ > designated space. Review the information care fully; if any of it is incorrect, cross through it and enter the correct data in the appropriate fill-in area b<cli tAK \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ > below. Also, if any of the preprinted data is absent E\ \ \ \ \ + EL \ \ TkS~hCK\ \ s YLNSE^RL~bE C \ \ (the area to the leftof the label space ists the information that should appearl, please provide It
.F ILxt\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ in the proper ill-4n area(s) below. the label is sIL Gw~bl$E>>
0 E \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ complete and correct, you need not complete Items 1, I, V. and Vl (except Vt-B which must be completed regardless). Complete all items it no label has been provided. Refer to the instructions for detailed item descriptions and for the legal authorizations under which this data is collected.
II. POLLUTANT CHARACTERISTICS @'- L m-W .9;___ ___I_1_W___1_______
INSTRUCTIONS:7 Comp ete rougn J to determine whether you neeo to submit any permit applicaton orms to the EPA. i you answer 'yes to any questions, yo must submit this form and the supplemental form listed In the parenthesis following the question. Mark WX"in the box in the third column if the supplemental form i attached. If you answer "no' to each question you need not submit any of these forms. You may answer "no' if your activity is excluded from permit requirements; se Section C o the Instructions. See also. Section 0 of the instructions for definitions of bold-faced terns.
MARK x MARK x SPECIFIC QUESTIONS YES NO FORM SPECIFIC QUESTIONS YES NO FORM ATTACHED ATTACHED
- a. Does or wDlthis acility (etimer existing or-p-X0-p3sed7 A. Is this facility a publicly owned treatment works X Include a concentrated animal feeding operation or X which results in a discharge to waters of tne U.S.7 aquatic animal production facliqt which results n (FORM 2A) 1B 17 18 a discharge to waters of the U.S? (FORM 2B) 1 20 21 C. Is Wis a facility wncn currently results n discnarges D. is tnis a proposed facility (otner nan unose aescnne_
to waters of the U.S. other than those described In X . X in A or B above) which will result In a discharge to X A or B above? (FORM 2C) waters of the U.S.? (FORM 20) 25_ 26_2 F. Do you or will you inject at this facility industnal oi E. Does or will this facility treat, store, or dispose ol X municipal effluent below the lowermost stratum con- X hazardous wastes? (FORM 3) taining, within one quarter mile of the well bore, 28 29 30 underground sources of drinking water? (FORM 4, 31 32 33 G. Do you or will you inject at this facility any producec water or other fluids which are brought to the sur- H. Do you or will you Inject at this facility fluids for specia face in connection with conventional oil or natural . processes such as mining of sulfur by the Frasch X gas production inject fluids used for enhanced process, solution mining of minerals, In situ combus-recovery of oil or natural gas, or Inject fluids foi tion of fossil fuel, or recovery of geothermal energyi storage of liquid hydrocarbons? (FORM 4, 34 35 36 (FORM 4) 37 38 39
. s tis facility a proposea stationary source wnicn is J. is tis facility a proposeo stationary source wnich Ls one of the 28 industrial categories listed in the in- NOT one of the 28 ndustrial categories listed In the structions and which will potentially emiRt100 tons X instructions and which will potentially emit 250 tons X per year of any air pollutant regulated under the per year of any air pollutant regulated under the Clear Clean Air Act and may affect or be located n an Air Act and may affect or be located In an attainment attainment area? (FORM 5) 40 41 42 area? (FORM 5) 43 44 45 III. NAME OF FACIUTY s 1 177 _ __
1SuP U S T V, A, S E Q U 0 Y, AH N UC L E A R P L A N T tl 151 -29 30 -9 IV. FACILITY CONTACT W . -7 A~
N A TiTILE Zlss Ptst P irgiel I 8. PHONE area code no.)
2 STEPIHAN I I E IHIO AR:Dl ENV.I ENGI N.EER 4 2 3 8 4,3 6,7,1.3 1516 45 4 - 48 49-51 52 55 V FACILITY MAILING ADDRESS li_ _ _-_ _ aAim-- _ . 1' 3_8 2A S200P BOX S '2!A. !P.,O, B:O'X: l2'0:0'0!
Is Is ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~45 R. XT R TON IC. STATF I n- rP ODEx I 4lS0.-lDD Y -DAITSlYl l l r i lIT' r l l X r N 3 7 3 8 4 151 40 41 42 47 51 VI. FACILITY LOCATION =k, D i A. TRET RUT N. OR OTHER SEC IFIG IDiNTIFIEf 5iQ 'U ,'YA,'H: :A,iCCE:S:Sl , D.; , ' ,
1516 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~45 HAM I L TO N' 46 70 C. CITY OR TOWN STATEl E. ZIP CODE F. N COCDE 6S!O D!D!Y -D!AI S!Y , , ,, N 7. 33ST 8' 1 151161 1 I I I I I I I I I 4I1 421 4 - 1 12 41 EPA Form`13.510J-1 laV) OUN II[NUt U4 rAJ4sZ
rOnMNUEI grnC D FOAM AE 4 VII. SIC CODES (4digit, in order of Pnit) ______-______ ,'__'_______________hi A. FIRST I . . , B.
C l I I I(specify) C * (specify) 7 4 9 1 1 Electric Services 7 IA - 19 ISIS 19 C. THIRD O FOURTH c (specify) (specify) 7 . . . 7 . . .
15 16 15 16 - 19 VIlI. OPERATOR INFORMATION .060} 0 -a ;'7- __ .7 $t7i.sif tE A. NAME B. Is the name listed as c I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I I Item VIII-A also the T E N N E S S EE V A L L EY A U T H OR I TY owner?
a I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J YES ONO 15 16 55 66 C. STATUS OF OPERATOR (Enter the appropriate letter into the answer box: if Other. specify.) . PHONE (area code S no.)
F = FEDERAL M = PUBLIC(otherthanfederalorstate) ((specify) I V I II I S =STATE O = OTHER(specify I F A 4283 41 6 71 3 P = PRIVATE E. STREET OR P.O. BOx lO WIeS 116 - 18_ 19 - 211 22 25 II I III1,0 I I0 1 1 III1I I I I I I I I I I BPq
,B.O. X, , 2,OO. O., ,, , , , , , , ,
2685 F. CITY OR TOWN G. STATE H. ZIP COOE IIX. INOIAN LAND g. 5 c§ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _ l I lsthe facility located on Indian lands?
ODDY,,DA, S,Y,I I i I I I .I , 373.8 4 L J ES IZNO is 16 ~~~ ~~~~~~~40 41 42 47 511 52 X. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS 1 4 t
____-________ _42___47_____________________
_ ANDESqtEischar toSudPace Water _ 0. PSD (Air Emissions fromPpos Soun es)
CT _ I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 cTr _ 11111 1 IeI I Operating permit Cooling Tower. Unit 9 N T.N, 0, 0 2 6 4 5 0 9 P 41,5r3Q1060P791-P1r ,
15 16 17 18 30 15 1817 18 30 See Nextpageforotherairpermits B. UIC inde round InEection of Fluids _. OTHER (specify)
C MT1 I T_ III I I CIT I I I I I r I 1 1 I 1 (fspeci-fy) 7 9]U 9 DIML, 3,3 10,5,00 12 l SQNlnertLandfillPermit 15 18l17118 30 1181718 30 C. RCRA(Hazardous Wastes E. OTHER (specf)
C T I 1, l I C T I I I Tr e (specify) 9 R IT . 4 0 0 2 05, 4 9 IT ,N R, 0, 5 01.5 l* I General Storm WaterPermit 15118117118 30 151 l 17118 301 Xi. MAP _ S k - e~ w .si > S e sv = 9 W 9 h-fi '.-S g Y- W+<--. 8.7 Attach to this application a topographic map of the area extending to at least one mile beyond property boundaries. The map must show the outline of th facility, the location of each of its existing and proposed intake and discharge structures, each of Its hazardous waste treatment storage. or disposal facilities, and each well where it injects fluids underground. Include all springs, rivers and other surface water bodies In the map area. See instruction.
for Drecise reouirements.
XII. NATURE OF BUSINESS (providea biefdescdon Production of electric power by thermonuclear fission and other associated operations.
XII. CERTIFICATION see instructions) _ , . ,.i ;'FQ i certify underpenalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this application and al attachments an(
that, based on my inquiry of those persons immediately responsible for obtaining the information contained in the application, I believe that the information is true, accurate and complete. Iam aware that them am significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprnsonment.
A NAME FFICIAL LI: type orpnnt) B SIGMLRE C DATE SIGED Richard T. Purcell /ee: - 06 003 Site Vice President, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant COMMENTS FOR OFFiCIAL USE ONY01 C 1 III CI I I I I I l I I I I I I I I I I EPA Form 3510-1 (8-90)
Additional Permits 4150-30600701-03C Operating Permit, Cooling Tower, Unit 2.
4150-30700804-06C Operating Permit Insulation Saw A 4150-30700804-07C Operating Permit Insulation Saw B 4150-10200501-08C Operating Permit Auxiliary Boilers A and B 4150-30703099-09C Operating Permit Carpenter Shop 4150-30900203-IOC Operating Permit Abrasive Blasting Operation 4150-20200102-1 IC Operating Permit Emergency Generators IA, B, 2A, 2B; Security Lighting Generator; Computer System Generator; Fire-Protection Water Pump Engine, and Communications System Generator TNR1 10229 General NPDES Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated With Construction Activity
N rt-v- -=: <hX e7/Mile 486 !
I X w
/,
,[;
j . V \. -ij 7 ft 0
',\Xa m:"
lo A,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Honizontal 7'
,,,n~R Kilometer cala (3300 feet)
J I tI
-i E Xr - 4_ '
0 ,-
N Ab oVArtiml Scale Kilometer (3300 feet)
'I,'-t~~ ,X.' ~~~~ 'l
';'t I',
Od`benney Cern 5
I ~~~~~S P6ney Cern - i 4 t~/ . _ . ii ,- ,Ito iQ / .A 1- Gaging station 4 0 ky : ff~~OAD Sequoyah Resivatiop,1Boundary Miiolve lMile 485
-RC. S 1DSN - 117
--Q & w . :. Intake
~-~.- - - - -
i SEQy ,I? DSN118 -
2 ~~~~~~~~~]r-CP~N)
-- - -38 * -- -- -- - - -- --- 7 --------- dW-IGOU~~~~~~~ -. ~ >< -l / /
,t'S . ;-; " 4- 7. " ei- ' ,i-- S. -- ,- 't0_- ! > g Towers r ;--i<o irologl 'N13
\
--t /-e E} -.. -. _ 2 \+Chi~gger Point
-- 10DS J.Deriy H
FL - -- x a, 03 co' < SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT
.4,. Soddy-Daisy, Hamilton County, Tennessee c* -- .v-NPDESPermit No. TN0026450 TE N N E -- - X Snow Hill 7.5 minute Quadrangle March 2003
.--tl :./) \ - - < - -:- co (G01
Tennessee RIver Tennesm Rrr Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) Intake Pumps Essential Raw Cooling Water (ERCW) System I i
I-A1lsecoConldensiate Deinerabler0.
I. Leeks & System Secondary Draindowns Systemn = f !
SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT NPDES FLOW SCHEMATIC NPDES Permit No. TN0026450 Allows In MG0 A- denotes alternate flow path to be used by authori o pbant management June 30, 2003
- Repef Intennitent IbW Flow Is 200 geyr - Flow Is 10,000 ga/yr
SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT WATER TREATMENT PLANT SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT NPDES FLOW SCHEMATIC Al flows MGD NPDES PerMft No. T0026450 TFbw 200 gaW June 30,2003
EPI .~~~ frorn tem TN64tI020ER4copy . 1Iof Form.1)~
.. .... Form Approved OMB No.2040-0086 Please print or type in the unshaded areas only TN5640020504 Approval expires 5/31/92 UFLOWS.:SOURCES OF :P.OLLUTION,IAND.TREATMENT.TECHNOLOGIES'
,.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.... te e....- ....... se.-o......m:
showng avera gews -beeeraIes ru a weri
. ---., . is), provide s~pictri o4eswrptf theg natu~r.....................end aoihofany sourcesrE.waterani any-ogiteton or treatment measwre.r .........................:
.....-oeacoutallroe R dcptkaf: (Alora nt g watewr to the eff.luent, luinrctl ta...n.ta. w wastewar. Contpbue aOPERATI kmO on~addl~ona f e. ... E l-Wa.D~CIPIQ 1s"Asary ..... .... . U$CQE FO
- 1. ............
i-o T = 'O FLOW ...
TR :,TRN ...................... Z 0 R TME#:-
. ALL.NO F.. R ' R.'RR R'-Rx' ' g RR R ;' R~a ' ': 'R ' :' :......' ' R Diffuser Pond 1597.2308 MGD Discharge to Surface Water 4 A 101_ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _.__ _ Sedimentation (settling) 1 U 11 DSN 101 receives flow from the foltowing __________________
sources: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Low Volume Waste Treatment Pond (Outfall 1.1371 MGD 103): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _
. ~Discharge from metal cleaning waste ______
. . ~Ponds (outfall 107) (0.0025 MGD)______
Turbine building sump - (1.W067 MGD)______
Storm water runoff (0.W010 MGD)
Neutral waste sump (WTP) (0.1224 MGD)______
CCW discharge channel: 1553.4604 MGD______
Raw cooling water syvstem (37.1794 MGD) Disinfection (other) 2 H Condenser circulating system (1516.2520 MGD)______
Storm water runoff (0.0232 MGD) M .... .. . .
Coolng tower blowdown basin: 40.4404 MGD______
ERCW system
_____ - .(40.3200 MGD) Disinfection (other) 2 H Cooling towers (helper/closed mode)
Storm water runoff (0.0652 MD) I Llquid radwaste treatment system (0.0500 MGD) I Ion Exchange j 2 _ _J Multimedia Filtration 1 a EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) Page of 4 Continue on Page 2
I EPAJ '.......NUMBER (op fro. otle.m,' orm.1) Form Approved OMB No.2040-0086 Please print or type in the unshaded areas only TN5640020504 Approval expires 5131192 FORM APPLICATION U.S. ..-- NVERONMENAPRXE-CTQ FOR PERMIT TO DISCHAR~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~EWASRTT......... ... ..
2Cf:
fX'S~tNG :.:..::.:~j~pj.: .AI MANUFACTURING, COM : MI ND S:L::.....A. .. OPE
.. . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~......
- li- OUTFALL.L.OCATTNN CATI.ON::
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~........
LMW~~~~.$EC..I 1. DEG 12~.....
, Vf-..
.... .... S......- i+- ...... +Fws-.
-iFortach ofalt. ist teItit;Iei .n ogiuefoits:lction 1o te eret $secqn and th name ftbh reeivngat e . f.ff -.g:'"-
A.i ' A. f .. ...f . TUDE j i ~. LONGfITUDE f ff ffEfAEf E..ING WATER 101 35 12 3 85 05 14 4. Tennessee River I. I I II II1*
1 1-4 4 4. .5. I 4. +
I I I I I'
-LOWS,'SOURCESSCF POLIUTIONr ANOTREATMENT-TECHNOLOGiES .- =_l- ~-..:
j:Attach ,a,,lin dshowinthe Swter,fow though the failty.'.
o des . eA ht s rptosouce or inaeW erto6 c!iri~~I~Itd
. s
- showi'ng
. effc ties"*,prvd a f eatmelt avera'geio :bei'e heffluent.
'~oiIt titon9 tke etio' fpre sfpe au~dp t
-aamen.iit~n fnd fr~oitrn Smeasfufe-.
tte " . n t a ottalls I:'tawter baa ne an't'bfdet'rmind (e{. f:orcettit muting tetonrle
)
n fi r
. . 0id as b: . . .f Lor~h~c@ll~povkeaS e r .- n- Sff.,at S'mf +iz^S-ff ptloo~f"tik4 tri . F'^
storef S :S'nlt~~~~TO Sr
- .S:
ertos
'-; f f f: ' . :.S
...... ¢ ,-:
.ge i. :
e~.t f ".S '"
Vnn
.,:S 40.' :f_: R.'
.... 1..,O:U...Tf.S
. ,,.',.,..., 2."*Pm ~S~'!:S"S S}fOTBTNF S) COTIBTN F W3.
S"S............................... TREATMET:
'S'S ... ... ... - :sfsssS Yard drainage pond: 2.1366 MGD Sedimentation (setting) 1 -U 101 ConstrJDemo. landfill storm water runoff (0.0258 MGD) .. ..______________________
Con't. Switch yard runoff (0.0388 MGD)____ _____________ _____
Yard drainage system (2.0678 MGD)______
Storm water runoff 0.0270 MGD ._____
a.
- .::: _:._:: .; _k _* ......... ::.:::.. ::..:.:.-:::.:.................:.::,..,::
....t.H.....
- ";i::*a.
USE ..............
EPA Form 3610-2C (8-90) Page of 4 Continue on Page 2
CONT FROM PAGE 1 C t for storm runoff, leaks, or spills, are any of the discharges described in tems Il-A or B intermittent or seasonal?
I 6 complete the followina table) El NO (o to Section )
I I I I When rainwater collects In the Metal Cleaning Waste Ponds, the ponds are discharged (Outfall 107)
Into the Low Volume Waste Treatment Pond which discharges through Outfall 103 Into the Diffuser Pond (Outfall 101). The Metal Cleaning Waste Ponds discharge an average of 10-12 hours per day, approximately 10-30 days out of the year with an average flowrate of 70 gpm.
EPA Form 3510-2C (Rev. 285)e Page 2 of 4 Continue on Page 3
EP.A.. .I..M BE opy oIm-item o fo ...i.) .
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 2 TN5640020504
N S.-&'C v ...e Pogit- -C -owd C",
.......... ....... ........ Abt-b Aftfib Ate' ....... h 'ieouffaff-h4ft? A,
... h' 'd d'
.......................... . . . . ........... :1 ..............
eets: n-um .... e red Y
........ ---&Wftdft-v4;9 M.1... .. ..... ....... ....... ..........
I............
................. .......... I.........................
- ...-...I............- -............
D'. ..........
............. ...................- h- h ........ ..........
......... ft d ALA ari., ....-`- - ......""h", ... -W..Lf:kn0W:br:............
-'e.'ressons.-W a"
" " ": ....................:)IsA belib
A sdh*
Tarks gevor
...... eveift-td,-bc ....... It
. i:-
. . - PO -LUT . . . . . .:: . . . . ......
.. .........2'..-SOURCE.-
. .I....
.` X.... . . I.................
...1...-.-...-.......-... ..
L "TANT .: 2. S-URE- i l . .........
Dimethylamine Steam Generator Layup (The use of dimethylamine will not result in detectable quantities at Outfall 101 for the following reason:
The maximum dimethylamine concentration in the steam generators s 10 ppm during layup.
The capacity of each unit's four steam generators Is approximately 80,000 gallons. Steam generators can be drained down at a rate of 400 gpm. Both unit's steam generators are not drained down simultaneously. Therefore, the maximum concentration of dimethylamine at Outfall 101 would be 0.007 com. The MDL for di I EPA FORM 3510-2C (8-90) Page 3 of 4 Continue on Page 4
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 3
.ViI. BIOLOGICAL-TOXICITY t.e.,l
- DA.-TA csc
- oym have any.k w A oz-n i that: bv:. Fo F - P reoivinwter in retio tow your discharge wi..........hi........ h s y
, : :;: : - : .: : : : . . .: .:- . : . : : - :; - : ...~. .. .-.... : --i: :
Per the requirements of the SON NPDES Permit No. TN 0026450, IC25 toxicity testing has been conducted on discharges from Outfall 101 on a quarterly basis and results submitted to the Division of Water Pollution Control on the appropriate Discharge Monitoring Reports.
.VMIIL -U-#KJ&I SNALWbIS3N~UK IUNF Were any dtlie analyses reported in itemi¶tperformeci by a qontract laboratoryorponsulting firm?
S YE${list#he name4 eddressi and telephone numberol end pollutents U NO (go to Se jon IX) anhfrzedby,'e'ach such Ja'boratoq or Inn below)
A. NAME B. ADDRESS C. TELEPHONE D. POLLUTANTS ANALYZED (area code no.) (list)
Test America 2960 Foster Creighton Drive (615) 726.0177 Cyanide and T. Phenols Nashville, TN 37204 r-..~ ~ ....... ."4 - -. ..AC -
- 1 L tSS w s~~~~~s... ......... . f ... .§.. ... ....
W S t f ssfX f...f~R ,Bt~,
fcei4:r iir~ez~Iy-i ie .......d... rwnrOArTaffe -6 echinentswerepri, - ecffleqIfronfoc ..... th~str A. NAME &OFFICIAL TITLE (type orprino B. PHONE NO. (area code &no.)
Richard T. Purell, Site Vice President, Seguoyah Nuclear Plant 423-843-7001 D. DATE SIGNED ca _ June 30, 2003 EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90)
PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE N THE UNSHADED AREAS ONLY. You may report some or al of tis Information EPA l.D. NUMBER (copy frm Item I of Form )
on separate sheets (use the same format) Instead of completing these pages.
SEE INSTRUCTIONS. TN5640020504 4101
<3 <44710.74 2 mg/L Ibs/day 4 53009.04 1
<5 <74517.90 2 mg/L lbs/day <5 <66261.30 1 3.0 44710.74 2 mg/L lbs/day 3.1 41082.01 1 12 178842.96 6 86369 <5.14 <68459.6 58 mg/L lbs/day 3 39757.78 1 0.03 447.11 2 mg/L lbs/day 0.03 397.57 1 VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE 1787 1726 1597 396 MGD 1589 1 VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE 26.6 24.3 14.7 221 'C 9.6 4 VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE 30.5 30.0 26.3 183 'C N/A N/A MINIMUM I MAXIMUM MAXIMUM 4.. MINIMUM MNIAUM I MAXIMUM MAXIMUM 4.
128 STANDARD UNITS N/A 72 8.0 1 7-3 1 R.
x <29807.16 2 mg/L Ibs/day <2 <26505 1 1 X <0.05 <745.18 <0.015 <215.92 <0.009 <1 19.87 519 mg/L lbs/day <005 l <662.61 4 X 10 2 PC Units lbs/day 5 1 x <9.5 8 cOOnmLs/ bs/day <10 4 X 0.10 l 1490.36 2 l mg/L lIbs/day I 0.13 l 1722.79 1 x 0.47 7004.68 2 mg/L bs/day 0.43 5698.47 1 rag V-1 I .4U3- I..-_0 U U 5698.47 beV-1
x 0.195 2906.20 2 mg/L lbs/day 0.22 1 2915.50 1 X <6 <89421.48 <5 <71974 <5 <66595 58 mg/L lbs/day <5 <66261 4 X 0.05 745.18 2 mg/L lbs/day 0.05 662.61 1 A 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. -
X <3.405 2 pIC/Liter 4.3 1 X 3.15 2 plC/Liter 2.91 1 None X None Detected 2. piC/Liter Detected 1 x
X 17.5 260812.65 2 mg/L lbs/day 16 212036 1 X <0.02 <298.07 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.02 <265.05 1 X 1.125 16766.53 8 mg/L lbs/day 1.0 13252 4 X <0.1 <1490.36 2 mg/L lbs/day 0.20 2650.45 1 X 0.325 4843.66 2 mg/L lbs/day 0.24 3180.54 1 X 0.03 447.11 2 mg/L lbs/day 0.03 397.57 1 X <0.2 <2980.72 <0.2 <2878.97 <0.2 <2663.8 16 mg/L lbs/day <0.2 <2650.5 1 X c0.001 <14.90 2 mg/L lbs/day 0.0255 337.93 1 X 0.32 4769.15 2 mg/k lbs/day 0.23 3048.02 1 X 5.65 84205.23 2 mg/k lbs/day 5.6 74213 1 X <0.02 <298.07 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.02 <265.05 1 X 0.043 640.58 2 mg/L lbs/day 0.036 477.08 1 X <0.05 <745.18 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.05 <662.61 1 X 0.017 253.36 2 mg/L lbs/day 0.013 172.2 1 EPA Form 3510-2C (8-00) Page V-2 I CONMRUE ON PAGE V-3
TN5640020504 DSN 101 x <0.001 <14.90 2 mg/L I lbs/day 0.002 26.50 X <0.0016 <23.85 2 mg/L lbs/day 0.0017 22.53 1 X <0.001 <14.90 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.001 <13.26 1 X 0.00016 2.38 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.0001 <1.33 1 X <0.001 <14.90 2 mg/L lbs/day 0.034 450.58 1 X 0.0041 61.10 2 mg/L lbs/day 0.0032 42.41 1 X <0.001 <14.90 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.001 <13.25 1 X <0.0001 <1.49 2 mg/L lbs/day. <0.0001 <1.33 1 X <0.001 <14.90 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.001 <13.25 1 X <0.001 <14.90 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.001 <13.25 1 X <0.0001 <1.49 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.0001 <1.33 1 X <0.002 <29.81 2 mg/L lbs/day 0.003 39.76 1 X <0.01 <149.04 2 mg/L lbs/day 0.01 132.52 1 X <0.005 <74.52 8 mg/L lbs/day <0.005 <66.26 4 X <0.005 <74.52 8 mg/L lbs/day <0.005 <66.26 4 DESCRIBE RESULTS x
- {fiVu rage v4 %ONINuU %A V4
x <0.oo1 <14.90 mg/L lbs/day <0.001 <13.25 I 1 2 X <0.001 <14.90 2 mg/I lbs/day <0.001 <1 3.25 1 X <0.001 <14.90 2 mg/I lbs/day <0.001 <1 3.25 1 x
X <0.001 <14.90 2 mg/I lbs/day <0.001 <13.25 1 X <0.001 <14.90 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.001 <13.25 1 x <0.01 <149.04 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.01 <132.52 1 X <0.001 <14.90 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.001 <13.25 1 X <0.01 <149.04 2 mg/L lbsday <0.01 <132.52 1 X <0.01 <149.04 2 mg/L Ibs/day <0.01 <132.52 1 X <0.0005 <7.45 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.0005 <6.63 1 X <0.001 <14.90 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.001 <13.25 1 X <0.001 <14.90 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.001 <13.25 1 X <0.001 <14.90 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.001 <13.25 1 X <0.001 <14.90 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.001 <13.25 1 X <0.001 <14.90 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.001 <13.25 1 X <0.01 <149.04 2 mg/I lbs/day <0.01 <132.52 1 X <0.001 <14.90 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.001 <13.25 1 X <0.001 <14.90 2 mg/I lbs/day <0.001 <13.25 1 X <0.01 <149.04 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.01 <132.52 1 EPA ~ Far 001-S (840 P90 V.
2 mg/L lbs/day CO2IU
<0.001 1.8 V001 Og/PAGEda
<13.25 1 X <0.001 <14.90 EPA Form 3310-2C (8-90) CONTINUE ON PAGE Vm Page V4
~AUM~
W fi~me~w1~ift1Y OUTAU..4UM8E 4 I TN5640020504 I DSN101 x <0.001 <14.90 2 mg/ Ibs/day <0.001 <13.25 I X <0.0005 <7.45 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.0005 <6.63 1 X <0.0005 <7.45 2 mg/I lbs/day <0.0005 <6.63 1 X .<0.001 <14.90 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.001 <13.25 1 X <0.01 <149.04 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.01 <1 32.52 1 X <0.001 <14.90 2 mg/I lbs/day <0.001 <13.25 1 X <0.0002 <2.98 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.0002 <2.65 1 X <0.001 <14.90 2 mgIL lbs/day <0.001 <13.25 1 X <0.01 <149.04 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.01 <132.52 1 X <0.002 <29.81 2 mg/L Ibs/day <0.002 <26.50 1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.....
X <0.005 <74.52 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.005 <66.26 1 X <0.005 <74.52 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.005 <66.26 1 X <0.005 <74.52 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.005 <66.26 1 X <0.024 <357.69 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.024 <318.05 1 X <0.02 <298.07 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.02 <265.05 1 X <0.005 <74.52 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.005 <66.26 1 X <0.03 <447.11 2 mg/I lbs/day <0.03 <397.58 1 X <0.024 <357.69 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.024 <318.05 1 X <0.005 <74.52 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.005 <66.26 1 X <0.005 <74.52 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.005 <66.26 1 X <0.0027 <40.24 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.0027 <35.78 1 r; lJz-o}
0sj~w5 D.A VA.nlsn Page o UUNI.... UN r-.
~cvV.
CONTINUED FROM~ PAGE V.5__________
1++ l0 B Si g B } BB . ... 0 i B l g BB .
' .NU ':.:
fiC!MS FRAC'3B:: ~A5I*N ~IITT~AL~QI ~0UN_.........__
.33 X -.... 2mt -000 l7.2.
bs/day c6.2
-000 -
- p x: X~t X
- ti .) . <0.006 X c0.005 c <74.52
- 74.52 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.005 <66.26 1 0 2mg/L Iby0.005 c :66.26
.B...... .... 1 X <0.005 <74.52 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.005 <66.26 1
- B. nidn R
.X <0.05 <745.18 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.05 <662.61 1 X <0.005 <74.52 2 mg/I lbs/day <0.005 <66.26 1 X <0.01 <149.04 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.01 <132.52 1 X <0.01 <149.04 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.01 <132.52 1 X <0.01 <149.04 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.01 <132.52 1 X <0.001 <14.90 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.001 <132.2 1
,a. . .*
._ > ~~X c0.005 c74.52 2 mg/L Ibs/day c0.005 <66.26 1 X <0.005 <74.52 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.005 <66.26 1 J~5k~lWM~te x ':0.0025 ':37.26 2 mg/I lbs/day <0.0025 <33.13 1 X <0.001 <14.90 2 mg/L lbs/day X= <O.WS5 <74.52 ==2mg/L lbs/day cD <0.001 WS5 <132.2 c66.261 1
.m
. ... .. X _ 0.005 <74.52 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.005 <66.26 1 X <0.005 <74.52 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.005 <66.260 XD <0.02 <3 .2 2E4 mg/ lb/a <0.02 IIWru<33.1 1].ruI X <0.002 <29.81 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.002 <26.50 - 1
- - - 1-1 grf%rorm 431ucu J.-Wul rage v m
CONTINUED FROM PAGE V4 I TN5640020504 I DSN101 I x <0.0044 c65.58 2 rng/L Ibs/day <0.0044 <58.31 1 X -0.025 <372.59 2 mg/Q lbs/day c0.025 <331.31 1 X c0.0019 c23.32 2 mg/L lbs/day c0.0019 (25.18 1 X c0.0016 c23.85 2 mg/Q lbs/day <0.0016 c21.20 1 X <0.0025 (37.26 2 mg/I lbs/day (0.0025 <33.13 _
X c0.001 c14.90 2 mg/I lbs/day c0.001 <13.25 1 X c0.005 <74.52 2 mgQI lbs/day <0.005 <66.26 1 X <0.01 <149.04 2 mg/I lbs/day (0.01 (132.52 1 x
X c0.0022 c32.79 2 mg/I lbs/day <0.0022 (29.15 1 X =0.0003 <4.47 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.0003 <3.98 1 X c0.0019 (28.32 2 mg/Q lbs/day (0.0019 (25.18 1 X (0.005 <74.52 2 mg/I lbs/day <0.005 <66.26 1 X (0.03 <447.11 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.03 (397.58 1 X (0.0005 <7.45 2 mg/I lbs/day (0.0005 (6.63 1 X (0.01 (149.04 2 mg/I lbs/day c0.01 (132.52 1 X (0.005 <74.52 2 mg/I lbs/day. (0.005 (66.26 1 X (0.005 (74.52 2 mg/I lbs/day <0.005 (66.26 1 X c0.005 (74.52 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.005 <66.26 1 X- c0.001 (14.90 2 mg/I lbs/day <0.001 <13.25 1 X (0.005 (74.52 2 mg/L lbs/day c0.005 <66.26 1 EPA Form 310-2C ") Page V-7 CONTINUE ON PAGE Vl
x c0.0007 <10.43 2 mg/L Ibs/day <0.0007 '9.28 1 X <0.0003 <4.47 2 mg/. lbs/day <0.0003 <3.98 X <0.005 <74.52 2 mg/I lbs/day <0.005 <66.26 x
x x
x x
x x
x E Fom31480 x .g. v_ OTiEONAGV.
x x
x x
x x
x EPA Form 3310-2C (8o0) Page V4 CONTINUE ON PAGE V9
NW~i i. pytN5640020504 o I~ai t DS INUA CONTINUED FROM PAGE VJ TN5640020504 DSNIOI x
X <0.00005 <0.75 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.00005 <0.86 1 X <0.00005 <0.75 2 mg/I lbs/day <0.00005 <0.66 1 X <0.00005 <0. 75 2 mg/I lbs/day <0.00005 <0.66 1 X <0.00005 <0.75 2 mg/I lbs/day <0.00005 <0.66 1 X <0.00005 <0.75 2 mg/I lbs/day <0.00005 <0.66 1 X <0.00005 <0.75 2 mg/I lbs/day <0.00005 <0.66 1 X <0.00005 <0.75 2 mg/L lbs/day <0.00005 <0.66 1 x
l Form Approved EPA. NtUMER . (copy -rom- tem 1of Form 1) OMB No.2040-0086 Please print or type in the unshaded areas only TN5640020504 Approval expires 5131/92 4 4 1- 4 4 t 1 1- 4 4 4 4 t I 1 4 -4 4 4 t 1 4 4 4 4 t
. 4. -4 4. 4 f W..
ht..rb ut- -........
ns _toI.............
b0....... tti
....................W"", ... ......... ... .....'t,en4'.qW.;....Ir"u h: .th-w-lop.
IF e", ""OR ....... WU = ItJjM a..L k-*.'W"If.911'
.Opera.
or.exe
.-Isi.-.
......---: . Jpwe an vl : -f-.A.'aeo ae
. . ..... no m -r -erm. -......:.i
......--. wamte noce Aft
. ......... ~~~~~~~~~~ * ~ PTI I .O W SCR 4.
I Low Volume Waste Treatment Pond 1.1371 MGD Sedimentation setling) 2 U 103 DfNeutralizationSe2_ K DSN 103 receives flow from te Iolwn sources: I Metal Cleaning Waste Ponds (Outfall 107) 0.0025 MGD Turbine building sump: 1.0067 MGD Turbine building floor and equipment drains (0.1600 MGD)
Condensate demineralizer regen. waste (0.1000 MGD) Neutralization 2 K Secondary system leaks and draindowns (0.0220 MGD)
Steam generator blowdown (0.1800 MGD)
CCS waste Miscellaneous equipment cooling Ice condenser waste (0.0525 MGD)
Alum sludge ponds (WTP) (0.0296 MGD) Sedimentation (settling) 1 U Gravity Thickening 5 L Landfill 5 Q Neutral waste sump (WTP) 0.1224 MGD Storm water runoff I
I 0.0010 MGD I t Precipitation minus evaporation I 0.0045 MGD EPA Form 3510-2C (890) Page of 4 Continue n Page 2
CONTINUED FROM.PAGE I C. Except for storm runoff leaks, or spills, are any of the discharges described in Items l-A or B intermittent or seasonal?
s YES (complete the following table) O NO (go to Section 111)
.... = . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~........... -EtE-. ............................ ....................... ..............
.. EQ U N . .. . . ........................... ............ ....- - :
1, OUTFALL 2. O~~~~~~~~~PERATION(s).. . .....
-E................................
.R.-
- F-.
OBR~~~~~tU
, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. . . . . , RATE:
FLOW ...-.
......... b. TOTAL VOLUME t W-13ER COTIUIGILW a.DY .MNH 107) which includes......
batchEEK ev ra ) ~ VE AGE £specl6~ithi....DURATION A~l ...........
107 Discharges from the Metal _______________________
Cleaning Waste Ponds (Outfall 0.0025 0.0504 107) which includes batch discharges of chemical cleaning When stormwater collects, the Metal Cleaning Waste Ponds are discharged through Outfall 107. The wastes from various plant Metal Cleaning Waste Ponds discharge an average of 10-12 hours per day, approximately 21 days systems and accumulated out of the year with an average flowrate of 70 gpm.
stormwater.
- -.IL PRONCTN in lf. h--fA II.>R ................. ... ......
lt2:. .: ,
- k- ' ^^
R Af. hk I ; PN^
C-- lfyoawe ysI* tem tt-I-Jsl stit whti~p t aca masremet of.y.u
- u Yalt roUct-o erse di aerm : :
- v. -....*.--. i the ~app icaible .effluentdelineandndicate he affected
- wittuse
.,AVERAGE DAILY 2PRO:C..
AFFECTED. '
ia QUANITY I.RoDAY :b- UNITS OF oOP.ER > :
EuSti . ON t MTErA- T -. . i.t.-
. ;'s .~t;,H ;n!;m.e*ri
________________ .s. ;j. W :; .
IV. IPROVEENTS".
- ~~~~ _________ t ....... K.,--------
P
. . -- ...or- o tr 5lU ;a n.~.pr i6" , 'a-I A.`--Arey~nwrqi i ne leraL $tate qrl cal auttiority .I-MO' sch res h~ap~
A, : ' , ".
ton .sVh ifete ......- I ...
....t ...... e. .. ....... tnr+/-fic rt ny bth*t rr a1it '. .......... ... ... .. . .
S A. ' 'it'* L.: :::ii.:,:::
tio7 ........
. RiiR
_ i N .; .,,r ..
.couit~rdets,an~~,faht or Ioan-~n it -ts.fs AGWEN TTC.....O c IAGa.~
B, OPTIONAL: You may ai .... ..itna etsls~rbn ..rg o nin'mna njct h
.n........trpluhncnro youracttial for
.... ..... m cotistruct~~...
in~~~~~~~d~s~~bedut~~es I ESRPTINe '
C~IINACNhO ... RGRMQ SATQE EPAFor35 C.R.
.. . 85 Pae2 f otnu n ae EPA Form 3510-2C (Rev. 2-85) Page 2 o 4 continue on Page 3
EPAX UMEI W -cp "eoItm fPnl rCNTINUFD FROM PArF 2 TN5640020504
-L
[-;v-IKEAND'EFFLUENT.CHARACTPRISTICJi: Wa-f.ff.>>ftfffa....>a.+@.Ssff; 7
,:B,
,:-&E:C . .... .......I....... ...
- 'fb.............
"pc' e~~~~~i ... .. ..... .. . .. . ... .. .....
gEb ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O-HB,a 0d, el p ..
.a tI bftib e ' tie :W WJ
~~~~~~~~~~.. . --:..-..-
.Ds ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
- b. ....
C :4-A - b
.. ..r........m-::
et f
.:-:..4.a>Ja~~ ~~..y...... : ;... ... . ..... ...
fi y :- ff ~~~~~~~~~~. .......... ... -th . . -....
_ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4trAJUr-.`.--.'. ... .- ,...... ~ .-....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- s::
- s 1.F -
- $.-
I.~
s:-::-:,
........ ~... . ..... SOURC - - -- . ...1.
. ....... . e r t L ....
Dimethylamine Steam Generator Layup (The use of dimethylamine will not result In detectable quantities at Outfall 103 for the following reason:
The maximum dimethylamine concentration in the steam generators is 10 ppm during layup.
The capacity of each unit's four steam generators Is approximately 80,000 gallons. Steam generators can be drained down at a rate of 400 gpm. Both unit's steam generators are not drained down simultaneously. Therefore, the maximum concentration of dimethylamine at Outfall 103 would be 0.007 ppm. The MDL for dIimethvhamine k 0 1 nnm)
EPA FORM 3510-2C (8-90) Page 3 o 4 Continue on Page 4
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 3 VII. BIOLOGICAL TOXICITY TESTINGWDATA -~ _~ _ _.
-Doyou have any nwedge orasnto beflee tty biolgctest cueo : ronc ct ha :been: mad e- any:oFyo dischare: oo--:
recevin reati~~oyou waeri dfchage ~tjr h at yern'&Wfers..?avr' Actzb "
..-. t , Xn .....- h t ( _ .. .. ...... ....... ......... :.:B w b. .. ....--
0y~S (*tntrfy t rtsneterupssblw)wN wetestrij.Mn g oScit II TeVit America 2960 Foster Creighton Drive (61:~5) 72640177 Cyanide and T. Phenols Nashville, TN 37204
-X.. VERT u nee~~ r f fl wt at.et W~ me t an at t ac mentts w re pr p r e nd r yR c l o a sma n:s k cc r d nc itIt e dex i ged oMaR ss h e ~ e s p; p y a h r r d e~au t f ei f t o ~ ub ~ t r eee ur ~ e e w o' es n h
.maSh' g th e. ... ...t e.. .. r tho .. .. .. s... n... d......r s on ib e o g th er..
t M' i-Nicemfio. ... n th e Inf omiaffo n sudft o s ot e e t f m n w e g n
,bl P~
a~iau~tue e d .o p~e w~w~ia ter aes It~npi~e~q qr~rrnttpgfas ~....gt-
...... oiU y fi n A. NAME & OFFICIAL TITLE type orprino B. PHONE NO. (area code &no.)
Richard T. Purcell, Site Vice President, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant 423-843-7001 C. SIGATU A. 0. DATE SIGNED
= P ' , t C June 30, 2003 EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) Page 4 o 4
on separate sheets (use the same format) Instead of completing these pages.
SEE INSTRUCTIONS.
10 259.79 1 mg/L lbs/day 9 233.81 1 mg/L lbs/day 3.9 101.32 1 mg/L lbs/day 43 1117.10 18 204.46 11.66 110.95 61 mg/L lbs/day 0.40 10.39 1 mgA/ lbs/day VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE 3.115 1.362 1.137 396 MGD VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE 10.7 N/A N/A 4 IC VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE N/A N/A N/A N/A Oc MINIMUM MAXIMUM MINIMUM MAXIMUM VA I A A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
a4A I In 182 STANDARD UNITS Ibs/
x <2 <52 1 mg/L day X <0.05 <1.3 4 mg/ dlbs/
X 25 1 PC Units X <21 6 Colornies/
X
.> = 0.12 312 = - mg/L day = -
X 0.73 18.96 I1 mg/L day _ _
Iso. q0.q rug. ve n .nu r e u J.. I C avvl raym V -1 UU INt W" rAui VZ
x 0.90 1 23.38 1 mg/L lbs/
X <5 <130 <5 (56.8 <5 <47.4 62 mg/L day X . 0.56 14.55 1 mI bs/
~. ..EN.
. r --
X <4.42 1 piC/Liter X 2.93 1 plC/Liter X None Detected 1 piC/Liter x
X 30 779.37 I mgL bs X c0.02 <0.52 1 mg- day_
tbs/
X 1.0 25.98 4 mg/. day 020 520 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
X 0.20 - 5.20 = _ mg/L day X 0.88 22.86 1 mg/. day X 0.03 0.78 1 mg/ day __
Ibs/
X <0.2 <5.20 1 mg/L. day X <0.001 <0.026 ______________
1 mg/ da bs/
day ____________ ______~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ibs/
X 0.38 9.87 1 mg/. day X 6.2 161.07 1 mg/. day _
<0022 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bsI X <0.02 <0.52 1 mg/L day 390 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~lb X 0.15 3.90 1 mg/L day
<00530 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bs/
X c0.05 <1.30 1 mg/L day X . 0.015 0.39 1 mg/L m/. lbs/
day _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
EPA For 31tO2C 80 Page V42 CONTINUE ON PAGE V-3
TN5640020504 DSN 103 1D05 jx <0.001 <0.026 1 mg/L day X <0.001 <0.026 1 mgAI day_
X c0.001X X ,001 <0.026 c0.0001 c0,02B c0.0026 - 1 mgt l 1 1 mg
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~day m Ibs/
day lbsI X =0.0001 <0.0026 1 mgQ day X <0.001 <0.026 1 mg/L day lbs/
X 0.0038 0.099 1 mgA day 8 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bs/
X <0.001X co.O~~~~~~~~~~~~l c0,02B
<0.026 1 1 mgt mgI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ibd) d mg day lbs/
X <0.0001 <0.0026 1 mg/I a __________
x ~~~<0.001<0026 g/ IbsI
<. 1 mg/I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~day x ~~~<00001 <00026 g/ IbsI mg day lbs/
X <0.0021 <0.0526 1 mg/I a ____
<00<026 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bs/
x <0~~.01 0.6 1 mg/I day ____
x <~~0.005 <0. 13 4 gI bs/
<.5 4 mg/I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~day x ~~~<0.005 <0.13 4IgA bs/
DESCRIBE RESULTS x
EPA Form 510-2C (8-90) Pag V-3 CONTINUE ON PAGE V4
151' x <0.001 <0.026 1 mg/. day X c0.001 c0.026 1 mg/.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ibv' day X <0.001 <0.026 1 mg/ day x X = c0,001 c0,02B . 1 mgt ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~day IbsI X <0.001 c0.026 1 mg/L day X <0.001 <0.026 1 mg/L day lbs/
X <0.01 <0.26 1 mg/. day Ibs/
X <0.001 <0.026 1 mg/L day X< c~~0.0015 c0.01 _ 1 mg/I. day X <0.01 <0.26 1 mg/I dbs X = = c0,026 cO.001 1 mgt ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~day X =c0,026.
= c0,001 1 mg/L. day
<c00c0,261 mg/L Ibs/
X = = cO.001 <0.026 1 mg/L day X T c~0,0005 cj,2 1 ~mgbsda lbs/
X x .<0.001 <~~~0.001 <0.02B
<0.026 1 mg/I. day Ibday mgIday_ _
X x ~~~<0.001
<0.01
<0.026 (0.26 1 g/
mgI Ibs/
day mgIday_ _
X (0,001 (0,026 I mg/L bs/
x <~~0.01 (0.26 day Ibsmg/I _ _ _ _
(0001 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bs/
x <0.001 ~<0J.02& I mg/I day ______ ________
EPAForm 351O-2C(840) Pug. V4 CON~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~iNUE ON PAGE V.A~~~~lbs EPA Form 310Q2C (8-90) Pge V4 CONTINUE N PAGE V-5
CONTINUED FROM PAGE V4 TN5640020504 DSN103 Ibs/
x <0.001 <0.026 1 mg/L day Ibs/
X <0.0005 <0.013 1gL day Ibs/
X <0.0005 <0.013 1 mg/L day X <0.001 <0.026 1 mg/L dbas/
x <0.01 <0.26 1 mg/L Ibs/da X= = c00012 <00D21 lbsI Ibs/
X <0.001 <0.026 1 mg/L day x <0.0002
<0.0052 1 mg/L l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bsI X <0.001 <0.026 1 mg/L day _
c0005 <0.13 1b/mg/. day X . c0.005 c0.2< 1 mg bs/
Xc.503mgL day X 0024 c062 1 mg/L Ibsd lbs/
X =c0.002 <0.132 I mgQ day
..c. c0.005 13 . 1 mg/L dbasy m
a/y. d _ _ _ _
<= =
c0.03 <078 0005 1 rng/L dybs I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bst x 0.005
<0.024< <0.13 c0.13 1 1 mg/L mg/I. day _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
X <0.005 <0.13 1 mg/I day
<0.005 <0.13 Ibs/
X <0.0027 <0.073 1 mg/L bs/
day _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
EPA(8400P3ge F rm 35 0.2 08 C8TIN EOg PAEday EPA Form 3310-2C (8-00) Page V4 CONTINUE ON PAGE V6
FROM PAGE VA
] x o0.005 4:0.13 1 mg/L I day Ibs/
X = 0.005 <0.13 1 mg/ day X <0.005 c0.13 .1 11 mg mg/I bs/
~~~~~ _ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~day X <0.05 <1.30 4:. 11 mg mg/I Ibs/
~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~day X <0.005 c0.13 1 mg Ibs/
Xmg/IO6 day X
XA0.01
<0.01 4:0.28
<0.26
. 1 1
g mg/I Ibs/
day lbs/
X <0.010 <0.26 4:001 4:028 1 mg/I day I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bs/
X <0.025
<0.001 <.OB6
<0.026 4:001 4:026 . I 1 mg/I mg/L day day I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bs/
X <0.005 <0.13 . 1 mg/I day mgday_
I _
X c0.<0.0240,005 <0.13 Ibs/
X4_:c0051 4:0026 1 m Ibs/
X <0.005 <0.13 1 mg/I day X = = 0
<0.0025 X
<0.065 c0.13
<0.01 1
1 mg mg/I bs day X <0.0025 <0.05 1 mg/I day x <~~~40005 :013 1 g Ibst mgday_
I _
4:0005 4:0.13 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bsI x <0,005<0. 13 1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~mg/I day _ _ _
IbsI x <0.005 <0.13 4:0005 4:013 1 mg/L day I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bsI x <~~~40.0025 :0065 IbsgA mgday_
I _
X 4:0.01 4:0.26 1 mgIL day/
x 40002g:00 .052 1 lbs/
. ~~ ~ ~~ I mg~~~~~~~~~~~~~d
/I ay _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
X 4:0.002 4:0.0.52 1 mg/I dbay EPA Form 331802C (8490) CONTINUE ON PAGE V-7 Pag 9V4
o I tpS #
lt~~~t'jN564002050 trtm .. DN 103 Mw I CONTINUED FROM PAGE V4l I ~TN5640020504 I DSN103 I Ibs/
x <0.0044 <0.11 1 mg/L day X <0.025 <0.65 . 1 mgL day X <0.0019 <0.049 ./1 mg/L mg lb Lday_ _
X <0.0016 <0.042 1 mg/L day X <0.0025 <0.065 1 mg/L mg dayL _ _ _
X <0.001 <0.03 1 mgIb/d X <0.005 <0.13 1 mg/L day X <0.01 <0.26 1 mg/L day X . . Im I a _
x X <.00022 <0.057 1 mg/L day X <0.0003 <0.0078 1 mg/L
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ ~bsy
~~y_~~ ~~~~~~~da X <0.0019 <0.49I 1 mg/L day lbs/
X <0.005 <0.13 1 1 mg/L day Ibs/
X <0.03 <0.78 1 mg/L day lbst X <0.0005 <0.013 1 mg/L day =_=
lbs/
X <0.01 <0.26 1 mg/L day
<0005013 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bsI X <o.OOS 5 <0.13 . mglL day lbsI X <0.005 <0.13 1 mg/L day 005 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bsI X <0.005 <0.13 1 mgL d X <0.001 <0.026 1 mg/L bs mg/L X <0.3 day x ~~~<0.00. <0. 131 mg/L dal__ _ __b_ __ _ _ _ _
EPA For m 3 5 1 0 4 C ( 8 4 0 ) Pug. V-7 a CONTI NUE ON PAGE V.8~~~~~~~~d EPA Frm 310-2C ( -90) Pag V-7 CONTINUE ON PAGE V4
CONTINUED FROM PAGE V.?
x <0.005 <0.13 1 mgAI. bs/
lbs!
X <0.0007 <0.018 1 mg/L day X = = <0.0003 <0.0078 I mg/L Ibd X I <0.005 <0. 13 1 MgIb/d RE I...
= =- ------------
x x
x x
x x
x x
x EP xXor P==VSCOTNEONPG = =1-2 =80 x
x x
x x
x EPA Form 3510-2C (8-00) Page VJ CONTINUE ON PAGE V4
CO*MNUED FROM PAGE V4 I~ TN5640020504 I DSN103 I x 1 IbsI X <0.00005 <0.0013 1 mg/L day X <0.00005 <0.0013 1 mg/I lbs/
X <0.00005 <0.0013 1 mg/L lbs X <O .00005 <0.0013 .1 I1 mg/L lbs/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~day_ _
X <0.00005 <0.0013 1 mg/L day X <0.00005 <0.0013 _______ 1 mbg/L .s/
_______ ___________ _________ ~~~~~ ~~~~~day_
X <0.00005 <0.0013 1 mg/L day x
EPA Form 3510-2C (840)P Pago V49
-... b - ..NUMBER
.. -. . .TOpy
. p .....
r20 m M 1.. oEorm tem -I....
F'"
Form Approved EPA TN5640020504 OMB No 2040-0086 Please print or type in the unshaded areas only Approval expires 5131192 Chemical Precipitation 2 C Neutralization 2 K Flocculation I G DSN 107 receives flow from the following sources:
Metal Cleaning Waste 0.0000* MGD Storm water runoff 0.0015 MGD Precipitation minus evaporation 0.0010 MGD Flow Is 10,000 gal/yr (0.00003 MGD)
- 4. .4. 4 +
7 .1. .4. .4.
.5. .1. .L EPA Form 3510-2C (8490) Page o 4 Continue on Page 2
, or spills, are any of the discharges described in Items Il-A or B Intermittent or seasonal?
S tmlt h fniewi e- nlf Fhla A Itoffr~e necessary; various plant discharged to the pond infrequently.
systems are cleanedMushed with chemicals Including but not limited to: sulfuric acid, phosphate cleanings, caustic, sodium hypochlorite, sodium bromide, citric acid, hydrazine, hydrogen peroxide, EDTA, dimethylamine, ammonium hydroxide, nitric acid, hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acid, EDA, phosphoric acid, and EPA Form 3610-2C (Rev. 28g5) Page 2 of 4 Continue n age 3
lEP.A :Iit UMBER (coy fm .rn"..1 of'Form 1).
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 2 TN5640020504
- .. AKE AD UENT CIARAGTERISTICS: :ix : :
N O Te b~~ Esr W a A, V-B, ari d V-C arod e~O dee.0cu o.s0 on~ a sh et nu mber ed V-I thr ough V-9 t. r r ma.. ................
D.:eA h elwt hep ut1t 1s6 ~Tbe23oth m~ritfnWhctou oth ~ ae e klt as]nye ekv dshrgso
..... .np .o s ...
EPA FORM 3510-2C (8-90) Page 3 o 4 Continue on Page 4
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 3
- ,,Vll. .BIOLOGICAL TOXICITY'_TESTING DATA _ _ .
.Oton.16. ..eieve-Vat 14 h' . ............. ifj "6161, if::I**oe'ro tp onjidt. lplty. in' na e-brf-anVb:*dtWdSCha
.'eivin Wa,te r.imirela A' . ..................
e the km
....................W............. also
.001hs.A s 0 .d vc CONTRACT :ANALYSIS INFORMAIN B me re ay ~heaalyes eposedim~pe~omec~by aconract1abrat~yaransptm arm
~h~iame YES jis eddrs; en tetehone u Om,.....a......a n...l N...... .c.....X
....,, ~chsuh an~'ze b~ abxaoy rizmelw A. NAME B. ADDRESS C. TELEPHONE D. POLLUTANTS ANALYZED
_________________ (area code no.) & (list)
Test America 2960 Foster Creighton Drive (615) 726-0177 Cyanide and T. Phenols Nashville, TN 37204 A. NAME &OFFICIAL TITLE type orprin) B. PHONE NO. (area code noj Richard T. Purcell, Site Vice President, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant 423-843-7001 C. SIGUUURE D. DATE SIGNED 00 .4 / June 30j 2003 EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) Page 4 o 4
c2 -0.3T 1 mg/L Ibs/day 22 15.12 1 mg/L lbs/day 13 8.93 1 mg/. lbs/day 19 13.06 7.6 3.59 6.8 2.46 21 mg. lbs/day 0.28 0.19 1 mg/L lbs/day VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE 0.0824 0.0567 0.0434 21 MGD VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE 9.3 NA NA 2 Oc VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE N/A N/A N/A N/A GC MNIMUM MAXIMUM MINIMUM MAXIMUM 7A I aa 25 STANDARD UNITS I 8R x 5 3.44 1 mgA.
cay X <0.05 <0.034 2 mg/L day l_l_._l X 15 1 PC Units Le IX 10 I1 1 II100ml- 12 2 2 colonies/
x I.
Ibs/
x 0.16 0.11 1 mg/l. day rage V*1 CONTIN.= ON rA V Z
Ibs/
xI 1.1 0.76 I mg/L day X <5 <3.44 Cs <2.36 <5 <1.81 22 mg/I day
. .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a X 0.07 0.048 1 mgI day_
_..........xx....-'_.....
N, N~~~~~~~~.
x X . . .~~~~~~~~~~~~~
X x
X X 27 18.55 .1g I I bs/
X 0.02 0.014 1 mg. bs_
______ ______________ ~~~~~ _~~~~~~day XX 1.0 0.687 mgA da Ib/2
gX.day == =
x X 0.14 0.096 1 mg/ day lbsI X 0.20.014 1 mgA. day X 0.3 0.206 1 Img lbsI mgI day_ _
X _ <0.001 <0.0007 =b1 mgL ds/
Ig. day_ _
X 1.8 1.237 1.01 0.478 0.74 0.28 27 mg/L day X = 3.3 X. 2.268 L.WU
=1 I mg mg/I. bs/
day~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
a X <0.02 <0.014 1 mg/L bs/
X 0.039 0.0268 1 mg/ dayy X 0.19 0003 l 0.1 .1 l 1 1 m/
~ ~~~~~
mgI l bs/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
day _ _ __ _ _ _ _
X ~0.005 0.003 g1 Ibs/
I day_
.mg/ _ _ _
EPA Frmn 3518-2C p 4) Page V2 CONTINUE ON PAGE V-3
EPAI.Q~
(cdpy*~m NVM5~R ff~# I v'fPi-n
! OVT MM ... .......
] ~~~TN5640020504 DSN 107 x <0.001 <0.0007 1 mg/L low X <0.001 <0.0007 1 mg/L Ibd X <0.001 X _
<0 0007 <0.000 <000007 1Im dybs/
1 mgd_ day X <0.0001 <0.00007 1 mg/L lbsIday m/L X <0.001 <0.0007 1 mgA Ibs/
X 0.011 0.007 0.0041 0.002 <0.0037 0.001 22 ffig/L dbsy X <0.001 <0.0007 1 mg/I sday X <0.0001 <0.00007 1 mg bsy x 0.010 ~~0.007 IInA bs/
0.010.7 1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~day_
Ibs) lbs/
X <0.001 <0.003 I mg/L day x ~~~<0.0001 <0.00007 1 gL lbs/
m/. day_____ ___
x ~~~<0.002 <0.0014 g/ IbsI m/.
day _ _ _
x ~~~<600 <0.007 g/ Ibs/
., 'day
' ' ' '" . 1" mg/I. _ _
X <0.005 <0.003 2 mg/I lbsI x ~~~<0.005<00603 2Irg/ bs/
m/.day _
DESCRB RESULTS x
EPA Form 31802C {8ew0) Page V-3 CONTINUE ON PAGE V-4
i 9'
I' a
t
-- ~~ -4 ~~- APo - - -4 8 c to co88B8o (a Bco _8B N N N N N N N N N J N N N N N N N N N N F
P P Fa P P FI P P 3 P P P P P e P P P, P
- 0. Ep MU, e. E 3 E e° E 3 E E E_ M E eX M 5e tn MCAE 3ME Mgn E
_ ME 3 5: a EM_ a a) E ic - 6 n
2 m
C
II Eonf&iuinn wofnK Bwgm wA I TN5640020504 I DSN107 I x <0.001 <0.0007 2 mg/L l da; Ibs/
X <0.0005 <0.0003 2 mg/L day X <0.0005 <0.0003 2 mgL bs X <0.001 <0.0007 .2 mg/L da/
X =c mg/day lbsI X <0.01 <0.007 2 mg/L day X <0.001 <0.0007 .2 mg/L da/
dayc0 02L X <0.0002 <000014 mg/L rb /2 m/.
day _ _ _
X <0.001 <0.0007 2 mgL day Ibs/
X <0.01 <0.007 2 mg/L day Ibs/
X <0.002 <0.0014 2 mg/L day X <0.005 <0.003 1 mg/L day X <0.005 X<004= c0 003
<0.013 1lmg/I 1 mg/I day da __ _ __b_ __ _ _ _ _
<002 <0014 . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
halmg/I day
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ibs/
X c0.03~ c0.021 1 mg/L day __________ _ _______ ______
X <0.034 <0.021 1 mg/I day _____ ___
X <0.005 <0.003 1 mg/L day X <0.024 <0.016 1 mg/I da bs___ ___
bs/
<005<0.0 03Ibsl x <o~~.5 <0.023 1 mg/I day ____ ___ __
x ~~~<0.005 <0.003 Ibsmg/I dal __s_ _ _
x ~~<0.0027 <0.0019 gbs/ I x <0.0027
<0.0019 I ~~~~~~~~~~~mg/I.
day _ _ _ _
EPA Form 310-2C (90) Pge V9 CONTINUE ON PAGE V4
CP TINI~
I a.l PflI t VAlf 1I IDS/
x <0.005 <0.003 mg/I day IbsI X <0.005 <0.003 I mg/L day = =
Ibs/
X <0.005 <0.003 1 mgQ day Ibs/
X <0.05 <0.03 1 mg/L day X <0.005 c0.003 1 mg/L day _
X c0.01c0.007 1 mglL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~day X X< c0.01 c~~~~~~~~0.01 <0007 c0.007 X = = c.1005 c0.003 .1 1 1 mglL gL mg/L da/
day day .
lbsI X <0.01 <0.007 1 mg/L day X X*co.01 cI 005 <0.007 c0.003 . 1 1 mg/L mgQ bsy day lbs/
X <0.005 <0.003 1 mg/L day Ibs/
X <0.005 <0.003 1 mg/L day 1~~ mg/L ~day _____
lbs/
X <0 005 c00003 I mglL day/
X <0001 <00007 Ib) mglL IW X <0.005 <0O.003
<0.003 11 mg/I mg/L day X = = c0025 c0.0017 I mg/L day lbsX 005 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bsI x ~~~<0.02 <0.0037 1 mg/L. day ____ __
0005<0003 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bs/
x <0.01< <.00 I mg/I day _ _ ___ _
x ~~<0.005 <00034 IIbs)da
<00025
< I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bsI X <0.002 1 <0.0014 1 mg/I day/
EPA Form 510-2C (8S00) CONTINUE ON PAGE V-7 Page V46
TN 560200 Tf I i N 07 . ..........
CONTINUED FROM PAGE V4 I ~TN5640020504 I DSN107 I x <0.0044 <0.0030 I I mg/L l bs /
IbsI X c0.025 c0.017 . 1 mg/. day lbs/
X <0.0019 <0.0013 1 mg/L day X <0.0018 <0.0011 I mg absi X_____ ==________ __________ __ _1 mgQ day 00 _0007 Ibs/
X c0.0025 <0.0017 1 mg/I day
_0001.0 0 007 Ibs/
X <0005 <0.003 1 mg/L day X c0 .01 < 0.007 1 m g/ day __ _ __ _ __ _ _
Ibs/
lbs/
X <0.0022 0.0015 1 mg/L day X 0.0003 <0.0002 1 mg/. day X <0.0015X c0 03<0.0013 c0 021 1 1 mg/L mg/L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~day day X <0.0005 <0.0003 1 mg/. day Ibs/
X c.0019 <0.001 1 mgQI md/daya.y _ _ _
X <0.005 <0.003 1 mg/L Ibs/
'00_'0007 Ibs/
X c0.0005 c0.0013 1 mg/. day X <0.005 <0;003 I mg/L m dbs/
gayI _ _ _
X <0.005 <0.003 1 mg/L day x <0.005<0. .003 1 ~~~~~~~~~~~mg/I day _ _ _
Ibs/
X <0.005 <0.003 1 mg/I day x ~~~<0.001<0.0007 gA Ibs/
.1 1 mg/I ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
_ _ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~d x <0~~.05 <0.003 1 mg/I day _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
EPA Form 310-2C (8)0 Page V-7 CONTINUE ON PAGE VJ
'DFROM PAGEP V.?
mg/I Ibs/
x <0.005 <0.003 1 day lbs/
X <0.0007 <0.0005 1 mg/L day_
X <0.0003 <0.0002 _I 1 day
<000 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bs/
X <0.005 <0.003 1 mg/IW d x
x x
x x
W=_ x __ __ __
x x
x...__=
x C x x
XL1A<XX A ( Fo 0 m P e VT C x
EPA Form 3510-2c(-90 Page V4 CONTINUE ON PAGE V4
t:X:~~~~~~~~~~~~
- 9 ...: .. ..*81". : . ... . ..... .:
CONTINUED FROM PAGE V4 TN5640020504 I DSN107 EPA Form 351 02C (840) page V 9
EO.""'MER4copy. .. .ciItef (omI Form Approved EPAID TN5640020504 OMB No.2040-0086 Please pnnl or type Inthe unshaded areas only Approval expires 5131/92
- M. FL.-OWS
.... ... W SZOURCES SO
.. ...... RC OF OLLUTION, ....P.F ANDsI . TIEATEN
......... ....... ,-.,.TECHC N LLOiS BS ...... .ETT .0 ............................
. . =3 1
<>A. It Attacaeawgitevrowtrouh te aclity. t rh Efi watert e tM t.t
.:. i#.).. prgve4a i" c o.feat ndsount fa n d ay eaent4¶iaae. .a..es.....
........ '.....'..!,- t ~~~UT.
Z OPERAT*ON(5~~~~~~~~~~~~~CQNTRIBLFFING FLOW Cold Channel Water Return 1593 900 MG~~~~~~ddi"Jischarto Surface Watr _
a~~~~~~~~~PP..
TREAT...T .......
I
''''B 4,
110Fo each out10 reciesa now frpoof the flopeainwinguti sources:~~~~~~~~~~~~~k J . ..atwtrt~h
) r flet ncgpoeswatwtr ai StormewattrruAoLE 0.065 2c.
ERWsseatmr oon Return wae 4030
- Dlstorn trruof~ Te aoaec no~Zdyal Discharge tion; n (O}b ColdWater Channel 1593.9008 MGD to Surface We 4 eciejythe.....
.0.:. .. MMultimedi Filt r O, 10 wastewtr Continue tradten seem ne000cesarEchage2.
towers (RCyeooling ( mode uhclosed 5340 G _________________
_____ _____ is discharged through Outfall 110. Outfall __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _
110 has been Inactive for -10 years, but _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _
remains in the event the plant goes into __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________
closed mode.)__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _
I Outfall 110 was not sampled durina the 24-hour sampling event because it is _ _ _
currently Inactive. Therefore, there are no .
... . _ : ... . I . .
analytical results for this outfall.
EPA Form 3510-2C (8-s0) Page o 4 Continue on Page 2
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 aks, or spills, are any of the discharges described in YES (complete the lbilowina table)
Cooling Tower Blowdown Basin Cooling Tower Blowdown Basin discharges recycled cooling water through Outfall 110 while the plant Isinclosed mode. The plant has not entered dosed mode for the last -10 years. Therefore, Outfall 110 has remained Inactive. If the plant does go Into closed mode the discharge flow through Outfall 110 will be approximately 1553.9008 MGO.
L.s~g~Rom,
-II'Pe I:
MeX ffem. . r L-' J{^OD a' 2
- A'
- 2* j.'* N~o ", ..figbb~e
Oh19
- M:Ejn:^e~~~~~~ab*0-t~~~~~g-i.......................................
d^8
^~~.............. ... ...
C. Iyf'y anse~yst It.em llB, isttFe qtianity-Which mres~eF's aca eaumee yure fo el tzdlreprs the trmad'i B 'mits ' .ed (Wthfea Eableiflen-guieEe -nth B BeButa~s
.. SVi'-E GE ILYS' PROD TION . . FF c' ) '11stautfaJ'n).........
EPA Form 3510-2C Rev. 285) Page 2 of 4 Continue on Page
EPA .tD.. iUMbEfcpy .m.te.m. . .
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 2 TN5640020504 V. INTAKE AND EFFLUENT CHARACTER.STICS i -
A B Ci ei t i ns C p e e et i ti..t...........
ote ...............................................
e dI tate
.,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
-A, -B, nd VC ,ar..,.....,
- 4OT:Thies ftilude.. ..ot. . .separa
... . .... . . .eetshm rd -thogh uOE ab K : : : : :-- .:: B :es : . ... ........ ... ..... ......
. .e esp. e eloWt lis ny.. ti .o...... ::d . ..........
T e 2. ih yB
.... .may be.d...ar.ed o....f.l.l. I.or every:.pollutant yea i,.brely.descrlbethe easoi ou. b dat ii o ossi Ei: --
.-P N~.
X~~~x~z zl
'ez t2,:.', ......
........ ....C
......... .. .OL T~ '
Dimethylamine Steam Generator Layup (The use of dimethylamine wAil not result in detectable quantities at Outfall 101 for the following reason:
The maximum dimethylamine concentration inthe steam generators Is 10 ppm during layup.
The capacity of each unit's four steam generators is approximately 80,000 gallons. Steam generators can be drained down at a rate of 400 gpm. Both unit's steam generators are not drained down simultaneously. Therefore, the maximum concentration of dimethyla mine at Outfall 101 would be 0.007 ppmn. The MDL for EPA FORM 3510-2C (8-90) Page 3 o 4 Continue on Page 4
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 3
- IL BIOLOGICAL .TOXICIT.:TESTING DATA . B -_ .
SDo you have any knowledge
\; ; --............... o raso to beiev ithat any: bIooca test for acteor choI .. . toxiciy: has been madeon any of yur ischares or on
.recevin.r~e>lvn9w.2 tei.. ............ o_ ......yu........c g .... . .. ..... lt e 0YE$ (ictentilY the~~"W ts..d...e ~fppoe eow .. O(g o$cto II (a-e codeno.)
area code no.) - (list)
MX.CERTIFICATIoN A-.c., _ R.. -.
S: - :.:
- ...:::: ii . S:: *::
- .x-.:: : ::.. ::*::::.:: -.i-: R: : -:: :;::::. ..-... ::.-::::. .
m.wanage the systemothose-persons-dir odre spnsibe:foirgahelntte:Jnfo natl nbittd Is. t the iestofmynouadedge and. .
l~laffortteife kuffot tnt, r n aoweata, end oompteute :
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ __ __ ' _ R _ R' _ _ R _ i _ _ _ R _ Rflm 4w~ra Ewt.o there areslg."niffcenenales (orssbmfting telsp Intonnatn.a R.
toWu.ing the. po............
R qod
.ane-A. NAME &OFFICIAL TITLE (type orpdn B. PHONE NO. (area code £ no.)
Richard T. Purcell, Site Vice President, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant 4234843-7001 C. SIGAUR, D. DATE SIGNED
- Ckt&9.zo ' S c June 30, 2003 EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) Page 4 o 4
Form Approved EPA IDNUMBE(c~py.fromIte .of.orrn. i OMB No.2040-0086 Please print or type in the unshaded areas only I TN5640020504 Approval expires 5131192
^-D^:s::::::::
. ~~N~
U:.
H,:FLOWS.,:SOURCES OF.P.OLLUTION;,]AND TREATMENT.-.TECHNOLOGIES::'..--$:-'.-.
A.Attah a .e en n the hsces.
effluent treatmen a~ unitstabee pnt~ete~ sptoisntem, ro of ia aCnsrct wtr.:a ancea. tt eIndawiab
... ... ...,b. gigyprgge....ows- .g ........
... ....J:W
........,.....ita..
..._,.een . es.
, Xop
---r- ...- ...
ion's. Ima.mo)olt mi.. .......
Ando-- a -. ... ... ... .............................
.Me.; ....
.0ann ...:. ...- d-.eer
..... aw - mi
.......d':
n0pi.... ..-
... j._
F.:'
I..~~~~~~~~~F IO S. . .... 4..F
~
I II~~t a OPERATION isJ 6 VRG lO a. DESCRIPTION b. ST--COES FRO
............. .. . ......... ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~T D!
CCW Intake Trash Sluie 0.0060 MGD Discharge to Surface Water 4 A 116
_ _ _ _ _ - __. f I__ __ _ __
EPA Form 3510-2C 18-9o) Page od4 Continue on Page 2
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 C. Except for storm runoff leaks, or spills, are any of the discharges described n Items Il-A or B intermittent or seasonal?
0 YES (complete the following table) 0NO (go to Section Ill) a NUMBER C~~~~NTRIBUT1NG ILOW a ........... . ONHa.flOW RATIE, b .TOTAL VOLUME..' . ..c . ... q
~~l~~st) (ffst) P~~........... PER.E. (specify ....
fspecit~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
______.......... {'e....it ..... ~ D RATION'.
OVeg) E~~ 2 ~OUM ~ ~ (ndas............
116 CCW Intake Trash Sluice 1 12 0.0060 0.0450 0.01
. . O NO g
.............. "...e.I~~Iil ietunft h~fer~~~ c~a ~sjrm~o yu ~vIfrduto~exrst ntetem n 1
FLUANTtT-.Y PER DA F .UISO ESUR I
4 F .
~PERATION," ~ ~PRODUCPT, ~ ~ MA~:T-.ERIATC.OTA-f~~~~~~~~~~becifv) ~ ~ ~ .... ... ........ (5sf ouff~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ numbersY
...... . . . .I ... . I .1 . . ... . - .I . .. I . . . . . . . . .11 . . . . . . . 1. , - .. . , - .. ., I. I I ... -
- 1. . .............
,k ~~Uat. #df~ C~T1A I' 0of' * - .IWOI~mu~Ai~i
..-. .. I.. ...- htA~rlri*hh~fh I.. .... . - . . . ....... ..- .... .-.. . ... .. A .
nMi fct oed d~ctfe .u yu1now ae neWI y which,yONtpa. U' idct hte ah rgamsno Jdra rtneadI ct
-Aarm d'i*6#041A "J, .....
ww ...............
i . ....
.......... 0011-10).4
........... ... wo hmkw.-Wo'--V CRIP ON ON co N .00V ROGRA. -.10AT.T.-AC . . . . . . . . . .. ......
EPA Form 310-2C (Rev. 2-W) Page 2 of 4 Continue on Page 3
~, 025py04om N5MBE tem 1. -
TN5640020504 kTICS: 1 _ 7i= . .
EPA FORM 3510-2C (8-90) Page3 of4 Continue n Page 4
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 3
- VII;-B0IOLOGICAL.TOXlCITY.:TESTING DATA: . -.. _ _
"'d be eaW. -.1-6. -416r] L-.061 P-ro-q Ado: .. ... . .........
-fx: ::license MK7ICONTRACTAG ANALYSIS INFORMATION J .
4: r1a .'"I"'sesi re .......................... ' "--rqp R..d, ...i ew'V- ..... a:W W4.9.
...... jq-:'a Ora a .... ... ........ .. ...........
... ..... ..o. -X ....... .. . ......... .. .. ... . ....................
A. NAME B. ADDRESS C. TELEPHONE D. POLLUTANTS ANALYZED
.__ __ __ ___ __ __ ___ __code __ __& no.) ___(area (list)
Test America 2960 Foster Creighton Drive (615) 726-0177 Cyanide and T. Phenols Nashville, TN 37204 IX.C x;1ERTIFICATION .. . ...........
- t_ __
desig 741 swei pt ~orn~iiprr~ppdygti fia aqo'>ei~ed ,W Vet -.41inaufosbit 0ri 4. d.sed .my....y ofhp . ..... or~wh A. NAME &OFFICIAL TITLE (type or PrnQ .8. PHONE NO. (area code no.) .
Richard T. Purcell. Site Vice President, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant 423.843-7001 C. Slgf7UR8 D. DATE g7 SIGNED
_ _ _ _ /___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ June 30. 2003 EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) Page 4 o 4
an separate sheets (use the same format) instead of completing thes. pages.
SEE INSTRUCTIONS. 4
<60.0 1 mg/L lbs/day
<5 <1 50 1 mg/L lbs/day 2.2 66.05 1 mg/L lbs/day 3 90.07 1 mg/L lbs/day 0.05 1.50 1 mg/L lbs/day VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE 3.6 N/A N/A 1 MGD VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE 9.5 N/A N/A 1C VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE N/A N/A N/A N/A *C
..- ,=.....
MINIMUM MAXIMUM j MINIMUM I MAXIMUM 1 STANDARD UNITS R' I NIA KIA x <2 <60 I rng/L Ibs/day l
X <0.05 <1.50 1 mgI lbs/day X 5 1 Unit x 340 .1 340 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ L_
m/10b ~~~~~~ ~~colonies/l
_ X- . I I .- -/0ml -
X 0.43 12.91 1 mgl Ibs/day
--SV.
r- -w CIAN-l vv-ItJ N - AGE -"su
~sw -
x 0.18 5.40 1 mg/. lbs/day X <5 <150 1 mg/L lbs/day X 0.04 1.20 1 mg/L lbs/day
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.....
x x
x x
X 17 510.41 1 mg/L lbs/day X <0.02 <0.60 1 mg/. lbs/day x
x X 0.26 7.81 1 mg/L lbs/day X 0.03 0.90 1 mg/L lbs/day X <0.2 <6.00 1 mg/L lbs/day X <0.001 <0.030 1 mg/L lbs/day X 0.28 8.41 1 mg/I lbs/day X 5.8 174.14 1 mg/L lbs/day X <0.02 <0.60 1 mg/L lbs/day X 0.39 11.71 1 = g/I lbs/day X <0.05 <1.50 1 mg/I lbs/day X 0.013 0.39 1 mg/L lbs/day EPA Form 3510-2C (84M) Page V-2 . CON71NUE ON PAGE V3
P.. t.. :; ........
. .. ' . .. . . - t .....
s I TN5640020504 I DSN 116 I x . <0.001 <0.03 I mg/L I day bs/
X <0.001 <0.03 1 mg/L day X <0.0001 <0.003 1 mg/I day X <0.001 <0.03 ____ 1 mg/L bs day X_ = =_<0_001 <0.03 Ibs/
X <0.0001 <0.003 1 mgQ day lbs/
X 0.0085 <0.26 1 mg/ day X cO O01
<0.00 <0.03 <.1 .
1II mgL mg/L mo/I bs/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~day_
day/ _
X = = <0.03 co O01 _ mg/L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~day, X <0.0001 <0.003 1 mgL bs/
mgIday ___
x ~~~<0.001 <0.03 g/ Ibs/
mg/I day _ _ _ _ _ _
lbs/
X <0.001 <0.03 1 mg/I day X <0.0001 <0.003 1 mgL Ibs/
X <0.002 <0.06 1 mg/L lbsI day_
mgI _
x ~~~<0.01 <0.30 g/ Ibs/
day_
mgI _
Ibs/
X <0.005 <0.15 1 m/s day
_ <0005RESUL <0.15 IEC/
X IDESCRIBE RESULTS EPA Form 310-2C (8-9O) P P. V43 CONTINUE ON PAGE V
Ibs/
x <0.001 <0.03 1 mg. day X <0.001 <0.03 1 mgdL Its _
IX =c0 03 = cO 001 . _ - ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~
X <0.001 ______
<0.03 __________
1 mg/L b/
~~~~~~~ _ _~~~~~~ ~~day x
X = <0.001 <0.03 1 mg/L bs X c.0_1 c0.03 ._.1 mgL day X = = c 001 <0.03 1 _ybs/
X0.mg/L. day X _ <0.001 <003 1 mg/L mg day X cO.~~'01 '0 3 . -g Ibdl hlbs X <0.001X . c0<0.3 015 0005 .
1 ~~~~~~~~~~mgLI mg/L day d_ __ _
I~~~~~~~~~bs/
X '0.01 '0.3 1 mg/L Ibd X = c.010 <0.03 .- 'J.'J,',
I 1 mg/L mg/I dbs
~~~~~~~~~~~~ _ _ _ ~~day_
<0001 <003 I~~~~~~~
/_ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _
X <0.001 <0,03 1 mg bd X cO.001 <0.03 1 mgL day X c.001 -c003 1 mg/L day X <0.001 <0.03 1 mg bs/
mgI day_ __ _
X <0.001 '0..03 1 mg/L dabs____
x <~~0.01 <03 IIg/ bs/
meIday ___
'0001 '003 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bsI x <0.001 <0.03 1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~mg/I day ___
x <~~0.001 <0,03 gA Ibst mgIday ___
x ~~~<0.01 <03 g/ Ibs/
mg I day _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
x <~~0.001 <0.03 dal Ibsmg/I __s_ _ _
Page V.4 CONTINUE ON PAGE V.8~~~~~~~da EPA Form 311 A-2C (640)
EPA Fm35102C S40) Pag V-4 CONTINUE ON PAGE V4
I oAt.Uo.N IWJYIkI -n VJ TN5640020504 DSN 116 Ibs/
X I <0.001 <0.03 1 mg/L day Ibs; X <0.0005 <0.015 1 mg/L day X = 0.0005 X <0.005<0.015 <.1. _1 mg/L mg/I IWs day X <Q001 c~~0.05 mt Ibs/
X <0.001 <0.03 ./1 mg/L ls X <.1 1 mglL day X <0.01 <0.3 1 mg/L bs/
X <0.001 <0.03 mg/L mgday I s1 day_ _
Ibs/
X <0.0002. <0.006 1 mg/L day X <0.001 <0.03 1 mg/L day X <0.005<0.15 . 1 mglL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~day lbs/
X = <0.024 <0.32 I mglL day X <0.005 <0.15 1 mg/L day mg/
day lbs/
X X_
_ _ = =__
<0.005
<0.03______
<0. 15 __ _
1 1__
mg/I m glL___
day day _________
X X ~~~<0.024
<0.005 <0:72
<0.15 1IgL 1 mg/I Ibs/
bd/
day _____
X x . _. ~~<0.0027 <0
<0.0327 <0.9008 . 1 mg/I Ibsmg/IdyA_
day _ _ _ _ _
E P A F or m 3 5 1 0 4 C (8 4 0) Pug. V.8 a CONTINUE ON PAGE V.0~~~~~~~~d X <0.005 <0.15 1 mg/I a Ibs/
EPA Form 3310-2C (84)0) ag v4 CONTINUE ON PAGE 4
rn"tes x <0.005 <0.15 1 mgA. day x <0.005 <0.15 mg/I.
X = = <0.15 c0 005 . _ mglL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~day IbsI X <0.005 <0.15 1 mg/L day
<000<015 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bs/
X oD.05 <1.50 1 rng/ day X <0.005 c0.15 1 mg/L day lbs/
X <0.01 <0.3 1 mgA. day
.1 . I mg/I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~day _ _ _ _ _
X <.01 <0.3 1 mg bsy X = = <0.01 <0.3 - mg/L lbs/
XO.g/L day
<0015 <03151 mg/L ybs/
X = = <0.001 c0.03 I mgAI day X <0.005 <0.15 I mdaygA___
X <0.001 <0.03 1 mg bs/
X =<0.005 <0. 15 1 mg mg/ daybsy
<0. 15 X c0005 1 mgt ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~day X t <0.0025 <0.08 mg/L day X <0.005 <0.15 1 mg/ Ibs/
x ~~~<0.005 <0.15 IInA bs/
mo I day_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Ibs/
X <0005 <0.15 1 mg/I day
<0005<015 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
X =<0.005
= <O.OB .1 mg/I day X <0.0025 <0.08 1 mg mgI da day_ _
x ~~~<0.01 <0.3 II9A bs/
<0.002 <0.06 I bsAmg/Isday lbs/
X <0.002 <0.0s mg/I day ______________
EPA Form 310-2C ") Psge VJ CONTINUE ON PAGE V-r
l 4l. ~~PA M IN5640025 T. et~~~py1I~~w#.~~
- NUMB td~~a~m fSNi Iy .................. 8 WIM16t ......
IU l
CONTINUED FROM PAGE VJ l ~~~TN5640020504 I DSN116 l x <0.004 <0.13 I mg/LImg/ lbst day X <0.025 <0.75 I mg/L dby X <0.0019 <0.06 mg day X <0.0016 <0.05 1 mbs/
mg/I ~day _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
<0.0025 lbsI X <0.08 1 mg/L d X _ c0 c0001 03 1 mg/L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~day X <0.001 <0.03 1 mg/L X0O mg/ da/
day X <0.005 c0. . I mg/L mg I lbs/
day _ _ _ _
X bs/
<0.01 <0.3 1 mg/L day x
<00022 <007 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bs/
X <0.0003 <0.01 1 mg/I bs/
X <0.00OS c0.015 1 mg/L day X <00019 <00 I mg/L bs/
X . .cO0 .9 1 mg/I day X co 005 mg/I mg/L day day x ~~~<0.005 <0.15 I gI bsI X . .015mg/I1day X cO.01 cO.3 1 mg/L mg/L day
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~day
<0.03<0.90 1 mg/I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bsI X <0.03 <0.0 1 mg/L day x <0.0005 ~<0.32
<001 cO.OOSI<1 I mg/L mg/I dayybs/ ___
x ~~~<0005 <0.3 g/ IbsI
.1 1 mg/I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~day _ _ _
X <0.005 <0.15 I mg/I lbsI
_______ ___________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~day_ _ _ _ _
X Ibs/
<0.005 <0.15 1 mg/I day _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _
x <0.005<0. 15 1 mg/L l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bs/
X/ <0.001 <0.03 1m / a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
X 0.005 <0.15 1m / a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
EPA Forn 3Si042C {8o100 Page V-7 CONTINUE ON PAGE V4
CONTINUED FROM PAGE V-x EPA Form 3510-2C (840) Pogo VJ CONTINUE ON PAGE V4
to'K. I ar m ('opy ' tm .,0m CONTINUED FROM PAGE V4 TN5640020504 IRDS I EPA Form 3510-2C (840) Page v-s
Form Approved OMB No.2040-0086 Please print or type in the unshaded areas only Approval expires 5/31/92 TN5640020504 FLOWS, 1"It.--- ~SOURCES:OF.POLLUTION'. AND'TREATMENT.-.TECHNOLOGlES'j: ',....r."'... -. ... .
ad A. drwin 111~en rtmz ~1Qw~g ttah al~n showin t atr whroghthe sa1eo: Itakeseatunts. oi d averge~Ios betwen.
jl~.~:iidcataotircsb1Iria~ewatr~p...on rd1niiemBCnbct entatfarsw~fwa~erbaT~nc cannt arIaaetenerwigy r st..tr.t.th be eterntned (4f...ft...m....
watowane Cotino O ~nddtonase ~
necssry
- 1. OUT~~ ,2.QPERATION(S) C0NT~~~~~iBUTJNl OW .... R...EN FALL ~ ~ ~ K MATVMA
.... . ....... ..... Iffi -AMOXOM Fijian. A L.;.-;......................................
8A ERCW Screen and Strainer Backwash 0.0140 MGD Discharge to Surface Water 4 A 117
.4 4 .4 1
.4 I .4 1
.4 4 .4 1 4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4
.4 I 4 4 I 4 4 EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) Page of 4 Continue on Page 2
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 C. Except for storm runoff leaks, or spills, are any of the discharges described in Items Il-A or B intermittent or seasonal?
0 YES (complete the ollowing table) O NO (go to Section Il)
I. OUTFALL NUMBER f 2 ,OPERAIONk)
CQNTRBUTIGFLOW . UsQ . .a.
-3 F"-QNC DAW.. . ......
4F OW T W:
I...
I I (&tQ PE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~REEKPosblteRYA o)I seiyif OTLQUMEnits) jindays ....
- i-Q M: r~~~~~ ......... ..
......... ~~~~~~~~ . ~~~~~~~~~~~~.. ... ....
...... a.e.aje) .:erag.. j LONG ji '., :;' hI .. :'.fi 'iM ,,.jOM 117 ERCWv Traveling Screen 4 12 0.0100 0.0216 0.014 and ERCW Strainer 3 12 0.0040 0.0096 0.0014
iA;.Doesi effuentgidotlnkelimitaton promulgated by EP.A undr 'etiv30l~4 o te.,Cle'an~e~tapyt or6i
. . jj j i j i $ierflem ed. .)
. Arse the limiatisote p te.ffient gideline expressedtnterms: of prdcin(r other ijeuto.o'pealr S. ...... i .. .. .............
n1.:nc.........
units used Inthe aIable ffen guideli nd iniate t affcte ut a s..... ..s ands:.s
. AVERAGE-DALPRODUCTION
.'.S,,:1...-.:'-i.:',":-,:- 2. AFFECTE.
a.QUANTIY I PERER R :..A:,i, .,j* t. .DAY
`.,:b. NT :UNIT OFi A R OE TTINi-RODi N.......PRG ... . i;'M ..........
MATERIAL, .. iAL: ......
- ETC.. .' :" --- L ALLS
- ,:. :.-. -.-iS: ...... :.O -:::: Dj::::::.: :.:
-.1.1....... ..... - ........... - - -
-. - .- :-: :. vS:i
. I....... I.. ..... I ..,..... II......
zi-:.--
1:--.::.::.:--.
... . 1. :.--. .. .. %-. .... ::: -
-. X::::
- .:t -ZA :'-: :: '. -
I Wi III IPROVEMENS A '.z Aj -::e iiou : .:: ;no v ss ewa t er t te at me t e u p reqire9.::..--.-
FW 4~Zlid3)
- .4 .... ._- :.-
d by ayFe dera ,t t e or o a auth or t to. mee,.
- ourt t o pr a i es -Q condflons rders T and pm hisM rantArPloa 6,nnnta~c
'tS say Y. tnn otuhtail~I
- .t-lklin b ut en P ' imp Jim i e e t t o srbWul r s f ot hesf li t v n h a sso r s hi c a aff eet t he di s a s s ib ed --l his appl c ord ers,e or meln InnIn
- I .Y. £.II
,. for,,,
.'~~~-.',"&---:-".c'<',~~~~~~~.
t h cos tr Ep o
cij ss ni e idm I S
'D r d n o p r t 'ton of-
. pu
' Sou s,,is,..
- - :s>. .-s: -I~ ~
r 2en 2i~lT~ein.......... 2221 rr...4....... ...................
_ _i FINAI
.:.: 8.1-. 1-t i. -.
.ri^ - F: k ES C R P I f Q U R J CP L A I EDATE M.......... F- ..
,cENT ... .. .. 1 rnwcHAftae .... ........~ ~~ ~ ~ kP:>RQk.-s EPA Form 3510-2C (Rev. 2485) Page 2of4 Continue an Page 3
I
......... .. NUM...........BE ...... W .:...........................
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 2 TN5640020504 v ..... .....
.A -,]3. it ......... ift thJ,d Ion'! 9:..........
66t0re..pr 4* 61s4i.
.......... ....... ......... . .-ables': ..p.r.eadtittiff,11
......- ..I...
a W
.. ............................ ......... ..........'6 Whiftbumut 6-spac
.... 'e ....... provi . ....d...e...d-
ia . leti.-V ......... d4 h6dW hUrhbered.. 4: .....................................
. ..... .. .-. 1.....
a lWddl'All T.lblii':2. se. me be ...................... ................ ......... ............................................
m a ny blAft,a"llt" if -,r.,V.IfUq ht:." ob: ftt,-.:btWf
.......... hvd
. .. ..... . taleVe.-Ald1b,
............................ .v,resientbm
......... .......... le
.......... Wiin..y q p ........... ...................... ..... ... ............... ..... . ... ...... ... . ....
71777. -7 7 7,711, ... .. ..
_ . 1. .
-..f %-, I - .- .1 I. --.
. .-..... ....,:w. -: I : : : :.,:.. . ... --. ... - I JUN m ..... ....... .. :'__ ::: I
'::' -: ^ 1 . . .: X'.. .:: 7 ....
EPA FORM 3510-2C (890)o Page 3 of 4 Continue on Page 4
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 3
..IEEw -..'BIOLOGICAL:-TOXICITY TESTING DATA .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~....... _......I......,,.. . . ..,,, . ,.,
, ..WV, ... ,5.
',.,',',._,,.,.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~....... ...............
C..t:ONTRACT-........ ANALYSIS ~ ~NtORMATiONi
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ .. .~ ...-..... ,x.,..x........... ..
..~
Were any ofthe analyses repo4ed eniVjerformec Iy a contract Iabortoryrcorisulting firn?
YS (list th nam eqdress ad tetephQne OWriJe, QDand pollutants 0 NO (go to $etio,X1 analyzed b eah suJhJabIratory orhTnn beIoW
' ' '~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
A. NAME B. ADDRESS
- '..EEON C. TELEPHONE
- 0. POLLUTANTS ANALYZED (areacode &no.) ffist)
Test America 2960 Foster Creighton Drive (615) 726-0177 Cyanide and T. Phenols Nashville, TN 37204 i
IX. CER IFICATION 'Wf, ; .y _____- _ ______________
. I
"""V A!.5 4
W5SY I4 - oy S F4c 4 ' V MSU.A
' , t> X V . ~~ " *;.T *:.
tqW.,,
- tnal W .Prm n e t n in u e l . e -o. e n i T e or jmsns..
, Arthn,,,*
. . Y e.wXk.f.T.i. ,~
.M ,F.,ltI ,n r f.i$ift~hA r..n..s^ . :!,T.:,.W.
. . .. I . . ..
0X^.,*kV,,,
... .- .osfn estm aiFh X -- 'rmUS ael bw, trate aid oomplete mawara that era are sgnifl.ant pe sfraibmftfJngWsu iton ujnge possbifitjrotfln end
,1i~
i ;,
do*rn7eht
~ . ..........
forknowm viIetlon+/-
I , , , , .~I. ..... .....................................
A. NAME & OFFICIAL TITLE (>pe orprln9 S. PHONE NO. (area code &no.)
Richard T. Purcell, Site Vie President, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant 423-843-7001 C. S5m A5 UR 1 D. DATE SIGNED "i 'fJune 30, 2003 EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) Page 4 of 4
on separate shet (use SEE INSTRUCTIONS.
)SN117
<24 1 mg. lbs/day
<5 <60 1 mg/L lbs/day 2.3 27.62 1 mg/L lbs/day 4 48.04 1 mg/. lbs/day 0.03 0.36 1 mg/L lbs/day VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE 1.44 N/A N/A I MGD VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE 9.6 N/A N/A 1C VALUE
...... . _ ...... ~~~~~~VALE
. _ ' ...... ._..,^
VALUEt VALUE VALUE N/A N/A N/A N/A °C MINIMUM MAXIMUM l UNIUUU I UAYIUUU I STANDARD UNITS Ca) I D) WIA IDS/
x <2 <24 I mg. day lbs/
X <0.05 <0.60 1 mgL day X 5 1 PC Units colonies/
X <10 1 O m. _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _
x -lIIII 1 f L III ----
Ibs/
x 0.44 5.28 1 mg/L . day
- ______________________ a a rag. v-i - rrrm n.. -
rage -1 CUNI INU U rmu V:
x 0.17 2.04 II mg/Lmg I l Ibs/
day X =5 <60 1 mg/L day=
X 0.04 0.48 1 mg/L lbs/
day x
x x
x X 13 156.12 1 mg/L day_
Ibs/
X <0.02 <0.24 1 mg/L day x
X 0.03 0.36 1 mg/L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~day x
IbsI X 0.23 2.76 1 mg/L day X 0.03 0.36 1 mg da Ibs/
X=
0.015 0.18I- g/Lbsd x ~~<0.2 <2.40 1 mg/I day _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___
x <0.00i <0.01 1 mg/I dal__ _ ___s_ _ _
X 0.32 3.84 1 day ________
X 5.8 69.68 1 mg/ dalbs _____
1 mg/L X <0.02 <0.24
__ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ ~~~~IdIbs/
_ __ _ _ __ _ ay _ _ _ _ _ _ _
X 0.039 0.47 1 mg/I dalbs____ ____
Ibs/
X <0.05 <0.60 1 mg/I day _____ ___
X ~~0.015 0.1 I mg/I- da _ __ _ __s_ _ __ _ _
EPA Form 310-2C (84)0) Page V-2 CQNTINUE ON PAGE V 3
I' .
":t1:- i i ':'
.' 9' :fi "'
rw .. -11: .+ s n I . . :t.. .. .
... ... ..' - DTS...
" N.I.I.1
..... , I ..........
I TN5640020504 DSN1 17 II x <0.001 <0.01 1 mg/L j day X <0.001 <0.01 1 mg/L day Ibs/
- 1 1 .UUI U.I I nIg1 lbsI dayTT11 X = = <0.0001 <0.001 1 mg/L day=
X <0.001 <0.01 1 mg/L dby X 0.0037 0.04 ._1 mg/L day lbs/
X <0.001 <0.01 mg/L day X <0.0001 <0.001 1 mg/L bs/
X c~~~00001 <0.01 X mg/ day Ibsm/L da =
<0001<001 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bst X 0.00.01 <00 I /
g004 day X <0.002 <0.02 1 mg/L bs/
day__ _ _
lbs/
X 0.02 0.24 1 mg/L bsy X <0.005 <0.02 1 mg/L day X <d CdS <0.06 - 1 mg/L day x ~~~<0.005 <0.05 IIg/ bs/
DESCRIBE RESULTS x PG .
aeV4CNINEO EPom502C(4)
EPA Form 3082C (p@O) Page V43 CONTINUE ON PAGE V 4
m.
m2 0
A X IX I X I X I X x X xlxlxlxlxlxlxlxlxlx x I x Ix Ul
_~ . _
F
-- - - -i - - - - - - -i - a- - - -0 - 0 0 I
aa aa a a a Ia "a I'Da a a z
l p~ilhl "".*..mW
..w . f:.l """ O fg .N> ~)..........................:
tOnINuiion mFM PAt:E VA I TN5640020504 I DSN117 IlIw x <0.001 <0.01 1 mgQI day lbsI X <0.0005 <0.006 1 mg/L day_
X <0.0005 <0.006 1 day b
X = = c0.001 <0.01 I mg/L I lbsI X <0.01 <0.12 1 mg/L day
<000<001 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bsI X 7 <0.001 <0.01 1 mg/L day X <0.0002 <0.002 1 mgQ. bs/
X . <0.001 <0.01 . I g bs X <0.01 <0.12 1 mg/L day X= = c0 002 <0.024 .... =b mLIa
<0005 <0.0 X . 1 mg/L day X <0.005 <0.06 1 mgL bday X <0.29
<0.005X <0.024
<0.06 1 I mgL mg/L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~day d
<0.005 <0.06 I Ibs/
X X__==_<0_03_c0.36_1 mg/L day c0 02 X <0.24 ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 mgL day __________
X < _ <0.024 <0.29 1bs 1 mg/I ~day __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
X = <0.005 <0.06 1 mgL ds/
mg/L gA bs/
Ibs/
X X <0.005
<0.03 <0.06
<0.36 I002 X I mg/L 00 mg/I ~day day _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
X <0.024 <0:29 1 mg/I lbsI
~~day_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _
.x ~~<0005 <0036 InA bsI mgI day __ _ _ __ _
x ~~~<0.005 <0.06 dalbs/_
I/mg/I _ _
X ~~~~~~~~~<0.0027
<0.03 1lg/ bs/
EPA Form 3S10 2C (400) Page v- CONTINUE ON PAGE V4
tn.j..u.mcI rn ate. 'ta
'ubf x <0.005 (0.06 I mg/L day lbs/
X '0.005 (0.06 I mg day X <0.005 <0.06 1 mgAL day X <005 (0.60 1 mg/L bs mgI d ay_ _ _ _
X <0.005 <0.06 1 mg/I bs X = (<0.01 <0.12 (001 (012 _ I~~~~~~~~~
IbsI /_ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~ _
( 0 0 1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ mg/
daysI I~~~~~b X <0.01 <0O.12 I mg/I day X - <0.01 <0. 12 1 _gA Wb X <0.01 <0.12 1 mg/L bd_
lbs/
X <0.005 <0.06 1 mg/L day X <0.001 <0 01 I mgday __ _
mgIday_ _ _ _ _
X05_ 0<0.06 1 mg/L bs/
X <0(005
.<0.06 mg/L day Ibs/
X <0.005 <0.06 1 mg/L day lbsl X <0.005 <0.06 1 mg/L day mgI day_ _ _ _
X <0.0025 <0.03 I mgA. Ibs/
(0 0 IbsI X < 01 <0.12 1 mg/I day x <0.002 <0.024 I mg/ bs/
x <~~~0.002 X =
0.02 = <0.002 <0024 1 1Img/ mgV/I day lbsI _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
EPA(540)0P2e Far 35104 0I0CO4INUEmON PAGl V EPA Form 33S802C ("4) . Pae Via CONTINUE ON PAGE v-7
lAb Wtp MBR ~'nyIkwRmT~i~e TN5,8,,M,0020t'504'8: yOTALNM lDSN1........ 17 CONTINUED FROM PAGE V4 l ~~~~TN5640020504 I DSN1 l mg/A. bs/
x <0.0044 <0.05 I day Ibs/
day X - <0025 <030 . _ m/I. =_____ __ =____
day
<0.0019 <0.02 1 mg/L dbs X
<0001 <0019 1 mg day Ibs/
X <0.0025 <0.03 1 m/. day X <0001 <0.01 1 mg dy X = = <0005 <006 I mgQ/ bd_
X <0.01 <0.12 1 mg/L dy x
X <00022 <003 1 mg dbsy x . . I mg/I. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~day X <0.0003 <0.004 1 mg/ day X = = <00019 <002 mg/L b1 day 0005<000 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bsI
<003 <006 I mg/I day X
X <0.03 <036 1 mg/ day lbs/
X 00005 <0006 <001 <0.12 I mg/I ~~~ day Ibs~~~~~~~~~~~~mg/I day _ _ _ _
X = 001 <012 I mM9A day
<0005 <006 1 mg bsy X
mg day X <0005 <000 1 mg/ m/. daybs/ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
lbs/
X <0.001 <0.01 1 mg/I day X <0005 <006 I mg/L dayI X <0.005 <0.06 1 mg/I. dal__ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _
(34) Form EPA 210-2C Pug. V-7CONTINUEINIPAGEdVy Page V-7 CONTINUE ON PAGE Ve EPA Form 3510-2C ")r
PnmiuTIon Fa.°om mano U..
x <0.005 <0.06 I Im gA Ibs/
day I <0.0007 <0.008 . 1 mg/L day X = = <0.0003 <0.004 I _ da day_
Ibs/
x <0.005 <0.06 1I mgIL dAn EPA Form 3310-2C (40) Page Van CONTINUE ON PAGE V-0
AbNuM
.t. ... (cytmmum
. ..I( . ot'Pom t) beg t .. >
MT#ALLZ
,> l p O t ~..
g ^ ¢ § .:.. .:......
I CONTINUED FROM PAGE V4 TN5640020504 Il DSN1 17::'
X x
x X. III X
X X
I XI EPA Form 3510-2C (S4MPg Pogo V4
I 1 Form Approved OMB No.2040-0086 Please print or type in the unshaded areas only TN5640020504 Approval expires 5/31/92 FORM IL~~~~~~~~~~~$,
ErNIfRON ETPRQETO AWNC
.... ~ ~
2C ~ ~ ~A APPLICATIO~~~~!N FOR: PERMJTT ICAOWSEAE .
NPDES EP~~~. EXISTING MANU~~~~AGTURING:;:COM .ERC.A ... NING ADSLICULTURZAL OPERATON
.L OUTFALL LoCATION .:.
Forieac
-=. -- iOufa, - Ash,. :-2. latitd----an otiuUo TU '-"' t ' o~iotoTenaet1
. "" 'N I D eod
: ' and Telnameof . ::i h e: n
";:,-D:thS:,£ ae - a' ) ':' .
A nirr~~~Mt ~~ : An9e u6 etOmin Wn .... Qrate I1f)k BIT0 118 35 t 13 28 85 05 11 -. Intake Forebay A1 __
efunnt anIteatmen W S- eiAtem O: eadr s... ire,. wirtc bp
- .-ie) pod ,, ,itra ,eipin th nat. an .m uto n ,,,.ore , , s, ., ,,.,o.,r,
..... ater...and
.,ch 6-l-i
!a
. ...... te.,i or tea en measjres y..................e..........i.........
- : ., :t, :, ,st~e ,,w,.al~e~r
.,,U,.1 and~gof, aters w,
,Ea c.,o~o,
.S
- . ....I...: ,,..,,.e..... r W,
FALLNO I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lt as tew L -O - . . ...............
- :.,,I ..... . ..
118 ERCW Dredge Pond None Discharge to Surface Water 4 A Sedimentation (Settling) 1 U (Dredge Pond Is not in service at this time. Multimedia Filtration i Therefore, Outfall 118 Is Inactive, only stormwater from surrounding vegetated area discharges. No Industrial activity in area. .
If in service the Dredge Pond would provide sedimentation during dredge activities and filtration for lower depth waste waters.) .
Outfall 118 was not sampled during 24-hour sampling event due to the inactivity . _
of the Dredge Pond.
. ~~~~~~~~~~~~..... ...
EPA Form 3510-2C(8-90) Page 1 of 4 Continue on Page 2~~~~~
gmAUE b-tos LYelnuil`
EPA Form 310-2C 8-90) Pagel1 of 4 Continue on Page 2
CONTINUED FROM PAGE C2.Except for storm runoff leaks, or spills, are any of the discharges described in Items 1l-A or B intermittent or seasonal?
0 YES (complete the following table) El NO (go to Section III) 1~~~OUTFALL~~~~~~
- 2. OERATONAs N. M E . CNRBUIGFLW a bYi MNH LWRAT b.T ALV UM
(~~j,$fj (I(Stj ~~~~~~RW~~EK PER YEAR ... .... .. l )(p~i~ ~hW7t) DRTION awragey - Vavge 1. LONG.rzERwM XJ3~MUV"i:::i iLNG -TERN 2 MAXIMUM .... s AV~~~RA0E ~~~VERAGE DAC' lie ERCW Dredge Pond No dredging operations have been conducted since July 1997. Flow cannot be predicted based on past. Dredge Pond Ispresently vegetated and no Industrial activity is conducted inthe vicinity.
B the .Ar......at......n......
A.
ItitVE$ (.cn plt1.
limtation Doesameff~ut~tguld~ne romulgaed by EA unde~ectlonO~oftki Clean ater~ctapply io~
~cbr ...efle...df
..... ssdk tm a fpo~ eio~o teriesr f prto t.your.......y ... .........
(tern Ui-~~~~~~~~~J (4YE$(cctnp~~~~~~~~~ete ..N. ...~t S' c/n V
.. - .1. - ...-1 - . . . - . I - . I -- I - I .. I .. . . I - - ... I 1. . , I -_ .I .1 - - - -
- _............. "
- - . .- F.-
- z; - . I,- .. -1., ......
rnid.::
~ tls~dinlitils The aplc e.........teI ne, ...
. ........... R...... --UNIT.S..RMEASLR.
-T7--Y-~iFE I SQ M A S R : 'Y R.eOPERATION.D C IO R D C.MA E I L T2 -.. AUFU.
FFE TE I
~~~~Ond~~~~~~~~~~~ti~~~~~~~~iis.~~~a- or .!
- oA tes a~ r h O~ aM I. iDNTIFI~rI~~wF CNV I~O-MM S2& MFETDUFLS3B R~~~~~~~~ ~ X' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
FECIPI1ZFPOET
~ ~ ~ ~ lNt~M PJN1~T AE~~~~~M..........T G R C . A.... ...... ....... ...
EPA361O-2C Form (Rev EPA Form 3510-2C (Rev. 2-85)
)Page......C.nt.ue.onPage Page 2 of 4 Continue on Page 3' I
...... '. iM ERyro te..m
.. . ,:1 f....
TN5640020504 EPA FORM 3510-2C (8-90) Page3 o 4 Continue on Page 4
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 3 VI. BIO:LOGICAL TOXIiTY TESTING DAT-A .: ~ ~ ~~?~
-Doyouhave anyk lee o reason. to believe tt any biological-tt for acute or chronic toxict f8--has ade- o : o tyo Urdlscharge or o-
-reCeivig wterrretif yudchgewtnthlat$ers
- ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. !.
... e t a ....... p... .. . . ..
(area code & noj (list)
I
.x-c ERTIFICATiON ft*
_______ _ ___ __ __A 01:*
~~~~~~~~~.I
- ... .... .. - - I I -
- : I
- '-1'4 I .I .
t",ce uw unde peat ofathat ths ocenadalt atcmns wewpeaeudro ireto orue#ci -coc wihasse desig 'red to assure that csuwlifiedpersonnpropedygatbered evatu%hektationsubmittod, an S of theperson,. orporsons wh.
,nqui~r s
sm nnthr*J4T > -
A. NAME &OFFICIAL TmLE (tpo or print) B. PHONE NO. (area code &noJ)
Richard T. Purcell, Site Vfice President, Seguoyah Nuclear Plant 423-843-7001 C. S/S~T¶, A ,,D. DATE SIGNED b4ZO4-4tt A ""-/.. June 302003 EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) Page 4 of 4
r -rs* A .1 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA)
SEQUOYAHl NUCLEAR PLANT (SQN) - NPDES PERMIT NO. TN0926450 -
APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL Current Whole Effluent (WET) Toxicity Limit: 7-day or 3-brood IC2 5* 43.9%
effluent (2.3 TUc)
Monitoring Frequency = 4/year
- IC 25-based NOEC initiated at SQN beginning September 1996.
Proposed Whole Effluent (WET) Toxicity Limit:
In accordance with EPA's recommendation (Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control, EPA/505/2-90-001), SQN Outfall 101 would not be required to have a WET Limit based on a demonstration of no Reasonable Potential (RP) for excursions above the ambient water quality chronic (CCC) criterion using effluent data for current operating conditions. Following guidance in the Technical Support Document (TSD), when no RP exists, biomonitoring would be conducted at a frequency of only once every 5 years as part of the permit renewal process to document acceptable effluent toxicity. Toxicity at the instream wastewater concentration (1WC) would serve only as a hard trigger for accelerated toxicity biomonitoring, should that amount of toxicity be observed during any future studies.
Since, however, TVA has submitted a request to TDEC allowing modification of the chemical program for control of biofouling organisms, TVA request maintaining the current quarterly testing schedule, without a WET limit until sufficient tests have been conducted (i.e. at least ten WET tests over a period of three years) to determine if a RP exists and if a limit is necessary. The current limit would serve as a monitoring trigger for increased testing in the event toxicity is demonstrated at the IWC. If no toxicity occurs during the time required for the RP determination, the frequency of testing would be reduced to annually, with tests to be conducted during different seasons for the duration of the new permit.
TVA also requests that all references and requirements be updated based on the following three new EPA manuals: Short-term Methodsfor Estimatingthe Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to FreshwaterOrganisms(EPA-821-R-02-013, October 2002), UnderstandingandAccountingfor Method Variability in Whole Effluent Toxicity Applications underthe NationalPollutantDischarge System (EPA 833-R-00-003, June 2000), and the Method Guidance and Recommendationsfor Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing (40 CFR Part136)
(EPA 821-B-00-004, July 2000). Of particular interest are the data review and dose response requirements to determine appropriate statistical methods and test validity, as well as the application of upper and lower PMSD limits to evaluate test sensitivity and validity.
The following RP determination utilizes five years (17 studies) of WET biomonitoring data collected under the current regime of chemical additions. The nine most recent studies were conducted in accordance with Part L.C of the current NPDES Permit TN0026450, effective August 8,2001. At no time during this monitoring was the permit limit (2.3 TUc) or the CCC (1.0 TUc at the IWC) exceeded. Table I summarizes SQN biomonitoring results over the last approximately 15 years. Table 2 provides documentation of chemical additions which occurred during sampling for toxicity tests included in the RP determination.
Note that all chemicals used have been tested multiple times and in different combinations, thereby further supporting the request for reduced frequency of biomonitoring.
2
Reasonable Potential (RP) Determination Based on Effluent Biomonitoring Data Technical Support Document, Text Box 3-2 and Section 3.3 (EPA/505/2-90-001)
DILUTION DSNO1I = 1532 MGD River lQ10= 3491 MGD DF=Qs 3491 =2 Dilution Factor (DF): Qw = 1532 IWC = -- x=153OO0=43.9%
Instream Wastewater Concentration (IWC): Qs 3491 CHRONIC TOXICITY Step 1 Seventeen WET Biomonitoring Studies, Maximum Observed Toxicity is 1.1 TUc.
[Permit compliance limit = 2.3 TUc (IC25 = 43.9% effluent).]
Step 2-3 Coefficient of variation (CV) = 0.02. For 17 samples and a CV of 0.02, the multiplying factor (99% confidence level and 99% probability) Is 1.2.
Step 4 Low river flow = 3491 MGD and SQN Outfall 101 discharge = 1532 MGD
= 43.9% Instream Waste Concentration (1WC) after dilution.
At a 0.439 IWC: 1.1 TUc x 1.2 x OA39 = 0.58 TUc Step 5 0.58 TUc Is less than the ambient CCC criterion of 1.0 TUc. This outcome demonstrates that no Reasonable Potential for excursions above the CCC exists, based on effluent data obtained from testing conducted under current operating conditions.
3
Table 1. Summary of Sequoyah Outfall 101 WET Biomonitoring Results Acute Results Chronic (96-h Survival) Results Study
% Survival Toxicity Study in Undiluted Units Toxicity Test Date Test Species Sample (TUa) Units (TUc)
Hvpothesis-based NOEC:
- 1. Aug.4-11,1988 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 >1.o (IC2 5: 1.4)
Pimephalespromelas 100 Retest 2. Aug. 24-31, 1988 Ceriodaphniadubia 70 <1.0 1.3 Pimephalespromelas
- 3. Oct. 20-28, 1988 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 100
- 4. Nov. 16-23, 1988 Ceriodaphniadubia 89 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 100
- 5. Dec. 7-22, 1988 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 100
- 6. Jan. 5-12, 1989 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 97
- 7. Feb. 2-9, 1989 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 2.0 Pimephalespromelas 93 Retest 8. Feb. 15-22, 1989 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 100
- 9. Mar. 1-9, 1989 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 97
- 10. Apr. 5-12, 1989 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 100
- 11. May 10-17,1989 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 1.3 Pimephalespromelas 100 Retest 12. May 21-31, 1989 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 100
- 13. Jun. 7-14, 1989 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 100
- 14. Jul. 12-19, 1989 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 100
- 15. Aug. 9-20, 1989 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 100
- 16. Sep. 13-21, 1989 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 100
- 17. Oct. 19-26, 1989 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 100
- 18. Nov. 1-11, 1989 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 100 4
Table 1. Summary of Sequoyah Outfall 101 WET Biomonitoring Results. (continued)
Acute Results Chronic (96-h Survival) Results Study
% Survival Toxicity Study in Undiluted Units Toxicity Test Date Test Species Sample (TUa) Units (TUc)
- 19. Dec. 6-13, 1989 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 100
- 20. Jun. 16-23, 1990 Ceriodaphniadubia 90 <1.0 >2.0 (IC2:
2.97)
Jun. 13-20, 1990 Pimephalespromelas 100 Retest 21. July 7-18, 1990 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 July 11-18, 1990 Pimephalespromelas 100
- 22. Dec. 5-12, 1990 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 100
- 23. Feb. 14-21, 1991 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 98
- 24. Jun. 13-20, 1991 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 95 >1.0 (C25 :
<1.0)
Retest 25. Jun. 27-Jul. 4, 1991 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 100
- 26. Dec. 11-18, 1991 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 100
- 27. Jun. 24-Jul. 1, 1992 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 98
- 28. Dec. 10-17, 1992 Ceriodaphniadubia 10 1.3 2.0 (IC 2 5:
3.1)
Pimephalespromelas 100 Retest 29. Dec. 17-24, 1992 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 100
- 30. Jun. 23-30, 1993 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 100
- 31. Oct. 28-Nov. 4, 1993 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 98
- 32. Apr. 21-28,1994 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 1.3t Pimephalespromelas 98
- 33. Oct 12-19, 1994 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 100
- 34. Apr. 11-18, 1995 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 100
- 35. Oct.4-11, 1995 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 100
- 36. Mar. 28-Apr. 4, 1996 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 90 IC25-based NOEC:
- 37. Sep. 25-Oct. 2, 1996 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephales promelas 100 5
Table . Summary of Sequoyah Outfall 101 WET Biomonitoring Results. (continued)
Acute Results Chronic (96-h Survival) Results Study
% Survival Toxicity Study in Undiluted Units Toxicity Test Date Test Species Sample (TUa) Units (TUc)
- 38. Mar. 12-19, 1997 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 98
- 39. Sept. 10-17,1997 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 100
- 40. Mar. 13-20, 1998t Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 100
- 41. Sept. 9-16, 1998? Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 100
- 42. Feb. 23-Mar. 2, 1999? Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 100 1.0
- 43. Aug. 19-26, 1999t Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 88
- 44. Jan. 31-Feb. 6, 2000t Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 100
- 45. June 27- Aug. 3, 2000t Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 98
- 46. Dec. 12-19, 2000 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 100 1.09
- 47. May 31- June 7, 2001t Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 95
,:" 4.Aug. -ct9, 0 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 95
- 49. Dec. 10-17,2001t Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas invalidf
- 50. Jan. 4-11, 2002"? Ceriodaphniadubfa Pimephalespromelas 100 <1.0 <1.0
- 51. Feb 26-Mar 5, 2002 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 100
- 52. May 7-14, 2002t Ceriodaphniadubla 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 98
- 53. August 6-13, 2002 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 100
- 54. October 8-15, 2002t Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 100
- 55. January 14,2003 Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephalespromelas 90
- 56. April 8,2003t Ceriodaphniadubia 100 <1.0 <1.0 Pimephatespromelas 100 - :.
Single species retcest
IUsed in RP determination.
Test was ruled invalid because of low statistical sensitivity due to an anomalous dose response and high variable survival among replicates within treatments.
ta collected under the cument permit.
6
Table 2. Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Diffuser (Outfall 101) Discharge Concentrations of Chemicals Used to Control Growth of Microbiologically Induced Bacteria and Asiatic Clams, During Toxicity Test Sampling, March 12, 1998 - April 11, 2003 Date Sodium Towerbrom PCL-222 PCL-401 CL,363 Cuprostat- H-130M Hypochlorite mg/L mgAL mglL mgL PF mg/L mgl TRC Phosphate Copolymer DMAD mglL Azole Quat TRC 03/12/1998 0.016 -
03/13/1998 0.015 -
03/14/1998 0.013 -
03/15/1998 0.030 -
03/16/1998 0.013 03/17/19981 0.020 -
03/18/19981 0.018 -
09/08/1998 0.015 - 0.014 0.005 0.021 09/09/1998 0.003 - 0.031 0.011 - -
09/10/1998 0.014 - 0.060 0.021 -
09/11/1998 0.013 - 0.055 0.019 -
09/12/1998 < 0.001 - 0.044 0.015 -
09/13/1998 < 0.001 - 0.044 0.015 09/14/1998 0.008 - 0.044 0.015 02/22/1999 <0.001 - - -
02/23/1999 0.005 -
02/24/1999 0.009 -
02/25/1999 0.012 -
02/26/1999 0.008 - _
02/27/1999 < 0.001 -
02/28/1999 < 0.001 --
08/18/1999 - 0.015 0.069 0.024 0.006 08/19/1999 - 0.012 0.068 0.024 - - -
08/20/1999 - 0.023 0.070 0.024 - 0.120 -
08/21/1999 - 0.022 0.068 0.024 - - -
08/22/1999 - 0.022 0.068 0.024 - - -
08/23/1999 - 0.025 0.068 0.024 0.006 - -
08t24/1999 0.016 0.067 0.023 0.020 -
7
Table 2 (continued). Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Diffuser (Outfall 101) Discharge Concentrations of Chemicals Used to Control Growth of Microbiologically Induced Bacteria and Asiatic Clams, During Toxicity Test Sampling, March 12, 1998 - April 11, 2003 Date Sodium Towerbrom PCL-222 PCL-401 CL-363 Cuprostat- H-130M Hypochlorite mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L PF Ing/L LlTRC Phosphate Copolymer DMAD mg/L Azole Quat TRC 01/31/2000 - < 0.002 0.026 0.009 02/01/2000 0.011 0.026 0.028 02/02/2000 - 0.028 0.026 0.009 0.006 02/03/2000 - 0.008 0.027 0.009 - -
02/04/2000 - 0.006 0.027 0.009 0.005 0.109 02/05/2000 - < 0.002 0.027 0.009 - -
02/06/2000 - < 0.002 0.027 0.009 - -
07/26/2000 <0.0057 0.055 0.019 - -
07/27/2000 - 0.019 0.055 0.019 - -
07/28/2000 - 0.0088 0.053 0.018 0.004 0.108 07/29/2000 < 0.0088 0.055 0.019 - -
07/30/2000 < 0.0076 0.055 0.019 - -
07/31/2000 - < 0.0152 0.055 0.019 0.006 -
08/01/2000
=.
- <0.0141 0.055 0.019 0.005
12/11/2000 - 0.0143 0.025 0.020 0.005 -
12/12/2000 - 0.0092 0.025 0.020 0.005 -
12/13/2000 - < 0.0120 0.025 0.020 - -
12/14/2000 -< 0.0087 0.025 0.020---
12/15/2000 0.0120 0.025 0.020 0.005 -
12/16/2000 - < 0.0036 0.025 0.020 - -
12/17/2000 . < 0.0036 0.025 0.020 - -
08/26/2001 0.017 0.06 0.021 0.006 - -
08/27/2001 - <0.0096 0.06 0.021 0.005 - 0.021 08/28/2001 <0.0085 0.06 0.021 - - l 08/29/2001 . <0.0094 0.059 0.020 0.005 - 0.021 08/30/2001 <0.0123 0.06 0.021 0.005 - -
08/31/2001 _ <0.005 0.059 0.020 - -
11/25/2001 - <0.0044 - - - - -
11/26/2001 - <0.0119 0.024 0.02 0.005 - -
11/27/2001 - 0.0137 0.023 0.019 0.007 - -
11/28/2001 - <0.0089 0.022 0.019 0.006 l -
11/29/2001 - 0.0132 0.024 0.02 0.007 l 11/30/2001 - <0.0043 0.024 0.02 - - -
12/09/2001 - <0.0042 - - - - -
12/10/2001 - <0.0042 - l l l l 12/11/2001 <0.0104 - - - - -
12/12/2001 - 0.0128 0.024 0.02 0.008 - -
12/13/2001 - <0.0088 0.024 0.02 - - -
12/14/2001 - 0.0134 0.024 0.02 0.007 8
Table 2 (continued). Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Diffuser (Outfall 101) Discharge Concentrations of Chemicals Used to Control Growth ofMicrobiologically Induced Bacteria and Asiatic Clams, During Toxicity Test Sampling, March 12, 1998 - April 11, 2003 Date Sodium Towerbrom PCL-222 PCL-401 CL-363 Cuprostat- H-130M Hypochlorite mg/L mglL mg/L mg/L PF mg/L mg/L TRC Phosphate Copolymer DMAD mg/L Azole Quat TRC =
01102/2002 - <0.0079 0.023 0.02 0.006 01/03/2002 - < 0.0042 0.023 0.014 -
01/04/2002 - 0.0124 0.024 0.014 0.009 -
01/05/2002 - < 0.0042 - - -
01/06/2002 - < 0.0042 01/07/2002 - < 0.0089 0.024 0.014 0.006 02/24/2002 - < 0.004 --
02/25/2002 - < 0.004 0.023 0.023 -
02/26/2002 - 0.0143 0.023 0.023 0.007 02/27/2002 - < 0.0041 0.023 0.023 02/28/2002 - < 0.0041 0.024 0.008 03/01/2002 - <0.0041 0.024 0.008 05/05/2002 - - - -
05/06/2002 0.058 0.02 0.014 05/07/2002 - 0.058 0.02 0.015 05/08/2002 - 0.056 0.019 05109/2002 - 0.057 0.02 0.014 05/10/2002 - 0.056 0.019 -
08/04/2002 <0.0058 -
08/05/2002 <0.0058 0.053 0.018 - - 0.025 08/06/2002 0.0092 0.053 0.018 - - -
08/07/2002 - <0.0107 0.055 0.0 19 0.007 - -
08/08/2002 - <0.0061 0.055 0.0 19 -
08/0920021 - 0.0152 1 0.054 0.018 0.008 - -
10/06/2002 - <0.00497 0 --
10/07/2002 - 0.0153 0.054 0.018 0.009 - I 10/08/2002 - <0.0092 0.054 0.018 0.007 - -
10/09/2002 10/10/2002 10/11/2002 _
0.0124 0.0134
<0.0042 0.053 0.054 0.054 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.009 0.009 Jj -
01/12/2003 - <0.0035 - - . - -
01/13/2003 - <0.006 0.025 0.019 0.009 -
01/14/2003 - <0.0118 0.026 0.020 01/15/2003 - <0.0063 0.026 0.020 0.009 01/16/2003 - <0.0034 0.026 0.020 01/17/2003 - <0.0034 0.026 0.009 - -
04/06/2003 - <0.0073 - - - -
04/07/2003 - <0.0189 - 0.021 - -
04/08/2003 - <0.0117 - 0.021 - -
04/09/2003 - <0.0139 - 0.021 0.016 -
04/10/2003 - <0.01 13 - 0.021 0.018 -
04/11/2003 - <0.0073 - 0.022 - -
9
June 6, 2003 Stephanie Howard, SB 2A-SQN BIOLOGICAL MONITORING OF THE TENNESSEE RIVER NEAR SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT (SQN)
To verify Section 316 of the Clean Water Act is being adequately met, the intake operation and design of SQN is currently being evaluated and assessed. Assessments of annual biological monitoring of fish and benthic macroinvertebrate communities, impingement, entrainment and yearling sauger survival surveys are used to evaluate significant changes in plant and reservoir operations.
Annual biological monitoring of the Tennessee River near SON discharge assesses the overall health of the fish and benthic macroinvertebrate communities in Chickamauga Reservoir. An annual report is submitted in accordance with Part Ill, Section F of the SON National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit to the Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Water Pollution Control.
The Effects of Impingement on the Aquatic Populations in Chickamauga Reservoir report was submitted to the Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Water Pollution Control in accordance with Part Ill, Section F of the SON NPDES Permit, September of 2002.
Currently, ichthyoplankton samples measuring resident larval fish and fish egg densities during the peak spring spawning period are being collected in the vicinity of the cooling water intake.
Collection of entrainment samples will be completed by August 2004. A preliminary report illustrating 2003 data will be submitted in June of 2004. The final report with both 2003 and 2004 data will be submitted in June of 2005.
And lastly, the yearling sauger survival study was proposed to evaluate the continuous release of 8,000 cfs from Watts Bar Dam during April on the effect of spawning success. A preliminary report summarizing existing data with historical data was added to the annual Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, 2002 report. The collection of samples will be completed in the spring of 2004 and a final report summarizing results will be submitted to the Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Water Pollution Control in June of 2004.
Dennis S. Baxter Aquatic Zoologist ABL-1 A-N DSB:GS cc: Files, RS, PSC 1X-C SON biological monitoring.doc
Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge 2001 by Dennis S. Baxter Stephen J. Iraley Kenny D. Gardner June 2002 Final Aquatic Biology Lab Norris, Tennessee
Table of Contents Pa2e Introduction I Methods 1 Fish Community 1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community 3 Results and Discussion 4 Fish Community 4 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community 5 Literature Cited 6 List of Tables Table 1. Scoring Results for the Twelve Metrics and Overall Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index for Chickamauga Reservoir at the Sequoyah Transition Sampling Station, 2001. 7 Table 2. Scoring Results for the Twelve Metrics and Overall Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index for Chickamauga Reservoir Transition and Forebay Sampling Stations, 2001. 8 Table 3. Recent (1993-2001) RFAI Scores Collected as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant. 9 Table 4. Species Listing and Catch Per Unit Effort for the Embayment and Sequoyah Transects During the Fall Electrofishing and Gill Netting on Chickamauga Reservoir, 2001 (Electrofishing Effort = 300 Meters Of Shoreline And Gill Netting Effort = Net-Nights). 10 Table 5. Species Listing and Catch Per Unit Effort for the Forebay, Transition, and Inflow Transects During the Fall Electrofishing and Gill Netting on Chickamauga Reservoir, 2001 (Electrofishing Effort = 300 Meters of Shoreline and Gill Netting Effort = Net-Nights). 11 Table 6. Individual Metric Ratings and the Overall Benthic Community Index Score for Upstream and Downstream Sites near Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Chickamauga Reservoir, November 2001. 12 i
List of Tables (Continued)
Page Table 7. Average Mean Density Per Square Meter of Benthic Taxa Collected at Upstream and Downstream Sites near Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Chickamauga Reservoir, November 2001. 13 Table 8. Recent (1994-2001) Benthic Index Scores Collected as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program at Chickamauga Reservoir Transition (TRM 490.5 and TRM 482) and Forebay Zone (TRM 472.3) Sites. 15 List of Figures Figure 1. RFAI scores from sample years between 1993 and 2001. 16 Acronyms BIP Balanced Indigenous Population NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System QA Quality Assurance RFAI Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index SFI Sport Fishing Index SQN Sequoyah Nuclear Plant TRM Tennessee River Mile TVA Tennessee Valley Authority VS Vital Signs ii
Introduction Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act allows point-source dischargers of heated water to obtain a variance from state water quality standards if the point-source can demonstrate maintenance of balanced indigenous populations (BIP) of aquatic life. Sequoyah Nuclear Plant's (SQN) current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit number TN0026450 states, "For Section 316(b), the permittee shall summarize previous data and indicate whether significant changes have occurred in plant operation, reservoir operations or instream biology that would necessitate that significant changes to the variance". The permittee shall use the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index (RFAI) to assess Chickamauga Reservoir fish community health. Any apparent declines in the fish community health will be further investigated to discover whether the decline is a valid conclusion and if the decline is real to identify possible sources for the fish community decline. As part of the identification of potential sources for the decline the instream effects of the discharges made under this permit will be investigated (TDEC 2000). In response to this requirement, TVA's Vital Signs (VS) monitoring program (Dycus and Meinert 1993) will be used to evaluate areas of Chickamauga Reservoir upstream and downstream of SQN discharge. The purpose of this document is to briefly summarize and provide Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation the results of comparisons between current and historical monitoring data.
Prior to 1990, TVA reservoir studies focused on reservoir ecological assessments to meet specific needs as they arose. In 1990, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) instituted a Valley-wide VS monitoring program which is a broad-based evaluation of the overall ecological conditions in major reservoirs. Data is evaluated with a multi-metric monitoring approach utilizing five environmental indicators: dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll, sediment quality, benthic macroinvertebrate community, and the fish community. When this program was initiated, specific evaluation techniques were developed for each indicator, and these techniques were fine-tuned to better represent ecological conditions. The outcome of this effort was development of multi-metric evaluation techniques for the fish assemblage as RFAI and the benthic community, as described below. These multi-metric evaluation techniques have proven successful in TVA's monitoring efforts as well as other federal and state monitoring programs. In the past, the Sport Fishing Index (SFI) was used in support of a thermal variance request at SQN (TVA 1996) and during SCCW monitoring. However, Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency data, necessary to complete the SFI analyses for Chickamauga Reservoir, will not be available in time to incorporate into this document. Based on the RFAI and benthic macroinvertebrate analyses, TVA biologists have concluded that the SQN operation had no effect on the fish and benthic macroinvertebrate communities in the vicinity of SQN during Calendar Year 2001.
Methods Fish Community Reservoirs are typically divided into three zones for VS Monitoring - inflow, transition and forebay. The inflow zone is generally in the upper reaches of the reservoir and is riverine in nature; the transition zone or mid-reservoir is the area where water velocity decreases due to increased cross-sectional area, and the forebay is the lacustrine area near the dam. The I
Chickamauga Reservoir inflow zone is located at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 529.0; the transition zone is located at TRM 490.5, and the forebay zone is located at TRM 472.3. The VS transition zone, which is located approximately 7.2 river miles upstream of the SQN discharge (TRM 483.3), will be used to provide upstream data for the 316(a) thermal variance studies performed in sample years between 1993 and 2001. Beginning in the year 1996, an additional transition station was added downstream of the SQN discharge to more closely monitor Chickamauga Reservoir aquatic communities in close proximity to the SQN thermal effluent.
This station is located at TRM 482.0 and will be used for downstream comparisons of aquatic communities for the 1996 and 1999 through 2001 sample seasons. The forebay zone, will serve as the downstream station for 1993 through 1995 and 1997 sample seasons.
Fish samples consisted of fifteen 300-meter electrofishing runs (approximately 10 minutes duration) and ten experimental gill net sets (five 6.1 meter panels with mesh sizes of 2.5, 5.1, 7.6, 10.2, and 12.7 cm) per station. Attained values for each of the 12 metrics were compared to reference conditions for transition zones of mainstream Tennessee River reservoirs and assigned scores based upon three categories hypothesized to represent relative degrees of degradation:
least degraded -5; intermediate -3; and most degraded -1. These categories are based on "expected" fish community characteristics in the absence of human-induced impacts other than impoundment. Individual metric scores for a station are summed to obtain the RFAI score.
Comparison of the attained RFAI score from the potential impact zone to a predetermined criterion has been suggested as a method useful in identifying presence of normal community structure and function and hence existence of a BIP. For multi-metric indices, two criteria have been suggested to ensure a conservative screening for a BIP. First, if an RFAI score reaches 70%
of the highest attainable score (adjusted upward to include sample variability), and second, if fewer than half of RFAI metrics potentially influenced by thermal discharge receive a low (1) or moderate (3) score, then normal community structure and function would be present indicating that a BIP existed. Under these conditions, the heated discharge would meet screening criteria and no further evaluation would be needed.
The range of RFAI scores possible is from 12 to 60. As discussed in detail below, the average variance for RFAI scores in TVA reservoirs is 6 (e 3). Therefore, any location that attains an RFAI score of 45 (42 + our sample variance of 3) or higher would be considered to demonstrate a BIP. It must be stressed that scores below this endpoint do not necessarily reflect an adversely impacted fish community. The endpoint is used to serve as a conservative screening level; for example, any fish community that meets these criteria is obviously not adversely impacted.
RFAI scores below this level would require a more in-depth look to determine if a BIP exist. If a score below this criterion is obtained, an inspection of individual RFAI metric results would be an initial step to help identify if SQN operation is a contributing factor. This approach is appropriate if a validated multi-metric index is being used and scoring criteria applicable to the zone of study are available.
2
Upstream/downstream stations comparisons can be used to identify if SQN operation is adversely impacting the downstream fish community as well. A similar or higher RFAI score at the downstream station compared to the upstream (control) station is used as one basis for determining presence/absence of SQN operational impacts on the resident fish community.
Definition of "similar" is integral to accepting the validity of these interpretations.
The Quality Assurance (QA) component of VS monitoring deals with how well the RFAI scores can be repeated and is accomplished by collecting a second set of samples at 15-20% of the stations each year. Experience to date with the QA component of VS shows that the comparison of RFAI index scores from 54 paired sample sets collected over a seven year period ranged from 0 to 18 points, the 7 5th percentile was 6, the 9&' percentile was 12. The mean difference between these 54 paired scores is 4.6 points with 95% confidence limits of 3.4 and 5.8. Based on these results, a difference of 6 points or less is the value selected for defining "similar" scores between upstream and downstream fish communities. That is, if the downstream RFAI score is within 6 points of the upstream score, the communities will be considered similar. It is important to bear in mind that differences greater than 6 points can be expected simply due to method variation (25% of the QA paired sample sets exceeded that value). When this occurs, a metric-by-metric examination will be conducted to determine what caused the difference in scores and the potential for the difference to be thermally related.
As mentioned in the introduction, modifications in the metrics used in RFAI are continually being evaluated in order to make the index even more indicative of reservoir conditions. Future versions of the RFAI will likely include the refined metrics. Comparisons will be made between present and improved RFAI scores.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Ten benthic grab samples were collected at equally spaced points along the upstream and downstream transects. A Ponar sampler was used for most samples but a Peterson sampler was used when heavier substrate was encountered. Collection and processing techniques followed standard VS procedures. Bottom sediments were washed on a 533ji screen and organisms were then picked from the screen and remaining substrate and identified to Order or Family level in the field using no magnification. Benthic community results were evaluated using seven community characteristics or metrics. Results for each metric were assigned a rating of 1, 3, or 5 depending upon how they compared to reference conditions developed for VS sample sites. The ratings for the seven metrics were summed to produce a total benthic score for each sample site.
Each reservoir section (inflow, transition, or forebay) differs in their maximum potential for benthic diversity, thus, the criteria for assigning metric ratings were adjusted accordingly such that the total benthic scores from sites on different reservoir sections are comparable. Potential scores ranged from 7 to 35. Ecological health ratings (poor, fair, or good) are then applied to scores. A similar or higher benthic index score at the downstream site compared to the upstream site is used as basis for determining SQN's absence of impact on the benthic community.
3
The QA component of VS monitoring shows that the comparison of benthic index scores from 49 paired sample sets collected over a seven year period ranged from 0 to 14 points, the 75th percentile was 4, the 90h percentile was 6. The mean difference between these 49 paired scores is 3.1 points with 95% confidence limits of 2.2 and 4.1. Based on these results, a difference of 4 points or less is the value selected for defining "similar" scores between upstream and downstream benthic communities. That is, if the downstream benthic score is within 4 points of the upstream score, the communities will be considered similar and it will be concluded that SQN has had no effect. Once again, it is important to bear in mind that differences greater than 4 points can be expected simply due to method variation (25% of the QA paired sample sets exceeded that value). When this occurs, a metric-by-metric examination will be conducted to determine what caused the difference in scores and the potential for the difference to be thermally related.
Results and Discussion Fish Community In the autumn of 2001, the SQN downstream station rated better than the upstream indicating that resident fish community below the SQN discharge is good quality and considered to have BIP (Tables 1 and 2). As indicated in Table 1, the RFAI scores for upstream and downstream stations, 45 and 47 respectively, were within the 6 point acceptable variation during autumn 2001 and were considered "similar."
These results are supported by Chickamauga Reservoir VS transition and forebay data collected between 1993 and 2001 which reflect little change in the overall good ecological health of the fish communities either above or below the SQN discharge (Figure 1). All upstream and downstream scores, using either the SQN transition or forebay as the downstream station, for sample seasons between 1993 and 1999 were within this range, with the exception of the forebay scoring fair in 1997 (Figure 1).
The VS transition zone was considered to have either good or excellent ecological health for all sample years between 1993 and 2001 (Figure 1). The Sequoyah transition was within the good range for all sample years it was used (Table 3 and Figure 1), and the forebay was in the good range six out of seven sample years (Figure 1). Between 1993 and 2001 sample years, the average RFAI score for the upstream station was 45 (75.0% of the maximum score) (Table 3).
The two downstream stations (i.e., SQN transition and forebay) averaged 47 and 42, respectively (78.3% and 70.0% of the maximum score) (Table 3). Based on these observations and the defining characteristics for a BIP, it can be concluded that SQN operation has had no impact on the Chickamauga Reservoir resident fish community for the last eight sampling seasons.
Electrofishing and gill netting catch rates for individual species from the downstream station are listed in Table 4 and 5.
4
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Table 6 provides results and ratings for each metric as well as the overall benthic index score for both monitoring sites. Table 7 summarizes density by taxon at the upstream (TRM 490.5) and downstream (TRM 482) collection sites. In 2001 samples, the upstream site produced a benthic index score of 23 (Fair) and the downstream site scored 31 (Good). Therefore, it appears that SQN has had no adverse effect on the benthic macroinvertebrate community immediately downstream from the plant. Table 8 provides benthic index scores from VS monitoring at the forebay (TRM 472.3) and transition zone sites from 1994 to 2001. The Chickamauga forebay zone sample site is of sufficient distance downstream (11 miles) that results would not be expected to reflect plant effects. The similar scores from TRM 472.3 and TRM 482 also indicate that WBN has had no effect on the macroinvertebrate community immediately downstream from the plant. Since 1994, the average scores from the upstream site and both downstream sites are very similar, further supporting no plant effects on macroinvertebrate communities.
5
Literature Cited Dycus, D. L. and D. L. Meinert. 1993. Reservoir monitoring, monitoring and evaluation of aquatic resource health and use suitability in Tennessee Valley Authority reservoirs.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Water Resources, Chattanooga, Tennessee, TVA/WM-93/15.
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 2000. Draft NPDES Permit Number TN0026450.
Tennessee Valley Authority. 1996. A supplemental 316(a) demonstration for alternative thermal discharge limits for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Chickamauga Reservoir, Tennessee.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Engineering Laboratory, Norris, TN. WR96-1-45-145. 87 pp.
6
Table 1. Scoring Results for the Twelve Metrics and Overall Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index for Chickamauga Reservoir at the Sequoyah Transition Sampling Station, 2001.
Sequoyah TRM482.0 Metric Obs. Score A. Species richness and composition 1.Number of species 30 5
- 2. Number of sunfish species 5 5
- 3. Number of sucker species 2 1
- 4. Number of intolerant 3 3 species
- 5. Percent tolerant individuals electrofishing 14.0 2.5 gill netting 27.3 1.5
- 6. Percent dominance* electrofishing 45.4 1.5 gill netting 23.6 2.5
- 7. Number of piscivore 11 S species B. Trophic composition
- 8. Percent omnivores electrofishing 11.4 2.5 gill netting 32.4 1.5
- 9. Percent insectivores electrofishing 81.1 2.5 gill netting 10.2 1.5 C. Reproductive composition
- 10. Number of lithophilic 4 3 spawning species D. Fish abundance and health
- 11. Average number of electrofishing 59.5 1.5 individuals gill netting 35.2 2.5
- 12. Percent anomalies 1.3 S RFAI 47 Good
- Percent composition of the most abundant species 7
Table 2. Scoring Results for the Twelve Metrics and Overall Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index for Chickamauga Reservoir Transition and Forebay Sampling Stations, 2001.
Forebay Transition Inflow TRM472.3 TRM490.5 TRM529 Metric Obs. Score Obs. Score Obs. Score A. Species richness and composition
- 1. Number of species 28 5 32 5 30 5
- 2. Number of sunfish species 5 5 6 5 6 5
- 3. Number of sucker species 3 1 3 1 4 3
- 4. Number of intolerant 3 3 3 3 4 3 species
- 5. Percent tolerant electrofishing 24.2 1.5 29.4 1.5 13.3 5 individuals gill netting 22.1 1.5 26.5 1.5
- 6. Percent dominance* electrofishing 18.2 2.5 17.5 2.5 29.5 5 gill netting 21.9 2.5 28.1 2.5
- 7. Number of piscivore 11 5 10 5 8 5 species B. Trophic composition
- 8. Percent omnivores electrofishing 7.6 2.5 28.6 1.5 12.8 5 gill netting 34.2 1.5 32.9 1.5
- 9. Percent insectivores electrofishing 66.7 1.5 57.5 1.5 78.8 5 gill netting 4.6 0.5 17.2 2.5 C. Reproductive composition
- 10. Number of lithophilic 5 3 4 3 7 3 spawning species D. Fish abundance and health
- 11. Average number of electrofishing 13.2 0.5 37.0 0.5 37.5 1 individuals gill netting 36.6 2.5 44.1 2.5
- 12. Percent anomalies 2.0 3 0.8 5 1.1 5 RPIM 42 45 50 Good Good Good
- Percent composition of the most abundant species 8
Table 3. Recent (1993-2001) RFAI Scores Collected as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant.
Year Station Reservoir Location 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1999 2000* 2001 1993-2001 Average Upstream Chickamauga TRM 51 43 50 44 40 41 44 45 45 490.5 Sequoyah Chickamauga TRM 48 43 49 47 47 Transition 482.0 Forebay Chickamauga TRM 45 41 47 38 39 43 42 42 472.3
- The 2000 sample year was not part of the VS monitoring program, however the same methodology was applied.
9
Table 4. Species Listing and Catch Per Unit Effort for the Embayment and Sequoyah Transects During the Fall Electrofishing and Gill Netting on Chickamauga Reservoir, 2001 (Electrofishing Effort = 300 Meters of Shoreline and Gill Netting Effort = Net-Nights).
Electrofishing Electroflslilng Catch Gill Netting Catch Electrofluhing Electraffshing Catch Gill Netting Catch Rate Per Hour Per Unit Effort Rate Per Hour Per Unit Effort Common name Embayment Embayment Embayment Sequoyah Sequoyah Sequoyah Spotted gar 0.33 1.75 0 Longnose gar 0 0 0.30 Skipjack herring 0 0 1.30 0 0 0.60 Giuard shad 8.40 4421 5.70 5.07 26.57 8.30 Threadfin shad 0.20 1.05 0.07 0.35 0.20 Mooneye 0 0 0.10 Common carp 0.13 0.70 0 Golden shiner 1.07 5.61 0.50 0.73 3.85 0.80 Emerald shiner 3.80 20.00 0 6.53 3427 0 Spotfin shiner 0.07 0.35 0 2.73 14.34 0 Bhmtnose minnow 0.87 4.56 0 0.27 1.40 0 Smallmouth buffilo 1.40 7.37 0.30 0.07 0.35 0.10 Black buffalo 0.07 0.35 0 Spotted sucker 4.27 22.46 2.10 0.13 0.70 0.80 Golden redhorse 0 0 0.10 Blue catfish 0 0 0.10 0.13 0.70 1.80 Channel catfish 0.07 0.35 1.10 0.53 2.80 0.40 Flathead catfish 0.13 0.70 0 0.07 0.35 0.10 White bass 0.07 0.35 0.80 0 0 0.30 Yellow bass 0.13 0.70 15.90 0 0 8.00 Warmouth 0.13 0.70 0 Redbreast sunfish 0.20 1.05 0 2.47 12.94 0.20 Green sunfish 0.13 0.70 0 0.07 0.35 0 Bhlegil 17.13 90.18 0.40 27.00 141.61 0.30 Longear sunfish 0.27 1.40 0 3.13 16.43 0.20 Redear sunfish 3.93 20.70 0.70 5.13 26.92 2.00 Hybrid sunfish 0.20 1.05 0 Smallmouth bass 0.27 1.40 0 Spotted bass 0.47 2.46 0.50 1.73 9.09 7.00 Largemouth bass 2.20 11.58 0 1.93 10.14 0.30 White crappie 0.07 0.35 0 0.07 0.35 0.20 Black erappie 0.80 4.21 1.50 0 0 3.20 Yellow perch 0.07 0.35 0 Logperch 0.47 2.46 0 0.33 1.75 0 Sauger 0 0 0.20 Freshwater drum 0.33 1.75 1.80 0.07 0.35 0.10 Brook silverside 0.80 4.21 0 0.40 2.10 0 Total 47.61 25051 33.1 59.53 312.26 35.2 Number of samples 1S 10 15 10 Number collected 714 331 893 352 Species collected 27 17 26 21 10
Table 5. Species Listing and Catch Per Unit Effort for the Forebay, Transition, and Inflow Transects During the Fall Electrofishing and Gill Netting on Chickamauga Reservoir, 2001 (Electrofishing Effort = 300 Meters of Shoreline and Gill Netting Effort = Net-Nights).
Electroflishing Electroflshing Catch Gill Netting Eleetroishing Electrofishlng Gill Netting Electrofishlng Electrfishing Rate Per Hour Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Hour Heur Common name Forebsy Ferebay Vorebay Tram Trans Trans Inflow Inflow Spotted gr 0.13 0.70 0 0.27 1.40 0.40 0.07 0.29 Skipjack herring 0 0 4.40 0 0 3.90 Gizmrd shad 0.47 2.46 8.00 6.20 32.63 11.50 2.93 12.68 Threadfin shad 0 0 0.30 0.13 0.70 0.20 Common carp 0.73 3.86 0 0.13 0.58 Golden shiner 0.27 1.41 0.10 0.73 3.86 0.20 0.20 0.86 Emerald shiner 1.33 7.04 0 4.60 24.21 0 2.20 9.51 Spotfin shiner 1.40 7.37 0 2.07 8.93 Bluntnose minnow 1.40 7.37 0 0.07 0.29 Bullhead minnow 0.07 0.35 0 Smallmouth buffalo 0.07 0.35 0 0.20 1.05 0 Black buffho 0.07 0.35 0 0.20 1.05 0 Spotted sucker 0.20 1.06 0.30 0.60 3.16 0.10 0.40 1.73 River redhorse 0.07 0.29 Black redhorse 0.07 0.29 Golden redhorse 0.53 2.31 Blue catfish 0 0 3.80 0 0 1.70 0.73 3.17 Channel catfish 0.13 0.70 0.60 1.13 5.96 1.10 0.73 3.17 Flathead catfish 0 0 0.30 0.20 1.03 0.30 0.53 2.31 White bass 0.07 0.35 0.10 0.07 0.35 0.40 0.07 0.29 Yellow bess 0.07 0.35 8.00 0 0 12.40 0.07 0.29 Hybridstripedxwhitebass 0 0 0.10 0 0 0.10 Warmouth 0.13 0.70 0 0.07 0.29 Redbreast sunfish 2.40 12.68 0 2.53 13.33 0 1.00 4.32 Green sunfish 0.07 0.35 0 0.67 3.51 0 0.73 3.17 Bluegill 2A0 12.68 0.20 6.47 34.04 2.30 11.07 47.84 Longear sunfish 0.07 0.35 0 0.53 2.81 0 0.13 0.58 Redear sunfish 1.67 8.80 0.60 1.67 8.77 3.90 9.27 40.06 Hybrid sunfish 0.07 0.35 0 0.47 2.46 0 0.07 0.29 Smallmouth bass 0.07 0.35 0 0.53 2.81 0.10 0.13 0.58 Spotted bass 1.40 7.39 4.30 1.47 7.72 2.70 1.07 4.61 Largemouth bass 1.60 8.45 0.20 2.07 10.88 0 1.13 4.90 White crappie 0 0 0.50 0 0 1.00 0.07 0.29 Black rappie 0.07 0.35 4.10 0.40 2.11 0.50 Logperch 0.27 1.41 0 1.53 8.07 0 0.20 0.86 Sauger 0 0 0.10 Freshwater drum 0.07 0.35 0.60 0.13 0.70 1.30 0.40 1.73 Brook ilverside 0.27 1.41 0 OA7 2.46 0 1.27 5.48 Total 13.24 69.69 36.6 37 194.74 44.1 37.48 161.99 Number of samples 1S 10 15 10 IS Number collected 198 366 555 441 562 Species colleed 23 19 29 19 30
- Only Young-of-Year Collected 11
Table 6. Individual Metric Ratings and the Overall Benthic Community Index Score for Upstream and Downstream Sites near Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Chickamauga Reservoir, November 2001.
- 1. Average number of taxa 6 5 6.2 5
- 2. Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms 90% 5 80% 5
- 3. Average number of EPT taxa 0.4 3 0.6 1
- 4. Average proportion of oligochaete individuals 14.8% 3 27.1% 3
- 5. Average proportion of total abundance comprised by the 79.4% 3 80.8% 5 two most abundant taxa
- 6. Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes 230 1 348.3 5 Zero-samples - proportion of samples containing no 0 5 0 5 organisms Benthic Index Score 25 31 Fair Good
- Scored with transition criteria.
12
Table 7. Average Mean Density Per Square Meter of Benthic Taxa Collected at Upstream and Downstream Sites near Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Chickamauga Reservoir, November 2001.
TRM TRM Taxa 490.5 482 Turbellaria Tricladida Planaridae Dugesia tigrina 2 Oligocheata Tubificidae 243 697 Branchiurasowerbyi 25 73 Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 2 Hirudinea 2 Rhynchobdellida Glossiphoniidae Helobdellastagnalis 3 8 Erpobdellidae 7 Crustacea Amphipoda Crangonyctidae Crangonyx sp. 2 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemeridae Hexagenia limbata <10mm 5 42 Hexagenia limbata >10mm 15 53 Caenidae Caenis sp. 2 Trichoptera Polycentropodidae Cyrnellusfraternus 3 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Bezzia sp. 2 Chironomidae Ablabesmyla annulata 12 38 Axarus sp. 28 Chironomussp. 50 68 Coelotanypus sp. 28 28 Coelotanypus tricolor 387 63 Cryptochironomusfulvus 7 Epoicocladiussp. 2 Glyptotendipessp. 3 Harnischiasp. 3 Procladiussp. 13 18 13
Table 7. (Continued)
TRM TRM Taxa 490.5 482 Gastropoda Limnophila Physidae Physella sp. 2 Mesogastropoda Pleuroceridae Pleuroceracanaliculata 2 Viviparidae Campeloma decisum 2 5 Viviparus georgianus 2 12 Bivalvia Veneroida Corbiculidae Corbiculafluminea<1Omm 5 85 Corbiculafluminea>IOmm 155 123 Dreissenidae Dreissenapolymorpha 7 Sphaeriidae 7 Musculium transversum 73 53 Sphaerium sp. 3 Number of samples 10 10 Sum 1036 1434 Sum of area sampled 0.60 0.60 14
Table 8. Recent (1994-2001) Benthic Index Scores Collected as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program at Chickamauga Reservoir Transition (TRM 490.5 and TRM 482) and Forebay Zone (TRM 472.3) Sites.
Year Site Reservoir Location 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Average Upstream Chickamauga TRM 490.5 33 29 31 31 23 25 28.6 Downstream Chickamauga TRM 482 23 31 27 Downstream Chickamauga TRM 472.3 31 27 29 25 27 27 27.6 15
Annual RFAI scores for Chickamauga Reservoir 57 52 47 42 0
-Forebay I-0 -Inflow 0
(I, 37 Transition LI- _ Sequoyah 32 Embayment 27 A 22 - ,
17 12 -
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1999 2000 2001 Sample Year Figure 1. RFAI scores from sample years between 1993 and 2001.
16
Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge 2002 by Dennis S. Baxter Kenny D. Gardner Ed M. Scott June 2003 Final Aquatic Biology Lab Norris, Tennessee
Table of Contents Paze Introduction 1 Methods 2 Fish Community 2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community 4 Sport Fishing Index 4 Results and Discussion 5 Fish Community 5 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community 6 Sport Fishing Index 6 Watts Bar Sauger Spawning Study, 2003 Update 7 Literature Cited 9 List of Tables Table 1. Scoring Results for the Twelve Metrics and Overall Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index for Chickamauga Reservoir at the Sequoyah Downstream Sampling Station, 2002. 10 Table 2. Scoring Results for the Twelve Metrics and Overall Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index for Chickamauga Reservoir at the Upstream Sampling Station, 2002. 11 Table 3a. Recent (1993-2001) RFAI Scores Collected as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant. 12 Table 3b. Recent (1993-2002) RFAI Scores Developed Using the New (2002)
RFAI Metrics. 12 Table 4. Species Listing and Catch Per Unit Effort for the Embayment and Sequoyah Transects During the Fall Electrofishing and Gill Netting on Chickamauga Reservoir, 2002 (Electrofishing Effort = 300 Meters of Shoreline and Gill Netting Effort = Net-Nights). 13 Table 5. Species Listing and Catch Per Unit Effort for the Forebay, Transition, and Inflow Transects During the Fall Electrofishing and Gill Netting on Chickamauga Reservoir, 2002 (Electrofishing Effort = 300 Meters of Shoreline and Gill Netting Effort = Net-Nights). 14 i
List of Tables (Continued)
Page Table 6. Individual Metric Ratings and the Overall Benthic Community Index Score for Upstream and Downstream Stations near Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Chickamauga Reservoir, November 2002. 15 Table 7. Average Mean Density Per Square Meter of Benthic Taxa Collected at Upstream and Downstream Stations near Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Chickamauga Reservoir, November 2002. 16 Table 8. Recent (1994-2002) Benthic Index Scores Collected as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program at Chickamauga Reservoir Transition (TRM 490.5 and TRM 482) and Forebay Zone (TRM 472.3) Stations. 19 Table 9. Sport Fishing Index Results for Chickamauga Reservoir, 2002. 19 Table 10. Sport Fish Index Population Quantity and Creel Quantity and Quality Metrics and Scoring Criteria. 20 Table 11. Sport Fish Index Population Quality Metrics and Scoring Criteria. 22 Table 12. Estimated Sauger Harvest from Chickamauga Reservoir, 2000-2002 (TWRA data). 22 List of Figures Figure 1. Parameters used to calculate the Sport Fishing Index (SFI). 22 Figure 2. RFAI scores from sample years between 1993 and 2002. 23 Figure 3. Sport Fishing Index results for Chickamauga Reservoir between 1997 and 2001. 24 Figure 4. Watts Bar Dam discharges during late winter-early spring, 1999-2003. 25 Acronyms BIP Balanced Indigenous Population NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System PSD Proportional Stock Density QA Quality Assurance RFAI Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index RSDM Relative Stock Density of Memorable-sized ii
Acronyms (Continued)
RSDP Relative Stock Density of Preferred-sized RSDT Relative Stock Density of Trophy-sized SF Sport Fishing Index SQN Sequoyah Nuclear Plant TRM Tennessee River Mile TVA Tennessee Valley Authority TWRA Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency VS Vital Signs Wr Relative Weight iii
Introduction Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act specifies that industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters. Industries responsible for point-source dischargers of heated water can obtain a variance from state water quality standards if the industry can demonstrate compliance with thermal criteria by documenting the maintenance of balanced indigenous populations (BIP) of aquatic life in the vicinity of its discharge. Sequoyah Nuclear Plant's (SQN) current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit number TN0026450 states, "For Section 316(b), the permittee shall summarize previous data and indicate whether significant changes have occurred in plant operation, reservoir operations or in stream biology that would necessitate that significant changes to the permitted variance." The permittee shall use the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index (RFAI) to assess Chickamauga Reservoir fish community health. Any apparent declines in the fish community health will be further investigated to discover whether the decline is a valid conclusion and if the decline is real to identify possible sources for the fish community decline.
As part of the identification of potential sources for the decline, the instream effects of the discharges made under this permit will be investigated (TDEC 2000). In response to this requirement, Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVAs) Vital Signs (VS) monitoring program (Dycus and Meinert 1993) will be used to evaluate areas of Chickamauga Reservoir upstream and downstream of SQN discharge. The purpose of this document is to briefly summarize and provide Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation the results of comparisons between current and historical monitoring data.
Prior to 1990, the TVA reservoir studies focused on reservoir ecological assessments to meet specific needs as they arose. In 1990, the TVA instituted a Valley-wide VS monitoring program which is a broad-based evaluation of the overall ecological conditions in major reservoirs. Data is evaluated with a multi-metric monitoring approach utilizing five environmental indicators:
dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll, sediment quality, benthic macroinvertebrate community, and the fish community. When this program was initiated, specific evaluation techniques were developed for each indicator, and these techniques were fine-tuned to better represent ecological conditions. The outcome of this effort was development of multi-metric evaluation techniques for the fish assemblage (i.e., RFAI) and the benthic community, as described below. These multi-metric evaluation techniques have proven successful in TVA's monitoring efforts as well as other federal and state monitoring programs. Therefore, they will form the basis of evaluating these monitoring results. For consistency, only RFAI analyses between 1993 and 2002 will be utilized.
In the past, the Sport Fishing Index (SFI) was used in support of a thermal variance request at SQN (TVA 1996) and during Supplemental Condenser Cooling Water monitoring. The SFI was developed to quantify sport fishing quality for individual sport fish species. The SFI provides biologists with a reference point to measure the quality of a sport fishery. Comparison of the population sampling parameters and creel results for a particular sport fish species with expectations of these parameters from a high quality fishery (reference conditions) allows for the determination of fishing quality. Indices have been developed for black bass (largemouth, I
smallmouth and spotted bass), sauger, striped bass, bluegill, and channel catfish. Each SFI relies on measurements of quantity and quality aspects of angler success and fish population characteristics.
In recent years, SFI information has been used to describe the quality of the resident fishery in conjunction with compliance monitoring, thermal variance requests, and other regulatory issues at TVA nuclear plants in Tennessee. Similar NPDES compliance monitoring programs using the methodologies described above are also being performed at Colbert and Widows Creek Fossil Plants in Alabama.
SFI analyses will be used in this document to support the findings of the other indices used.
However, 2002 Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) data, necessary to complete the SFI analyses for Chickamauga Reservoir, will not be available in time to incorporate into this document, so 2001 results will be used in the analysis.
Methods Fish Community Reservoirs are typically divided into three zones for VS Monitoring - inflow, transition and forebay. The inflow zone is generally in the upper reaches of the reservoir and is riverine in nature; the transition zone or mid-reservoir is the area where water velocity decreases due to increased cross-sectional area, and the forebay is the lacustrine area near the dam. The Chickamauga Reservoir inflow zone is located at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 529.0; the transition zone is located at TRM 490.5, and the forebay zone is located at TRM 472.3. The VS transition zone, which is located approximately 7.2 river miles upstream of the SQN discharge (TRM 483.3), will be used to provide upstream data for the 316(a) thermal variance studies performed in sample years between 1993 and 2002. An additional transition station was later added downstream of the SQN discharge to more closely monitor Chickamauga Reservoir aquatic communities in close proximity to the SQN thermal effluent. This station is located at TRM 482.0 and will be used for downstream comparisons of aquatic communities for the 1999 through 2002 sample seasons. The forebay zone, will serve as the downstream station for 1993 through 1995 and 1997 sample seasons.
Fish samples consisted of fifteen 300-meter electrofishing runs (approximately 10 minutes duration) and ten experimental gill net sets (five 6.1 meter panels with mesh sizes of 2.5, 5.1, 7.6, 10.2, and 12.7 cm) per station. Attained values for each of the 12 metrics were compared to reference conditions for transition zones of mainstream Tennessee River reservoirs and assigned scores based upon three categories hypothesized to represent relative degrees of degradation:
least degraded -5; intermediate -3; and most degraded -1. These categories are based on "expected" fish community characteristics in the absence of human-induced impacts other than impoundment. Individual metric scores for a station are summed to obtain the RFAI score.
Comparison of the attained RFAI score from the potential impact zone to a predetermined criterion has been suggested as a method useful in identifying presence of normal community structure and function and hence existence of a BIP. For multi-metric indices, two criteria have 2
been suggested to ensure a conservative screening for a BIP. First, if an RFAI score reaches 70 percent of the highest attainable score (adjusted upward to include sample variability), and second, if fewer than half of RFAI metrics potentially influenced by thermal discharge receive a low (1) or moderate (3) score, then normal community structure and function would be present indicating that a BIP existed. Under these conditions, the heated discharge would meet screening criteria and no further evaluation would be needed.
The range of RFAI scores possible is from 12 to 60. As discussed in detail below, the average variance for RFAI scores in TVA reservoirs is 6 (+/- 3). Therefore, any location that attains an RFAI score of 45 (42 + our sample variance of 3) or higher would be considered to demonstrate a BIP. It must be stressed that scores below this endpoint do not necessarily reflect an adversely impacted fish community. The endpoint is used to serve as a conservative screening level; for example, any fish community that meets these criteria is obviously not adversely impacted.
RFAI scores below this level would require a more in-depth look to determine if a BIP exist. If a score below this criterion is obtained, an inspection of individual RFAI metric results would be an initial step to help identify if SQN operation is a contributing factor. This approach is appropriate if a validated multi-metric index is being used and scoring criteria applicable to the zone of study are available.
Upstream/downstream stations comparisons can be used to identify if SQN operation is adversely affecting the downstream fish community as well. A similar or higher RFAI score at the downstream station compared to the upstream (control) station is used as one basis for determining presence/absence of SQN operational impacts on the resident fish community.
Definition of "similar" is integral to accepting the validity of these interpretations.
The Quality Assurance (QA) component of VS monitoring deals with how well the RFAI scores can be repeated and is accomplished by collecting a second set of samples at 15-20 percent of the stations each year. Experience to date with the QA component of VS shows that the comparison of RFAI index scores from 54 paired sample sets collected over a seven year period ranged from 0 to 18 points, the 7 5 hpercentile was 6, the 9& percentile was 12. The mean difference between these 54 paired scores is 4.6 points with 95 percent confidence limits of 3.4 and 5.8. Based on these results, a difference of 6 points or less is the value selected for defining "similar" scores between upstream and downstream fish communities. That is, if the downstream RFAI score is within 6 points of the upstream score, the communities will be considered similar. It is important to bear in mind that differences greater than 6 points can be expected simply due to method variation (25 percent of the QA paired sample sets exceeded that value). When this occurs, a metric-by-metric examination will be conducted to determine what caused the difference in scores and the potential for the difference to be thermally related.
As mentioned in the introduction, modifications to the metrics used in RFAI are continually being evaluated in order to make the index better reflect reservoir conditions. For the 2002 sampling season, some RFAI metrics were changed. In addition, several years of RFAI and water quality data have revealed that largemouth bass, in the Tennessee Valley, are actually quite tolerant of poor water quality. The species has shown a tolerance for low dissolved oxygen, 3
warm water temperatures, and highly eutrophic conditions. Therefore, its water quality tolerance rating has been changed to "Tolerant." Previous years' scores have been adjusted in this report to reflect these changes so as not to affect year-to-year comparisons and averages. Comparisons will be made between present and improved RFAI scores. Future versions of the RFAI will likely include more iterations as this analysis technique is continually fine tuned.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Ten benthic grab samples were collected at equally spaced points along the upstream and downstream transects. A Ponar sampler was used for most samples but a Peterson sampler was used when heavier substrate was encountered. Collection and processing techniques followed standard VS procedures. Bottom sediments were washed on a 5331g screen and organisms were then picked from the screen and remaining substrate and identified to Order or Family level in the field using no magnification. Benthic community results were evaluated using seven community characteristics or metrics. Results for each metric were assigned a rating of 1, 3, or 5 depending upon how they compared to reference conditions developed for VS sample sites. The ratings for the seven metrics were summed to produce a total benthic score for each sample site.
Each reservoir section (inflow, transition, or forebay) differs in their maximum potential for benthic diversity; thus, the criteria for assigning metric ratings were adjusted accordingly such that the total benthic scores from sites on different reservoir sections are comparable. Potential scores ranged from 7 to 35. Ecological health ratings ("Poor," "Fair," or "Good") are then applied to scores. A similar or higher benthic index score at the downstream site compared to the upstream site is used as basis for determining if SQN's thermal discharge is having no effect on the Chickamauga Reservoir benthic community.
The QA component of VS monitoring shows that the comparison of benthic index scores from 49 paired sample sets collected over a seven year period ranged from 0 to 14 points, the 7 5th percentile was 4, the 90h percentile was 6. The mean difference between these 49 paired scores is 3.1 points with 95 percent confidence limits of 2.2 and 4.1. Based on these results, a difference of 4 points or less is the value selected for defining "similar" scores between upstream and downstream benthic communities. That is, if the downstream benthic score is within 4 points of the upstream score, the communities will be considered similar and it will be concluded that SQN has had no effect. Once again, it is important to bear in mind that differences greater than 4 points can be expected simply due to method variation (25 percent of the QA paired sample sets exceeded that value). When this occurs, a metric-by-metric examination will be conducted to determine what caused the difference in scores and the potential for the difference to be thermally related.
Sport Fishing Index Calculations described by Hickman (2000) were used to compare SFI values for selected quantity and quality parameters from creel and population samples to expected values that would occur in a good or high quality fishery. Quantity parameters include angler success and catch per unit effort from standard population samples (electrofishing, trap and experimental gill netting).
Population quality is based on measurement of five aspects of each resident sport fish community. Four of these aspects address size structure (proportional number of fish in each length group) of the community, Proportional Stock Density (PSD), Relative Stock Density of 4
Preferred-sized fish (RSDP), Relative Stock Density of Memorable-sized fish (RSDM), and Relative Stock Density of Trophy-sized fish (RSDT) (Figure 1). Relative weight (Wr), a measure of the average condition of individual fish makes up the fifth population quality aspect.
As described by Hickman (2000), observed values were compared to reference ranges and assigned a corresponding numerical value. The SFI value is calculated by adding up the scores for quantity and quality from existing data and multiplying by two when only creel or population data are available. Species received a low score when insufficient numbers of individuals were captured to reliably determine proportional densities or relative weights for particular parameters.
SFI scores are typically compared to average Tennessee Valley reservoir scores; however, Valley-wide scores are unavailable from natural resource agencies. Therefore, Chickamauga Reservoir fish species scores will be compared to previous years.
Results and Discussion Fish Community In the autumn of 2002, the SQN downstream station scored 43 (Good) and the upstream station scored 51 (Excellent) using the new RFAI analysis methodology (Tables 1 and 2). In addition, the downstream, SQN transition station (closest to the SQN discharge) received lower scores than the forebay downstream station for the following RFAI metrics, 1)percent dominance by one species, 2) percent omnivores, and 3) average number per run (Table 1). However, RFAI scores obtained from VS monitoring stations located upstream and downstream of the SQN discharge over the past several years have revealed consistently good fish community results (Tables 3a and 3b and Figure 2). Regardless of analysis methodology or which downstream station was used, the upstream station rating remained in the "Good" range and the downstream continued in the "Good" range, on average (Tables 3a and 3b and Figure 2). As indicated in Table 3b, between 1993 and 2002, the average RFAI score for the upstream station was 47 (78.0 percent of the maximum score). The two downstream stations (i.e., SQN transition and forebay) both averaged 46 (76.6 percent of the maximum score).
The 2002 upstream and downstream RFAI stations have a difference greater than 6 points which does not meet one of the criteria identified in the Methods section as indicative of a BIP.
However, as you will note in the following benthic community discussion, the downstream benthic station (TRM 482) scored better than the upstream station which does not support the RFAr findings. Since the 2002 RFAI data only represents one year, further investigation may be warranted in the future, if the trend continues, to determine if method variation can account for the change or if it is water quality related.
Based on the average upstream and downstream RFAI scores, 2002 macroinvertebrate community data, and the defining characteristics for a BIP, it can be concluded that SQN operation has had no impact on the Chickamauga Reservoir resident fish community, on average, for eight sampling seasons. Electrofishing and gill netting catch rates for individual species from the downstream station are listed in Table 4 and 5.
5
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Table 6 provides ratings for each metric as well as the overall benthic index score for both monitoring sites. Table 7 summarizes density by taxon at the upstream (TRM 490.5) and downstream (TRM 482) collection stations. In the 2002 sampling season, the upstream station produced a benthic index score of 23 (Fair) and the downstream station scored 27 (Good).
Therefore, it appears that SQN has had no adverse effect on the benthic macroinvertebrate community immediately downstream from the plant. Table 8 provides benthic index scores from VS monitoring at the forebay (TRM 472.3) and transition zone stations from 1994 to 2002. The Chickamauga forebay zone sample station is of sufficient distance downstream (11 miles) that results would not be expected to reflect plant effects. The similar scores from TRM 472.3 and TRM 482 also indicate that SQN has had no effect on the macroinvertebrate community immediately downstream from the plant.
Sport Fishing Index In the autumn of 2001, Chickamauga Reservoir's black bass, largemouth, and spotted bass, bluegill, and sauger received lower SFI scores than they did in 2000 and smalimouth bass received a higher score (Table 9 and Figure 3). The score for largemouth was the lowest it has been since 1997 when this analysis technique was implemented by TVA. Here again, this is only one year's dataset, and a reservoir-wide analysis (rather than upstream, downstream comparison),
so it is not necessarily indicative of a trend. Historical data indicates that SFI scores typically vary across years. However if future scores would continue to decline, further investigation would be warranted. Smallmouth bass and striped bass received their highest SF scores to date and walleye were not collected in sufficient numbers to analyze (Table 9 and Figure 3). Tables 10 and 11 illustrate sport fish index scoring criteria for population metrics and creel quantity and quality.
Sauger population estimates based on rotenone data have increased annually since 1988 in Wheeler Reservoir. The 1994 sauger population estimate (38 fish/ha) and the estimated number of young-of-year (35 fish/ha) were the second highest reported for each category during the 1969-1997 time period. In 1997, the last year rotenone data was available, Wheeler Reservoir sauger population averaged 5.6 fish/ha (Baxter and Buchanan 1998).
Hickman et al., (1990) noted that sauger populations across the Tennessee Valley declined during the mid- to late-1980's due to a prolonged drought. The Tennessee Valley is currently in another drought cycle and populations may decline further. Maceina et al., (998) described population characteristics and exploitation rates of sauger during 1993-1995 in the tailraces of Guntersville, Wheeler and Wilson Dams. Maceina reported that total annual mortality between age-l and age-2 fish was high (64 percent-83 percent) and that saugers were harvested at high rates before reaching their full growth potential.
Sauger, striped bass, and channel catfish are easily caught during their spring migration to preferred spawning habitats. Fishing creel surveys conducted in the spring would better describe and evaluate these species compared to only using autumn fisheries surveys.
6
Watts Bar Sauger SpawninE Study. 2003 Update While no SQN operational impacts on sauger spawning have been identified, TVA has found that reservoir releases from Watts Bar Dam during April significantly influence success of sauger spawning in Chickamauga Reservoir. Relative failures of sauger yearclasses were documented during the drought period of the late 1980's, a time during which instantaneous minimum flows were not provided (Yeager and Shiao 1992; Hickman and Buchanan 1996). A continuous minimum release of about 8,000 cfs from Watts Bar Dam during April is usually sufficient to produce an adequate sauger yearclass. However, under dry conditions, a release of 8,000 cfs cannot be sustained.
In April 1999 only 4,000 cfs were provided (Figure 4), and that failed to produce a good yearclass (Hickman 2003). The next year adequate water was available to maintain at least 8,000 cfs during April. However, during the dry spring of 2001, the specified minimum flows were again unobtainable. Since 4,000 cfs were found to be inadequate in 1999, special releases for sauger were modified in 2001 to provide 6,000 cfs for the three week period from April 9 to April 30, the period of greatest spawning activity. The success of this spawning flow regime was to be determined by a series of hourly gill net samples collected during the late winter of 2002 and compared to historical sample results.
Unfortunately, high flows beginning in mid-March 2002 (Figure 4) negated our ability to safely collect gill net samples downstream from Watts Bar Dam. When the flows subsided in mid-April, water temperatures had already risen beyond the sauger spawning peak, and very few sauger were collected in the gill nets. What few that were collected had already spawned, so it was presumed that the bulk of sauger spawning activity had occurred during the high flows when gill netting was not possible. Although we were unable to assess the success of the 2001 spawn, the likelihood of a good 2002 yearclass was strong.
Plans were made to return to Watts Bar Tailwater in the winter of2003 to again attempt sampling of the 2001 sauger yearclass. However, those plans were jeopardized by the fire at the Watts Bar Dam powerhouse and subsequent loss of hydroturbine operation in the fall of 2002.
While the turbines were inoperable, all the water passing the dam was via the spillways.
Additional hindrances to sampling in the late winter of 2003 were high flows (Figure 4),
especially since they were over the spillway, making it impossible to sample the area below dam safely. Flows subsided briefly during the first week of April, and a few samples were collected, but not enough sauger were captured before high flows returned.
Because insufficient numbers of sauger were collected in gill net samples below Watts Bar Dam during 2002 and 2003, inferences from TWRA creel surveys on Chickamauga Reservoir were drawn to evaluate sauger abundance and yearclass strength (Table 12).
Sauger fishing is highly seasonal, beginning in December and ending in March, when sauger migrate to the headwaters of Chickamauga Reservoir below Watts Bar Dam before the spring spawning season. Most sauger are caught during January and February, as in 1992 (TWRA 1993). To help maintain the fishery, TWRA enforces a 15" minimum size limit, which allows them at least one spawning season before being harvested. Most fish are in their third growing 7
season when they reach legal size. Since sauger are sought mostly for food, as opposed to a catch-and-release fishery, the majority of those released are under legal size. The percentage of caught fish released (Table 12) gives an approximation of one and two-year old fish in the Chickamauga Reservoir sauger fishery. Average weight of harvested sauger also indicates the yearclass composition of the fishery among years.
Creel statistics for 2000 and 2001 are somewhat similar in total number caught, total number harvested, percent of caught fish released, and average weight. This indicates that the yearclass composition of harvested sauger from Chickamauga Reservoir were basically the same, although the abundance may have been slightly more in 2000. Nearly two-thirds of the sauger caught were released, implying they were of sub-legal size (i.e., one and two-year old fish). The abundance of sub-legal sauger caught indicates relative spawning success during the previous two years.
But in 2002, creel statistics show a change in yearclass composition and a decline in recruitment of smaller, younger fish to the fishery. That decline can be largely traced to the relative weakness of the 1999 yearclass of sauger, which was attributed to the minimum April 1999 flows of 4,000 cfs from Watts Bar Dam (Figure 4). The total 2002 catch was approximately half those of the previous two years, and the average size was larger. Furthermore, the lower percentage of caught and released fish in 2002 implies a decline in abundance of sub-legal sauger, which would include the 2001 yearclass. If future data confirm this to be true, then the 6,000 cfs maintained for the last three weeks in April 2001 was insufficient to produce a strong sauger yearclass.
One cautionary note on using creel data to evaluate sauger abundance is necessary. Since sauger are primarily harvested during the two month period preceding their spawning season, inclement weather or flow conditions (such as high, muddy discharges) at that time could hinder sauger fishing and produce creel statistics that do not accurately reflect the true abundance of sauger in Chickamauga Reservoir. Also note that flows in February 2002 were not excessive (Figure 4),
and the creel statistics for that year, as discussed above, should be accurate. The same is not true for Watts Bar Dam discharges in 2003, however, but those data are not yet available from TWRA.
Additional gill net samples will be collected during the winter of 2004, hopefully in the absence of uncontrolled discharges from Watts Bar Dam. With adequate numbers of sauger collected next year, length and yearclass analysis should be sufficient to determine the adequacy of reduced minimum flows of 6,000 cfs during three weeks of April in years when rainfall is low.
In summary, assessment of 2001 sauger spawning success during three weeks of 6,000 cfs minimum flows during the spawning season was not possible using gill net information collected in 2002 or 2003 due to unusual flow conditions. Instead, inferences were made on the relative success of the 2001 spawn using TWRA creel information. Those data indicate the 2001 spawn was poor. However, creel data in 2000-2002 indicate that even during the recent drought, the fishery did not crash, as it did during the drought years of the late 1980's, before April minimum flows were maintained at Watts Bar Dam (Hickman and Buchanan 1996). Better understanding of the 2001 yearclass of sauger should be available following gill netting data collected next year.
8
Literature Cited Baxter, D. S. and Buchanan, J. P. 1998. Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Thermal Variance Monitoring Program Including Statistical Analyses - Final Report. Tennessee Valley Authority, Water Management, Aquatic Biology Lab, Norris, Tennessee. Revised August 1998. 64pp.
Dycus, D. L. and D. L. Meinert. 1993. Reservoir Monitoring, Monitoring and Evaluation of Aquatic Resource Health and Use Suitability in Tennessee Valley Authority Reservoirs.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Water Resources, Chattanooga, Tennessee, TVA/WM-93/15.
Hickman, G. D., K. W. Hevel, and E. M. Scott. 1990. Density, Movement Patterns, and Spawning Characteristics of Sauger (Stizostedion canadense) in Chickamauga Reservoir.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Water Resources, Chattanooga, TN. 53pp.
Hickman, G. D and J. P. Buchanan. 1996. Chickamauga Reservoir Sauger Investigation 1993-1995 Final Project Report. Tennessee Valley Authority, Aquatic Biology Laboratory, Norris, TN. l7pp.
Hickman, G. D. 2000. Sport Fish Index (SFI), A Method to Quantify Sport Fishing Quality.
Environmental Science & Policy 3 (2000) S117-S125.
Hickman, G. D. 2003. Personal Communication, February 2003.
Maceina, M. J., P. W. Bettoli, S. D. Finely, and V. J. DiCenzo. 1998. Analyses of the Sauger Fishery with Simulated Effects of a Minimum Size Limit in the Tennessee River of Alabama. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 18: 66-75.
O'Bara, C. J. 1993. Fisheries Report TWRA Creel Survey 1992. Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, TN. 93-14. 218 pp.
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 2000. Draft NPDES Permit Number TN0026450.
Tennessee Valley Authority. 1996. A Supplemental 316(a) Demonstration for Alternative Thermal Discharge Limits for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Chickamauga Reservoir, Tennessee.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Engineering Laboratory, Norris, TN. WR96-1-45-145. 87 pp.
Yeager, B. and M. Shiao. 1992. Recommendation and Implementation of Special Seasonal Flow Releases to Enhance Sauger Spawning in Watts Bar Tailwater. Tennessee Valley Authority, Aquatic Biology Department and Engineering Laboratory, Norris, TN. TVA/Wr-92/14. 57 pp.
9
Table 1. Scoring Results for the Twelve Metrics and Overall Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index for Chickamauga Reservoir at the Sequoyah Downstream Sampling Station, 2002.
Forebay Transition TRM 472.3 TRM 482.0 Downstream Station Metric Obs. Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition
- 1. Number of species 25 3 24 3
- 2. Number of centrachid 7 5 7 5 species
- 3. Number of benthic 3 1 3 I invertivores
- 4. Number of intolerant 5 5 5 5 species
- 5. Percent tolerant species electrofishing 52.5 1.5 70.3 0.5 gill netting 16.6 1.5 6.2 2.5
- 6. Percent dominance by electrofishing 27.1 1.5 30.6 1.5 one species gill netting 28.0 1.5 42.0 0.5
- 7. Number non-native electrofishing 0.4 2.5 0.5 2.5 species gill netting 2.3 2.5 3.7 2.5
- 8. Number of top 8 5 10 5 carnivore species B. Trophic composition
- 9. Percent top carnivores electrofishing 8.1 1.5 14.3 2.5 gill netting 76.0 2.5 67.9 2.5
- 9. Percent omnivores electrofishing 10.3 2.5 33.5 1.5 gill netting 12.0 2.5 17.3 1.5 C. Fish abundance and health
- 11. Average number per electrofishing 45.3 0.5 38.8 0.5 run gill netting 17.5 1.5 8.1 0.5
- 12. Percent anomalies electrofishing 1.0 2.5 0.9 2.5 gill netting 0 2.5 0 2.5 RFAI 46 43 Good Good 10
Table 2. Scoring Results for the Twelve Metrics and Overall Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index for Chickamauga Reservoir at the Upstream Sampling Station, 2002.
Transition Inflow TRM 490.5 TRM 529.0 Upstream Station Metric Obs. Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition
- 1. Number of species 30 5 26 3
- 2. Number of centrachid 8 5 7 5 species
- 3. Number of benthic 5 3 5 3 invertivores
- 4. Number of intolerant 6 6 5 species
- 5. Percent tolerant species electrofishing 57.9 1.5 37.5 3 gill netting 9.8 2.5 0 0
- 6. Percent dominance by electrofishing 32.0 1.5 29.4 3 one species gill netting 34.8 0.5 0 0
- 7. Number non-native electrofishing 0.8 2.5 0.8 5 species gill netting 2.3 2.5 0 0
- 8. Number of top 10 5 7 5 carnivore species B. Trophic composition
- 9. Percent top carnivores electrofishing 16.3 2.5 12.1 3 gill netting 81.1 2.5 0 0
- 10. Percent omnivores electrofishing 18.0 2.5 13.2 5 gill netting 11.4 2.5 0 0 C. Fish abundance and health
- 11. Average number per electrofishing 75.3 0.5 85.7 3 run gill netting 13.2 1.5 0 0
- 12. Percent anomalies electrofishing 0.6 2.5 0.5 5 gill netting .0 2.5 0 0 RFAI 51 48 Excellent Good II
Table 3a. Recent (1993-2001) RFA Scores Collected as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant.
Station Reservoir Location 1993 1994 1995 1997 1999 1993- 2000* 2001 1993-2001 Average 1999 Average Upstream Chickamauga TRM 51 43 50 40 41 45 44 45 45 490.5 (Good) (Good)
Sequoyah Chickamauga TRM 43 43 49 47 48 Transition 482.0 (Good) (Good)
Forebay Chickamauga TRM 45 41 47 38 39 42 43 42 43 472.3 (Good) (Good)
- The 2000 sample year was not part of the VS monitoring program, however the same methodology was applied.
Table 3b. Recent (1993-2002) RFAI Scores Developed Using the New (2002) RFAI Metrics.
Station Reservoir Location 1993 1994 1995 1997 1999 1993- 2000* 2001 2002* 1993-2002 1999 Average Average Upstream Chickamauga TRM 49 40 46 39 45 44 46 45 51 47 490.5 (Good) (Good)
Sequoyah Chickamauga TRM 41 41 48 46 43 46 Transition 482.0 (Good) (Good)
Forebay Chickamauga TRM 44 44 47 39 45 44 45 48 46 46 472.3 (Good) (Good)
- The 2000 and 2002 sample years were not part of the VS monitoring program, however the same methodology was applied.
12
Table 4. Species Listing and Catch Per Unit Effort for the Embayment and Sequoyah Transects During the Fall Electrofishing and Gill Netting on Chickamauga Reservoir, 2002 (Electrofishing Effort = 300 Meters of Shoreline and Gill Netting Effort = Net-Nights).
Forebay TRM 472.3 Transition TRM 482.0 Electrofishing Electrofishlng Gill Netting Electrofishing Electrofishing Gill Netting Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Common Name Ran Hour Net Night Run Hour Net Night Skipjack herring . 2.4 . . 0.3 Gizzard shad 3.27 18.01 1.2 11.33 71.13 0.3 Threadfin shad 8.33 45.96 0.1 Common carp 0.2 1.1 0.1 0.2 1.26 Golden shiner 1.13 6.25 0.1 0.07 0.42 Emerald shiner 4.27 23.53 . 1.27 7.95 Spotted sucker 0.27 1.47 0.8 0.33 2.09 0.3 Blue catfish . 0.5 0.53 3.35 0.2 Channel catfish 0.07 0.37 0.2 0.87 5.44 0.9 Flathead catfish . 0.1 0.2 1.26 0.3 White bass .
- 0.07 0.42 Yellow bass . 1.7 0.07 0.42 0.1 Striped bass . 0.3 . . 0.3 Warmouth 0.07 0.37
- 0.27 1.67 0.1 Redbreast sunfish 4.67 25.74 0.1 1.67 10.46 Green sunfish 0.33 1.84 Bluegill 12.27 67.65 0.2 11.87 74.48 Longear sunfish 1.07 5.88 . 0.53 3.35 Redear sunfish 1.93 10.66 0.5 3.33 20.92 0.2 Smallmouth bass 0.47 2.57 0.3 0.53 3.35 0.2 Spotted bass 1.2 6.62 4.9 2.33 14.64 3.4 Largemouth bass 1.93 10.66 1.2 2.13 13.39 White crappie . * *
- 0.2 Black crappie 0.07 0.37 2.3 0.2 1.26 0.1 Logperch 0.27 1.47 . 0.13 0.84 Sauger . 0.1 . . 0.6 Freshwater drum 0.07 0.37 0.4 0.13 0.84 0.6 Brook silverside 3.4 18.75 . 0.73 4.6 Chestnut lamprey 0.07 0.37 .
Total 4536 250.01 17.5 38.79 243.54 8.1 Number Samples 15 10 15 10 Number Collected 680 175 582 81 Species Collected 21 20 22 16 13
Table 5. Species Listing and Catch Per Unit Effort for the Forebay, Transition, and Inflow Transects During the Fall Electrofishing and Gill Netting on Chickamauga Reservoir, 2002 (Electrofishing Effort = 300 Meters of Shoreline and Gill Netting Effort = Net-Nights).
Transition TRM 490.5 l Inflow TRM 529.0 Electrofishing Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Electrofishing Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Common Name Run Hour Net Night Run Hour Skipjack herring . . 1.5 Gizzard shad 10.87 61.51 1.2 9.2 51.49 Threadfin shad 8.93 50.57 . 25.2 141.04 Common carp 0.47 2.64
- 0.47 2.61 Golden shiner 1.07 6.04 . 0.2 1.12 Emerald shiner 3.6 20.38 . 0.13 0.75 Spotfin shiner 0.47 2.64 . 1.87 10.45 Bullhead minnow 0.07 0.38 . 0.4 2.24 Northern hog sucker 0.07 0.38 . 0.07 0.37 Spotted sucker 0.27 1.51 . 0.53 2.99 Black redhorse . . . 0.13 0.75 Golden redhorse 0.07 0.38 0.1 0.47 2.61 Channel catfish 1.13 6.42 0.3 1.47 8.21 Flathead catfish 0.13 0.75 0.3 0.4 2.24 White bass . . 0.4 0.6 3.36 Yellowbass 1.2 6.79 4.6 2.33 13.06 Striped bass . . 0.2 0.07 0.37 Hybrid striped x white . . 0.1 Warmouth 1.6 9.06 . 0.33 1.87 Redbreast sunfish 2.67 15.09 . 1.27 7.09 Green sunfish 0.27 1.51 . 0.27 1.49 Bluegill 24.07 136.23 . 16.27 91.04 Longear sunfish 0.93 5.28 . 0.53 2.99 Redear sunfish 4.73 26.79 0.6 14.73 82.46 Smallmouth bass 1.93 10.94 0.2 1.07 5.97 Spotted bass 4.07 23.02 2.1 2.07 11.57 Largemouth bass 3.73 21.13 . 2.6 14.55 White crappie . . 0.1 Black crappie 1.13 6.42 0.8 1.2 6.72 Yellow perch 0.13 0.75 . 0.13 0.75 Logperch 0.07 0.38 Sauger 0.07 0.38 0.4 Freshwater drum 0.47 2.64 0.3 0.4 2.24 Brook silverside 0.87 4.91 . 1.33 7.46 Chestnut lamprev 0.2 1.13 Total 75.29 426.05 13.2 85.74 479.86 Number Samples 15 10 15 Number Collected 1129 132 1286 Species Collected 29 29 Only Young-of-Year Collected 14
Table 6. Individual Metric Ratings and the Overall Benthic Community Index Score for Upstream and Downstream Stations near Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Chickamauga Reservoir, November 2002.
TRM 490.5 TRM 482 Ustream Downstream Metric bs Rating Obs Rating
- 1. Average number of taxa 5.4 3 4.8 3
- 2. Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms 100% 5 100% 5
- 3. Average number of EPT taxa 0.4 1 0.4 1
- 4. Average proportion of oligochaete individuals 10% 5 21% 3
- 5. Average proportion of total abundance comprised by the 83.8% 3 78.5% 5 two most abundant taxa
- 6. Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes 200 1 383.3 5 Zero-samples - proportion of samples containing no 0 5 0 5 organisms Benthic Index Score 23 27 Fair Good
- Scored with transition criteria.
15
Table 7. Average Mean Density Per Square Meter of Benthic Taxa Collected at Upstream and Downstream Stations near Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Chickamauga Reservoir, November 2002.
TRM Chickamauga Reservoir 490.5 Upstream Mean Occurrence Species Density per site Phylum Annelida Subclass Oligocheata Family Tubificidae 77 6 Branchiurasowerbyi 2 1 Limnodrilus hoffineisteri 20 5 Class Hirudinea Family Glossiphoniidae Placobdellapediculata 2 1 Crustacea Amphipoda Talitridae Hyalellaazteca 2 1 Phylum Insecta Order Ephemeroptera Family Ephemeridae Hexagenia limbata
<10mm 2 1 Hexagenia limbata
>10mm 5 2 Order Trichoptera Family Leptoceridae Oecetis sp. 2 1 Order Diptera Family Chironomidae Ablabesmyia annulata 7 4 Chironomussp. 23 5 Coelotanypus tricolor 507 10 Acari Parasitengonia Acariformes Unionicolasp. 2 1 Phylum Mollusca Class Gastropoda Order Mesogastropoda Family Viviparidae Viviparus Georgianus 2 1 16
Table 7. (continued)
TRM Chickamauga Reservoir 490.5 Upstream Mean Occurrence Species Density per site Class Bivalvia Veneroida Family Corbiculidae Corbiculafluminea
<10mm 8 2 Corbiculafluminea
>10mm 68 10 Family Sphaeriidae Musculium ransversum 108 9 Number of samples 10 Sum 835 Number of taxa 13 Number of EPT taxa 2 Sum of area sampled 0.60 TRM Chickamauga Reservoir 482 Downstream Mean Occurrence Species Density per site Phylum Annelida Subclass Oligocheata Family Enchytraeidae Family Lumbricidae 3 1 Family Tubificidae 105 6 Branchiurasowerbyi 3 1 Limnodrilus hoffineisteri 18 4 Class Hirudinea 18 3 Phylum Insecta Order Ephemeroptera Family Ephemeridae Hexagenialimbata
>10mm 57 4 Order Diptera Family Chironomidae Branchiurasowerbyi 3 1 Ablabesmyia annulata 17 4 17
Table 7. (continued)
TRM Chickamauga Reservoir 482 Downstream Mean Occurrence Species Density per site Axarus sp. 5 2 Unionicolasp. 2 1 Phylum Mollusca Class Gastropoda Order Mesogastropoda Family Viviparidae Campelomasp. 2 Viviparus Georgianus 22 Class Bivalvia Veneroida Family Corbiculidae Campeloma sp. 2 Viviparus Georgianus 22 Class Bivalvia Veneroida Family Corbiculidae Corbiculafluminea
<10mm 77 Corbiculafluminea
>10mm 108 Family Dressenidae Dreissenapolymorpha 8 Family Sphaeriidae Musculium transversum 90 Number of samples 10 Sum 644 Number of taxa 15 Number of EPT taxa 1 Sum of area sampled 0.60 18
Table 8. Recent (1994-2002) Benthic Index Scores Collected as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program at Chickamauga Reservoir Transition (TRM 490.5 and TRM 482) and Forebay Zone (TRM 472.3) Stations.
Y Y Year Site Reservoir Location 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Average Upstream Chickamauga TRM 490.5 33 29 31 31 23 25 23 27.8 Downstream Chickamauga TRM 482 23 31 27 27 Downstream Chickamauga TRM 472.3 31 27 29 25 27 27 23 27 Table 9. Sport Fishing Index Results for Chickmauga Reservoir, 2002 Years Species 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1997-2001 Average SPI Score Black bass 40.5 24.5 34.5 30.5 26 Bluegill 32 33 32 19.4 Channel catfish 29 30 11.8 Crappie 30 31 31 32 25 Hybrid striped x 26 34 12 white bass .-
Largemouth bass 39 37 34 32 28 34 Spotted bass 25 37 24 40 26 30 Sauger 27 36 26 39 30 32 Smallmouth bass 25 20 24 22 40 26 Striped bass 30 30 40 20 Walleye 20 20 8 White bass 31 30 30 18 19
Table 10. Sport Fish Index Population Quantity and Creel Quantity and Quality Metrics and Scoring Criteria.
Metrics Scores 5 10 15 Black bass Population (quantity)
TVA electrofishing catch/hour < 15 15-31 >31 State electrofishing (catch/hour) < 62 62-124 > 124 Creel (quantity) 8 Anglers (catch/hour) < 0.3 0.3-0.6 > 0.6 BAIT and BITE data < 1.1 1.1-2.3 > 2.3 Creel (quality)
Pressure (hours/acre) <8 8-16 > 16 Largemouth bass Population (quantity)b TVA electrofishing catch/hour < 13 13-25 > 25 State electrofishing (catch/hour) < 53 53-106 > 106 Creel (quantity)
Anglers (catch/hour) < 0.29 0.29-0.58 > 0.58 Creel (quality)
Pressure (hours/acre) <8 8-16 > 16 Smallmouth bass Population (quantity)
TVA electrofishing catch/hour <4 4-8 >8 State electrofishing (catch/hour) <8 8-15 > 15 Creel (quantity)
Anglers (catch/hour) < 0.1 0.1-0.3 > 0.3 Creel (quality)
Pressure (hours/acre) <8 8-16 > 16 Spotted bass Population (quantity)
TVA electrofishing catch/hour <5 5-11 > 11 State electrofishing (catch/hour) < 14 14-27 > 27 Creel (quantity)
Anglers (catch/hour) <0.07 0.07-0.13 > 0.13 Creel (quality)
Pressure (hours/acre) <8 8-16 > 16 20
Table 10. (Continued)
Metrics Scores 5 10 15 Sauger Population (quantity)
Experimental gill net (catch/net night) <9 9-17 > 17 Creel (quantity)
Anglers (catch/hour) < 0.5 0.5-1 >1 Creel (quality)
Pressure (hours/acre) <5 5-10 > 10 Channel catfish Population (quantity)
Experimental gill net (catch/net night) <2 2-4 >4 Creel (quantity)
Anglers (catch/hour) < 0.3 0.3-0.7 > 0.7 Creel (quality)
Pressure (hours/acre) <9 9-19 > 19 aEach worth 2.5, 5.0, and 7.5 points if both data sets are available.
bTVA electrofishing only used when state agency electrofishing data is unavailable.
21
Table 11. Sport Fish Index Population Quality Metrics and Scoring Criteria.
Scores 5 10 15 Metrics Population (quality) 1 2 3 PSD < 20 or > 80 20-39 or 61-80 40-60 RSDP (preferred) 0 or > 60 1-9 or 41-60 10-40 RSDM (memorable) 0 or> 25 1-4 or 11-25 5-10 RSDT(trophy) 0 <1 1 W.(Stock-preferred size fish) < 90 > 110 90-110 Table 12. Estimated Sauger Harvest from Chickamauga Reservoir, 2000-2002 (TWRA data).
Percent of Year Total number Total number caught fish Average caught harvested released weight bs.)
2000 18,784 7,160 61.9 1.46 2001 15,265 5,518 63.9 1.45 2002 8,245 4,071 50.6 1.65 Quantity Parameters Quality Parameters AnI Irc I -eIs I Angler Success l Sampling CPUE l Angling Pressure l pecies Population I
-~~ ~~~~~~~~~~
PtSD RSD F Figure 1. Parameters used to calculate the Sport Fishing Index (SFI).
22
Annual RFAI Scores for Chickamauga Reservoir 57 52 47 42
-a- Hiwassee Embayment 91 0 Forebay UO> 37
- Inflow I - Transition Y32 Sequoyah Transition 27 22 17 12 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Year Figure 2. RFAI scores from sample years between 1993 and 2002.
23
(.X3
45 I 11 - - -II 40-35 -
- Black bass 30 NBugl O Channel catfish O3Crappie 25 P - Hybrid 00 t0000001\:SX striped x white
\ :f : bass j~f f f -i . t o tit0 > 00/li;V . l\S$P;;000000S>2--
l 1[ ?0 l$g-:: l 1l;;0; Largemouth bass U) U ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sp bs Cl 2 0 0 Sauger MSmallmouth bass 10 - i White bass MWalleye 10 - , 01 F ~ -
5 0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year Figure 3. Sport Fishing Index results for Chickamauga Reservoir between 1997 and 2001.
24
Wafts Bar Dam Discharges 1000000 Feb-May, 1999-2003 U
° 100000 0)
- 0 10000 1000 I 1 2/1 2/21 3/12 4/1 4/21 5/11 5/31 Date Figure 4. Watts Bar Dam discharges during late winter-early spring, 1999-2003.
25 c5)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT 316(b) MONITORING PROGRAM EFFECTS OF IMPINGEMENT ON THE AQUATIC POPULATIONS IN CHICKAMAUGA RESERVOIR Prepared by Larry K. Kay and Dennis S. Baxter September 2002
Executive Summary In accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Number TN0026450 the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) conducted monitoring to evaluate the effects of the operation of SQN's condenser-cooling water intake on the aquatic community of Chickamauga Reservoir.
Impingement samples were collected in the winter of 2001-2002 from the SQN traveling screens. Seasonal peaks of fish impingement were selected from historical data sets to (1) assess the impact of current operation on the aquatic populations, (2) compare current operation with previous operational data, and (3) to ensure compliance. The 2001-2002 data were similar to the 1981-1985 historical data; threadfin shad was the dominant species and other species were impinged in low numbers. Based on the 2001-2002 data, current operation of SQN is having no significant effect on the aquatic populations in Chickamauga Reservoir.
Introduction Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) withdraws condenser-cooling water (CCW) from the Tennessee River and is subject to compliance with the Tennessee Water Quality Act and the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 316(b) of the CWA requires facilities to demonstrate that the CCW is having no significant impact on the aquatic community.
Impingement is a component of 316(b) and is defined as an impact of which fish and other aquatic organisms are trapped or impinged against the Intake screens. TVA conducted Impingement studies at SQN from 1981 through July 1985 to assess the effects of operation on the aquatic community. No significant impact was observed in these studies. The Emergency Raw Cooling Water (ERCW) contributes only 0.7 percent of the pumping capacity and, historically, impinges low numbers of fish.
Therefore, potential impacts from operation of the ERCW are minimal and no additional evaluations are included in this report. This report presents impingement data collected from the CCW intake screens in the winter of 2001-2002 with comparisons to historical data.
Plant Description and Operation During Study Period SQN is located on the west shore of Chickamauga Reservoir at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 484.5 (Figure 1). The two units (water pressurized reactors) have a total nameplate rating of 2,441 megawatts (MW). Natural draft cooling towers enables SQN to operate in an open, closed, or helper mode. In open mode operation with both units at maximum power, total water demand is 72.45 m 3/s (2,558 cfs). CCW is drawn from Chickamauga Reservoir into the intake channel through an opening approximately 165 m in length and 3 m height located near the bottom of the skimmer wall. The skimmer wall is situated near the river channel enabling SQN to withdraw cooler water from the lower stratum. From the Intake channel, water passes through six, 3-m wide traveling screens to the intake pumps. Mesh openings on screens are 0.95 cm2.
Both units were near full load December 2001 through February 2002 (Figure 2).
Average daily generation for the two combined was 2373 MV; Unit 1 averaged 1186 MV and Unit 2 1187 MV. Six intake pumps were usually in operation producing an average daily intake flow of 2536 cfs. Velocity at traveling screens averaged 1.2 fps with a maximum of 1.3 and a minimum of 1.2 fps.
Materials and Methods The 2001-2002 impingement study was conducted in winter, historically, when peak numbers of fish are Impinged at SQN. Ten impingement samples were collected from the CCW screens between December 19, 2001 and February 25, 2002. Each of the six intake screens were washed and rotated to remove all fish and debris. After approximately 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, screens were individually washed and rotated. Fish were collected in the catch basket at the end of the sluice pipe. Due to problems, one sample, collected on January 17, 2002, was for a 48-hour period. Fish were identified, separated Into 25 mm length classes, enumerated, and weighed. Estimates of monthly impingement rates were calculated and compared with historical data.
I
Results and Discussion Fifteen fish species representing eight families and one exotic mussel (zebra mussel) were collected in the SQN impingement samples (Table 1). The prolific non-native zebra mussel is a nuisance species introduced into the Tennessee River system in the last ten years. Zebra mussels are not an impingement concern and must be monitored to ensure accumulation in the intake structure does not impede flow. One species, alewife, was observed for the first time in SQN impingement samples. Alewife Is a cool water forage species introduced into Watauga Reservoir in 1976 and continues to extend its range downstream.
A total of 13,570 fish weighing 50,532 grams was collected in the ten samples (Table 2).
Threadfin shad was the dominant species comprising 97 percent of the total number collected and 74 percent of the total weight (Table 3). All other species contributed less than one percent of the total number; both bluegill and freshwater drum contributed 0.8 percent. By weight, freshwater drum ranked second comprising 15 percent of total.
Threadfin shad are typically the dominant species impinged at TVA power plants and significant annual and seasonal fluctuations In population estimates for the species is common. The average monthly impingement rate for threadfin shad was 36,427 in the winter of 2001-2002; monthly estimates were 45,720 in December, 53,400 in January, and 6944 in February. This is higher than the historical monthly average (Figure 3) but similar to the 46,000 estimated for December 1981. Historical data was averaged over a 52-week period in 1981 through 1984 and January through July in 1985, whereas, the 2001-2002 data was collected during winter. Threadfin shad have a high fecundity rate, move in large schools, and are intolerant to cold temperatures, often resulting in high mortality rates in winter. These traits are probably major contributing factors to the annual and seasonal fluctuation in numbers of fish impinged at SQN. Annual fluctuation in population estimates for threadfin shad in Chickamauga Reservoir was also observed in historical rotenone data (Figure 4). Gizzard shad, bluegill, and freshwater drum were impinged at rates near the median or below historical estimates (Figures 5, 6, and 7).
Impingement estimates for channel catfish was higher for 2001-2002 (Figures 8) but numbers were low compared to reservoir population. Species not impinged in 2001-2002 that ranked in the top five one or more years between 1981 and 1985 were skipjack herring, yellow bass, yellow perch, and spotted bass.
Summary and Conclusions The 2001-2002 data presented the worse case scenario, samples collected in the winter when peak numbers are typically impinged at SQN. Impingement estimates for all species, except threadfin shad, were low numbers and consistent with the 1981-1985 historical data. Numbers estimated for threadfin shad were similar to historical peaks and the significant drop in the numbers impinged in February 2002 is consistent with seasonal fluctuations previously reported. The 2001-2002 data shows no change in SQN operation since the 1981-1985 operational studies that would potentially impact the fish populations in Chickamauga Reservoir.
2
Table 1. List of species impinged on the intake screen at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant in ten samples collected between December 18, 2001 and February 25, 2002.
Family Common Name Scientific Name Fish Clupeidae Alewife Alosapseudoherengus Gizzard shad Dorosomacepedianum Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense Cyprinidae Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus Ictaluridae Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus Flathead catfish Pylodictisolivaris Poeciliidae Mosquitofish Gambusiaaffinis Percichthyidae Striped bass Morone saxatilis Centrarchidae Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus Largemouth bass Micropterussalmoides White crappie Pomoxis annularis Percidae Logperch Percinacaprodes Sciaenidae Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens Mussels Zebra mussels Dreissenapolymorpha 3
Table 2. Total number and weight (grams) of each species impinged on the intake screen at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant in ten samples collected between December 18, 2001 and February 25,2002.
Sample Dab 19-Dec: 2an 9-Jan 17-Jan I23-Jan I30an I6-Feb 20-Feb I22-Feb I25-Feb Species Hours Samplei 25.5 2S5 23.2 45 25 2S.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 I 24A0 Total Common Nam Alewife _____ 7 10 5 5 3 31 Gizzard shad 2 2 1 23 20 2 9 59 Threadfin shad 1567 644 3945 3326 2046 640 88 57 33 22 13160 Bluntnose minnow I 2 3 Channel catfish 4 6 4 2 12 2 4 1 3 38 Flathead catfish 2 1 3 Mosquitofi 10 2 4 1 1 Is Striped bas _____ 5 1 2 4 E 33 Redbreast sunfi 1 1 Bluegil 11 4 1 1 3 25 20 2 2 109 Redear sunfi Largemouth bas 1 __ _ 1 White cranice I I 2
-- r- 2 4 Freshwatc r drum 3 I 8 32 45 7 4 3 105 Fish'rotals: 1592 6 3963 3371 2138 723 954 731 48 51 1357 Zebra musseli ll11 1 1 1 20 Common Nam! W ght gh Weighht W ght Weight Weght Alewife _ 37 97 102 85 55 36 412 Gizzard shad 140 138 194 90 64 8 36 670 Tbreadfin shad 4189 1611 11440 9407 6692 1280 2552 141 81 48 37441 Bluntnose minnow 8 5 13 Channel catfish 11 13 11 5 28 5 90 495 15 672 Flathead catfish 2360 5 ____ 2365 Mosquitofish 2 2 1 1 6 Striped b 26 82 57 26 43 234 Redbreast sunfish 370 370 Bluegill 31 12 3 22 123 48 49 5 5 27 325 Redear sunfish 9 9 Largemouth bass - 135 _ _ _ _ 135 White crappi 3, 418 = 421 Loprch - 2 19 39 Freshwater drun 226 233 1021 2036 2819 389 91 567 38 7420 Fish Totals: 4451 2433 12614 13974 10265 1982 2954 945 671 243 50532 Zebra musscl __ _ ____
4
Table 3. Percent composition of fish impinged by Sequoyah Nuclear Plant between December 18, 2001 and February 25,2002.
Number Weight Category Common Name Percent Percent Forage Alewife 0.23 0.82 Gizzard shad 0.43 1.33 Tbreadfin shad 96.98 74.09 Bluntnose minnow 0.02 0.03 Mosquitofish 0.13 0.01 Logperch 0.03 0.08 Forage Totals 97.82 76.36 Commercial Channel catfish 0.28 1.33 Flathead catfish 0.02 4.68 Freshwater drum 0.77 14.68 Commercial Totals 1.07 20.69 Game Striped bass 0.24 0.46 Redbreast sunfish 0.01 0.73 Bluegill 0.80 0.64 Redear sunfish 0.02 0.02 Largemouth bass 0.01 0.27 White crappie 0.01 0.83 Game Totals 1.09 2.95 5
Figure 1. Sequoyah Nuclear Plant cooling water intake structure.
6
1400 - 3500 1200 - 3000
. 1000 2500 .
" 800 Impingement 2000 4-Sampling-*0 600 : _ 1 1 l , ;12/19/01-2/25/02 1500
>,400 -1000 . '
200 500 0
O~~~~ -. ~ I .-~0 o o o o ° o Date Figure 2. Average Daily Generation (MW) and Intake Flow (cfs) at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, September 2001 through February 2002. Light gray identifies impingement sampling period.
40000 35000 30000 25000 20000
=
15000 10000 5000 1319 ~2132 391 0
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 2001-2002 Year Figure 3. Estimated monthly impingement rate for threadfin shad in winter, 2001-2002, with historical comparisons.
7
25000 20000 15000 I
E9 I 10000 5000 -
Ien:2 Flg AV - . i I i- i I I I I -
.I -I-
/I o
1-10%
~-0%
6-E%
M 0%0 A
I-t~ -
0 No
- t. -
%0% %0 6'-
0S
=
00 00 0%ZI! ON I
0 0%I 00
!% 0%
a 0 0 0%1 a, 00 0 0
0W 0
00 0%
Year Figure 4. Numbers of threadfin shad in cove rotenone samples, Chickamauga Reservoir, 1970-1988.
900 831 800 700 600
, 500 E
Z 400 300
=W;0197 4215 200 100 .1977 0
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 2001-2002 Year Figure 5. Estimated monthly impingement rate for gizzard shad in winter, 2001-2002, with historical comparisons.
8
450 400 389 350 296 298 300 X 250 E
Z 200 ail::~~~~~~~17 0 150 100 50 0
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 2001-2002 Year Figure 6. Estimated monthly impingement rate for bluegill in winter, 2001-2002, with historical comparisons.
500 A "-I 450 400 ___ _______'
350 S 300 . . 290 own A_ <; ~241 __o E 250 z
l'230l 2 00 150 100 50 0
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 2001-2002 Year Figure 7. Estimated monthly impingement rate for freshwater drum in winter, 2001-2002, with historical comparisons.
9
80 70 60 50 a
E 40 32 32 30 20 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 2001-2002 Year Figure 8. Estimated monthly impingement rate for channel catfish in winter, 2001-2002, with historical comparisons.
References Etiner, D. A. and W. C. Starnes. 1993. Fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee.
Tennessee Valley Authority. 1978. Preoperational fisheries report for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant.
179 p. Division of Air and Water Resources, Knoxville, Tennessee.
Tennessee Valley Authority. 1985. Aquatic environmental conditions in Chickamauga Reservoir during operation of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant. Fourth Annual Report (1984). Knoxville, Tennessee.
Tennessee Valley Authority. 1986. Aquatic environmental conditions in Chickamauga Reservoir during operation of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant. Fifth Annual Report (1985). Knoxville, Tennessee.
Tennessee Valley Authority. 1995. Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Thermal Variance Monitoring Program: Effects of thermal effluent from Sequoyah Nuclear Plant on the Fish populations in Chickamauga Reservoir. Division of Water Resources, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Wallus, R. and L. K. Kay. 1990. Family Clupeidae. Pages 105-149 in R. Wallus, T. P. Simon, and B. L. Yeager. Reproductive biology and early life history of fishes in the Ohio River drainage. Volume 1: Acipenseridae through Esocidae. Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
10
June 25, 2003 Stephanie A. Howard, SB 2A-SQN INFORMATION ON RESERVOIR OPERATIONS FOR SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION Part I, Section F of NPDES Permit TN0026450 for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant effective August 8, 2001, states that "ForSection 316(a), the permittee shall analyze previous and new data to determine whether significant changes have occurred in plant operation, reservoiroperationor instream biology that would necessitate the needfor changes in the thermal variance." As for river operations, no significant changes have occurred during the tenure of the NPDES permit effective August 8, 2001. It should be noted, however, that TVA currently is engaged in a Reservoir Operations Study (ROS) to evaluate its management of the Tennessee River system and see if changes in operating policies would provide greater overall value to the public (see httR://www.tva.com/feature rostudy/index.htm). Rick Sinclair, Deputy Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, and Paul Davis, Director of the Tennessee Division of Water Pollution Control, are currently working on an interagency team assisting TVA with the study. Part of the study involves analyses of the impact of alternate operating policies on water quality. In regard to these analyses, it is assumed that Sequoyah Nuclear Plant will always operate in a manner that maintains the thermal criteria as specified in the current NPDES permit with no changes in the thermal variance. Based on the current schedule, the draft EIS for ROS, documenting the technical analyses of the alternate policies, will be released in June 2003. The final EIS identifying TVA's preferred alternative will be issued in fall 2003. In winter 2003-2004, TVA's Board of Directors will announce a decision for ROS and the rationale for that decision.
Gregor#v. Lowe Senior Manager, River Scheduling River Operations WT 1OB-K GWL:BCS cc: J. C. Herrin, WT 10D-K P. N. Hopping, LAB 2C-N A. Hurt, SB 2A-SQN K. F. Lindquist, LAB 2C-N D. T. Nye, LP 3D-C Files, RO, WT 1OC-K
DRAFT TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY River System Operations & Environment Background and Workplan for Ambient Temperature and Mixing Zone Studies for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant as Required by NPDES Permit No. TN0026450 of August 2001 WR2003-1 148 Prepared by Paul N. Hopping Kevin M. Stewart Brennan T. Smith Norris, Tennessee May 2003
DRAFT EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
The August 2001 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) requires a number of studies related to Section 316 of the Clean Water Act. These are for the plant diffuser discharge, identified in the NPDES permit as Outfall 101. Among these are a study to determine the adequacy of measurements for ambient river temperature and a study to determine the adequacy of the diffuser mixing zone. As background for these studies, this report provides a description of the thermal criteria and monitoring requirements for SQN. Due to the evolution of understanding for the hydrothermal and biological characteristics of Chickamauga Reservoir, and due to the evolution of understanding for the operational characteristics of the nuclear plant and river system, changes have been necessary over the years for both the thermal criteria and the monitoring requirements.
The requirements for an ambient temperature study and a mixing zone study are based on the need to confirm that, with these changes, the impact of the plant thermal discharge is yet being adequately monitored and does not adversely effect the balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in the receiving water.
As specified by the NPDES study requirements, summaries are provided herein for previous field studies for the ambient temperature and mixing zone. In general, these have confirmed the adequacy of the mixing zone and method for monitoring the diffuser discharge. However, the results of the previous studies are not without concern and do not include sufficient data to address the goals of the studies as required by the NPDES permit. In particular, for the ambient temperature study, previous data does not fully address "the majorfactors contributing to the interaction between main channel and overbankflows " or "the impacts on water temperatures in the thermal mixing zone" or "the optimal location of monitors to record the ambient temperature." For the mixing zone, previous data does not fully address "the impact of hydro peaking operations on the behavior of the thermalplume. " Previous data also is insufficient to assess the behavior of the thermal discharge based on 1-hour averaging vs. 24-hour averaging.
Under these circumstances, TVA has initiated new studies to supplement previous data and fully comply with the requirements of the NPDES permit. These include not only field studies for the ambient temperature and mixing zone, but also the development of three-dimensional numerical models. The field studies for ambient temperature will include the deployment of about twenty temporary temperature stations in overbank and main channel areas throughout the reach of Chickamauga Reservoir including SQN. Similarly, the field studies for the mixing zone will include the deployment of about thirty temporary temperature stations in and around the mixing zone. Each field study will provide 200 or more time-series temperature measurements over a period of between seven to ten days. This will include periods containing river flows characteristic of weekday and weekend peaking operations. On selected days, each field study also will include measurements for water velocity during periods of steady flow.
The ambient temperature and mixing zone field studies will include both summer and winter deployments, as required by the NPDES permit. The summer deployment currently is planned for July-August 2003, and the winter deployment for January-February 2004. The time-series measurements from the field studies will allow correlation analyses to be performed to evaluate i
DRAFT the interactions among key hydrothermal parameters, such as river temperature and flow, among different locations in the reservoir, such as the main channel, overbank, and mixing zone. The measurements also will allow an evaluation of the impact of peaking on the behavior of the ambient temperature and diffuser plumes, both for 1-hour averaging and 24-hour averaging of the time-series data.
Two three-dimensional numerical models will be developed, one to evaluate the ambient temperature and one to evaluate the diffuser mixing zone. The formulations for the models will follow recent TVA experience in developing a numerical model for the diffuser discharge from the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. The data from the new Sequoyah field studies will be used to calibrate the three-dimensional numerical models. In lieu of performing ongoing field studies, such as those summarized herein, and after demonstrating the adequacy of the calibrations, it is proposed that the three-dimensional numerical models become the primary tool for evaluating the behavior of the ambient flow or diffuser discharge for other operating conditions of the river and SQN.
ii
DRAFT CONTENTS Pag Executive Summary .................................................... i List of Figures ................................................... iv List of Tables ................................................... iv 1.0 Introduction .................................................... 1 2.0 Background ................................................... 2 2.1 History of SQN Thermal Criteria and Monitoring Requirements ................................ 2 2.2 Ambient Temperature ................................................... 8 2.3 Mixing Zone ................................................... 11 3.0 Previous Studies ................................................... 13 3.1 Physical Model Study .................................................... 13 3.2 Field Studies .................................................... 14 4.0 New Studies .................................................... 30 4.1 Numerical Models ................................................... 32 4.2 Ambient Temperature Field Studies ................. .................................. 34 4.3 Mixing Zone Field Studies ................................................... 37 4.4 Schedule ................................................... 40 5.0 References ................................................... 42 iii
DRAFT CONTENTS (continued)
Pace LIST OF FIGURES
- 1. Water Temperature Station Locations for Initial Operation of SQN ................................... 3
- 2. Basic Parameters for SQN Hydrothermal Model ....................................................... 4
- 3. Water Temperature Stations for SQN Computed Compliance ............................................ 4
- 4. Hydrothermal Event with Spiking in Ambient Temperature at Station 13 ........................ 10
- 5. Main Channel and Overbank Areas Near SQN ...................................................... 12
- 6. Water Temperature Measurements from Field Study of July 24, 1981 ............................. 17
- 7. Water Temperature Measurements from Field Study of May 11, 1983 ............................ 20
- 8. Water Temperature Measurements from Field Study of July 24, 1997 ............................. 23
- 9. Water Temperature Measurements from Field Study of March 24, 1999 ......................... 24
- 10. Water Temperature Measurements from Field Study of August 2, 2000, Pass 1.............. 25
- 11. Water Temperature Measurements from Field Study of August 2, 2000, Pass 2 .............. 26
- 12. Boundaries for Numerical Models .33
- 13. Temporary Stations for Ambient Temperature Field Studies .35
- 14. Temporary Stations for Mixing Zone Field Studies .38
- 15. Schedule for New Field Studies .41 LIST OF TABLES
- 1. Field Studies for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant .16
DRAFT BACKGROUND AND WORKPLAN FOR AMBIENT TEMPERATURE AND MING ZONE STUDIES FOR SEQUOYAIH NUCLEAR PLANT AS REQUIRED BY NPDES PERMIT NO. TN0026450 OF AUGUST 2001
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Part III, Section F of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit TN0026450 for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN), effective August 8, 2001, includes a number of requirements related to the evaluation of Section 316 of the Clean Water Act. These requirements address questions that have arisen concerning Outfall 101, which includes, among other constituents, the discharge of waste heat into Chickamauga Reservoir through two submerged, multiport diffusers in the main channel of the Tennessee River. This workplan summarizes studies that will be conducted by TVA to fulfill two of the Section F requirements.
These are as follows:
To determine the adequacy of measurementsfor ambient river temperature, TVA shall conduct a study to evaluate the spatialdistributionof water temperature in the overbank and main channel regions of ChickamaugaReservoir upstream of the plant diffuser. The study shall supplement data from previous evaluations, as needed, by measuring temperature profiles at selected sites in the reservoir. The study shall consider both winter and summer hydrothermal regimes, and both 1-hour and 24-hour averaging. The goal of the study is to determine the majorfactorscontributingto the interaction between main channel and overbank flows, the impacts on water temperatures in the thermal mixing zone, andoptimal location of monitors to recordthe ambient temperature.
To determine the adequacy of the mixing zone, TVA shall conduct a study to evaluate the dynamic behavior of thermalplume from the plant diffuser. The study shall examine the justificationfor the existing mixing zone and supplement datafrom previous evaluations, as needed, by measuring temperatureprofiles at selected sites in and about the mixing zone. The study shall consider both winter and summer hydrothermal regimes, and both 1-hour and24-hour averaging. The goal of the study is to better determine the impact of hydro peaking operations on the behaviorof the thermalplume, and to determine if there is any need to redefine the extent of the mixing zone.
The first of these studies is identified herein as the ambient temperature study. The second is identified as the mixing zone study. In the following sections, the history of the thermal criteria for SQN is briefly summarized, including the specific aspects of the ambient temperature and mixing zone for Outfall 101 that have led to the above requirements. Previous studies relevant to the ambient temperature and mixing zone are discussed. Finally, the goals and basic activities of proposed new studies are provided, including plans for developing advanced numerical models of the river flow at SQN and plans for new field studies.
DRAFT
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 History of SQN Thermal Criteria and Monitoring Requirements Operating SQN in a fashion to fulfill TVA's goals of supplying low-cost reliable power and supporting a thriving river system is no trivial task. In this process, the awareness and understanding of the ever changing biological, hydrothermal, and operational aspects of Chickamauga Reservoir and SQN continue to evolve. It is no surprise, therefore, that modifications of the SQN thermal criteria and monitoring requirements have been needed to accommodate issues important to both TVA and the regulatory community.
The initial thermal criteria for SQN were based on temperature limits adopted by the Tennessee Water Quality Board in December 1971 and approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in June 1972. The criteria include:
- A maximum instream temperature Td of 30.50 C (86.9F).
- A maximum instream temperature rise AT of 3.0 C0 (5.4 F).
- A maximum instream temperature rate-of-change dTd/dt of +/-2.0 C0/hour (*3.6 F/hour).
The monitoring requirements for these criteria were first specified in the Sequoyah NPDES permit effective July 1979. The criteria were to be applied to the area outside of a mixing zone of size appropriate for the multiport diffusers. The requirement for temperature rise was applied between this area and a suitable upstream control point, the latter which defines the ambient temperature for the thermal discharge. The locations of monitoring points, shown in Figure 1, were as recommended by TVA in February 1979 (TVA, 1979a). The upstream control point includes a water temperature station located at the skimmer wall of the plant intake, Station 13.
The area outside of the mixing zone was monitored by two water temperature stations located near the outer edges of the mixing zone downstream of the diffusers, Stations 8 and 11. The temperature at these stations is determined as the average of individual sensor readings at water depths of about 3 feet, 5 feet, and 7 feet (1.0 meter, 1.5 meter, and 2.0 meter). Furthermore, the compliance temperatures (i.e., Td, AT, and dTdldt) were computed as "hourly" averages every 15 minutes by averaging the current and previous four 15-minute readings.
In the early eighties an issue arose concerning the validity of the downstream temperature measurements at Station 8 and Station 11. Field data found that temperatures from these monitors were, at times, not representative of the cross-sectional average temperature at the end of the mixing zone. Since the mixing zone resides in the navigation channel, instream temperature stations cannot be placed at locations optimal for obtaining a good cross-sectional average temperature. To avoid plant derating and cooling tower operation, as may be required by the instream mounting of Figure 1 vs. the actual impact by the SQN thermal discharge, a hydrothermal model capable of predicting the temperature at the downstream end of the mixing zone was developed. The basic requirements for the model were outlined in the NPDES permit 2
DRAFT effective April 1983, which stated "upon approval by the Director, Water ManagementDivision, and the State Director, compliance with the river limitations shall be monitored by means of a numericalmodel that solves the thermohydrodynamic equationsgoverning theflow and thermal conditions in the reservoir." Field tests were conducted to verify the diffuser performance for the model and the model subsequently was found to provide a more accurate representation of the downstream temperature than that of the instream monitors (TVA, 1983). In March 1984, approval was granted for TVA to use the numerical model to monitor compliance of the NPDES temperature requirements.
.M=a eM00 Figure 1. Water Temperature Station Locations for Initial Operation of SQN (after TVA, 1979b)
Briefly, the hydrothermal model solves the fundamental equations for the conservation of mass, momentum, and heat to determine the average temperature along the centerline of the thermal discharge from a submerged diffuser in a stratified, ambient crossflow. The basic parameters required by the model are shown in Figure 2. Values for these parameters are determined from measurements at the SQN water temperature stations, shown in Figure 3, and at the hydroplants immediately upstream and downstream of SQN. The upstream ambient river temperature TR is measured at Station 13. The measurements at the 3-foot, 5-foot, and 7-foot depths are averaged to obtain the upstream temperature T.. Note that T. is required to determine the temperature rise AT--TT,. The temperature of the effluent from Sequoyah TSQN is measured at the entrance of the diffuser conduits at Station 12, located in a pond situated between the outlet of the plant and the river. In addition to temperature, Station 12 and Station 13 also contain a stage recorder to 3
DRAFT Figure 2. Basic Parameters for SQN Hydrothermal Model Figure 3. Water Temperature Stations for SQN Computed Compliance 4
DRAFT measure, respectively, the water surface elevation in the diffuser pond and the water surface elevation in the river. The water surface elevation in the river is used to determine the depth of flow at the diffusers DR. The discharge of effluent from Sequoyah QSQN is determined based on a calibrated rating curve giving QSQN as a function of the difference in water surface elevation between the diffuser pond and river. The river discharge at Sequoyah QR is computed based on a calibrated, one-dimensional flow model of Chickamauga Reservoir. The flow model requires discharges measured at the Watts Bar Hydroplant (WBH), located 45.5 miles upstream of SQN, and the Chickamauga Hydroplant, located 13.5 miles downstream of SQN. All of this information is collected over communication links by an Environmental Data Station (EDS) located at Sequoyah. The model subsequently computes the compliance temperatures Td, AT, and dTdfdt every 15 minutes. Hourly average values are computed as previously summarized.
In implementing the "computed compliance," Station 11 was removed from service. Station 8, however, was retained to provide a backup for the downstream temperature measurement in the event of failure of the computed compliance system and to verify general trends determined by the hydrothermal model. In this arrangement it is emphasized that because Station 8 resides on the outer edge of the mixing zone, it regularly is dominated by processes significantly different from those in the mixing zone, such as heating and cooling in overbank and embayments areas in the immediate vicinity of the station.
The next significant issue to emerge occurred in the mid-eighties and involved problems related to the cooling towers. During periods of low flow in the wintertime, operation of the cooling towers is needed to prevent exceedances of the criterion for maximum temperature rise (i.e.,
3.0 C0 or 5.4 F'). However, due to cold air temperatures, use of the cooling towers during these periods induces ice damage in the towers, which is extremely costly and jeopardizes the availability of the towers for subsequent months, particularly the summer. This prompted a 316(a) demonstrative request in 1989 to increase the AT limits during the months November through March from 3.0 C0 to 5.0 C (TVA, 1989). TVA analyses found that this increase would not adversely impact the balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in Chickamauga Reservoir. The request to raise the temperature rise limit was subsequently accepted by EPA and the State of Tennessee in the Sequoyah NPDES permit effective September 1993. With this, the thermal criteria became:
- A maximum instream temperature Td of 30.51C (86.9F).
- A maximum instream temperature rise AT of 5.0 C0 (9.0 FP) for November thru March (i.e., "wintertime" operation).
- A maximum instream temperature rise AT of 3.0 C0 (5.4 FP) for April thru October (i.e.,
"summertime" operation).
- A maximum instream temperature rate-of-change dTdldt of +/-2.0 (Y/hour (+/-3.6 P/lhour).
5
DRAFT The overall monitoring requirements for the new criteria remained largely unchanged. That is, the hydrothermal modeling system was considered adequate for determining the temperature in the mixing zone and the thermal criteria continued to be interpreted on an hourly average basis.
The most recent issues emerged in the mid-nineties and involved the effects on Sequoyah of certain unsteady behaviors in Chickamauga Reservoir. The behaviors are caused primarily by two processes, both of which are beyond the direct control of SQN. The first is the daily variation of river flow that occurs as a normal part of peaking operations at TVA hydro plants, and the second is fluctuations in the ambient river temperature that likely are due to a combination of atmospheric heat exchange and mixing in the river. Depending on the exact circumstances, these processes can give rise to individual events threatening the limit for Td, AT, or dTd/dt. Those for dTd/dt are the most problematic and occur in both the winter and summer.
In the winter, cooling tower operation cannot be used to control dTd/dt, again due to icing. In the summer, the dTd/dt events occur in the ambient temperature upstream of the plant and cannot be controlled by tower operation. Events threatening the limits for Td are related to the unpredictability of summertime spikes in the ambient temperature and the rate of onset of these spikes. In the hydrothermal model, the impact of the waste heat from Sequoyah is superimposed on the ambient temperature to yield the downstream temperature. Thus, spikes in the upstream temperature also occur in the downstream temperature. In some cases, the cooling towers can be used to control fluctuations in downstream temperature; but, due to the inherent complexity of the equipment, the towers cannot be brought into service in short notice, as may be required to respond to the rapid onset of temperature spikes. Problems for AT occur primarily in April and May, when river flows are restricted to help fill TVA reservoirs.
In light of the inability of SQN to fully control these events, and to avoid derating the plant, special operations of the river system were regularly used to maintain compliance of the thermal criteria. Due to the large extent of these special operations, a supplemental 316(a) demonstration was performed in 1996 to make additional changes in the thermal criteria and monitoring requirements (TVA, 1996). The proposed changes included the following:
- Increase the maximum instream temperature rate-of-change dTd/dt from +/-2.0 C0/hour to
+/-5.0 C0/hour (from +/-3.6 F/hour to +/-9.0 F/hour).
- Include April and May in the period of wintertime operation, allowing a maximum instream temperature rise AT of 5.0 Co (9.0 F) for November thru May.
- Monitor the instrearn temperature Td and instream temperature rise AT based on a 24-hour average.
As before, TVA analyses found that the proposed changes would not adversely impact shellfish, fish, and wildlife in Chickamauga Reservoir. In ensuing debate, however, the first two items were denied by the State. The third item, though, was accepted. Since this did not resolve the problems related to the temperature rate-of-change, and since SQN was not directly responsible for unsteady behaviors resulting from daily variations in river flow and atmospheric heat exchange, TVA proposed an alternate method for monitoring dTdldt. In the method, spikes in 6
DRAFT ambient reservoir conditions are filtered by using 24-hour average values in the hydrothermal model for the ambient river temperature, river discharge, and river depth (i.e., TR, QR, and DR in Figure 2). The impact of short-term variations in SQN operations is incorporated by using 15-minute values for the discharge and temperature of the Sequoyah effluent (i.e., QSQN and TSQN in Figure 2). The hourly average temperature rate-of-change is computed, as before, using the current and previous four 15-minute dTd/dt values.
Monitoring dTdfdt by 24-hour filtering of the ambient was approved by the State, subject to the hydrothermal studies summarized herein. It is important to note that this filtering is used only for the computation of dTd/dt. For Td and AT, 15-minute values are yet determined solely from 15-minute values of the model parameters identified in Figure 2. It also is emphasized that in approving the changes for Td, AT, and dTd/dt there were no additional changes in the fundamental thermal criteria. That is, the supplemental 316(a) of 1996 was not invoked-changes in the requirements for monitoring can be made outside of the 316(a) process. With these changes, the basic thermal criteria and monitoring requirements found in the Sequoyah NPDES permit effective August 2001 included the following:
- A maximum instream temperature Td of 30.50C (86.90 F).
- A maximum instream temperature rise AT of 5.0 CY (9.0 F') for November thru March.
- A maximum instream temperature rise AT of 3.0 CY (5.4 F') for April thru October.
- A maximum instream temperature rate-of-change dTd/dt of *2.0 C0/hour (13.6 P/hour).
- Td and AT are to be monitored based on 24-hour average values, calculated every 15-minutes by averaging the current 15-minute values with the previous ninety-six 15-minute values.
- dTd/dt is to be monitored based on an hourly average value, calculated every 15 minutes by averaging the current 15-minute value with the previous four 15-minute values, where each 15-minute value is determined based on the 24-hour average river conditions (i.e.,
TR, QR, and DR) and current 15-minute plant conditions (i.e., QsQN and TSQN).
In addition to the above, it is noted that other concerns over the years have led to other specific monitoring requirements. For example, the following items also are found in the current NPDES permit (i.e., August 2001):
- To allow operation of the plant when the ambient temperature exceeds the thermal criteria, when the 24-hour average upstream temperature T. exceeds 29.4C (84.90F), the 24-hour average downstream temperature Td may exceed 30.50C (86.9°F), if the plant is operating the cooling towers with at least three lift pumps per operating unit.
- In no case shall the 1-hour average downstream temperature Td exceed 33.9°C without consent of the permitting authority.
7
DRAFT Overall, the current thermal criteria and NPDES monitoring requirements have resolved essentially all of the issues prompting the supplemental 316(a) of 1996 and have allowed TVA to supply power and environmental protection in a combined, efficient manner.
It is emphasized that the above summary has focused only on the major issues emerging since the beginning SQN commercial operation. In general, in designing the heat dissipation system, in performing the required monitoring for the diffuser discharge, in responding to regulatory inquiries, and in evaluating water temperature issues such as those above, TVA has provided continuous study of the thermal discharge from SQN, and will continue to do so. Apart from the information summarized below for the mixing zone and ambient temperature, a historical review including the detailed aspects of each and every issue that has emerged over the years is beyond the scope of this report. Such information, however, is maintained in TVA files and can be provided in support of any future concern that may arise.
2.2 Ambient Temperature The specifications for monitoring the SQN upstream ambient temperature were recommended by TVA in February 1979 (TVA, 1979a). The State granted approval of the recommendations in the NPDES permit effective July 1979. As previously summarized, the ambient temperature is measured at Station 13, located on the reservoir-side of the plant intake skimmer wall, and is computed as the average of sensor readings at depths of 3 feet, 5 feet, and 7 feet. These requirements have remained unchanged through the current NPDES permit effective August 2002.
The exact basis for the selected location for the ambient temperature measurement was not given with the TVA recommendation, but the following reasons are obvious:
- Station 13 allows a good measurement of the temperature of water entering into and impacted by the plant.
- Station 13 borders the main channel of the river, which, in all likelihood, provides the main source of water for dilution of the thermal effluent from the discharge diffusers.
In the NPDES permit effective April 1983, the State emphasized the requirement that "under no conditions shall the thermalplume be allowed to reach the ambient temperature recorder." If the plume reached the ambient temperature recorder, the temperature rise AT would be biased low, thereby underestimating the impact of the SQN thermal discharge on Chickamauga Reservoir. Subsequent analyses by TVA indicated that the probability of a thermal wedge from the diffusers extending upstream 3000 feet, about one-half the distance to the Station 13 monitor, is of magnitude 0.0008 percent. To date, monitoring data from Station 13 has never demonstrated any behavior suggesting interference in the ambient temperature by the plant thermal effluent. This includes operation over a period of at least 14 years, encompassing a wide range of river conditions with SQN generation of two units at full power.
8
DRAFT Problems with spiking of the ambient temperature occur during high river flow when the thermal effluent is assimilated downstream. Under these conditions there is very little, if any, upstream migration of a thermal wedge from the diffusers. An example event with spiking in the ambient temperature is given in Figure 4, which shows the calculated river discharge at SQN along with the measured ambient temperature at Station 13 and the resulting ambient temperature rate-of-change. The event occurred the first two days of June 2000. The temperatures include both 15-minute and hourly average data. It is emphasized that in June 2000 the plant was operating under the NPDES permit effective September 1993 and did not include 24-hour averaging of ambient river conditions for the temperature rate-of-change. During afternoon peaking operations, when the river flow exceeds about 30,000 cfs, it can be seen that the ambient temperature begins to fluctuate in a manner creating 15-minute variations that at times surpasses
+/-2 F. The corresponding 15-minute values for the temperature rate-of-change were as high as
+/-10 F/hour, and, on June 2, the resulting hourly average value hit the compliance limit
+/-3.6 F°/hour. These ambient variations, in turn, were superimposed by the hydrothermal model on the compliance parameters computed at the downstream end of the mixing zone.
In general, it appears that troublesome spiking of the ambient temperature occurs when the river discharge exceeds about 38,000 cfs. It is speculated that the reason why ambient spiking had not been problematic in the years prior to the mid-nineties is related to the condition of the hydroplant at Chickamauga Dam. Over the past 50 years, plant equipment had degraded to a point where the maximum discharge through the hydraulic turbines was limited to about 38,000 cfs. Between 1994 and 1997 the hydro units and other related equipment were upgraded, allowing the Chickamauga discharge to match levels similar to the capacity of the original turbines, over 45,000 cfs. This, in turn, has allegedly resulted in ambient temperature events that until recently had never been observed in the life of SQN.
Based on the evaluations presented in the supplemental 316(a) demonstration of 1996 (TVA, 1996), the spikes in ambient temperature will not adversely impact shellfish, fish, and wildlife in Chickamauga Reservoir. Under these conditions, the items of primary interest for the ambient temperature are twofold. First, it is desired to better understand the processes responsible for ambient temperature spikes, and second, it is desired to determine if the location of the Station 13 monitor gives ambient temperatures that are truly representative of that for the discharge diffuser, located about one mile downstream.
Several processes are envisioned as potentially playing a role in ambient temperature spiking. In the summer, late afternoon solar heating can cause the water temperature in the near surface region of the flow to become much warmer than the water at a depth of 5 feet. Higher levels of turbulence created by high river discharges subsequently can mix the surface water downward creating intermittent temperature fluctuations. In the winter, a similar phenomenon can occur with surface cooling, which is exacerbated by the fact that such cooling is innately unstable (i.e.,
cool water underlain by warmer water is unstable). In addition to vertical variations in temperature, fluctuations also can occur as a result of lateral differences between the main channel and overbanks. Water in shallow overbank areas will heat-up and cool-off much faster than water in the deep main channel. At high river flow, turbulent interactions between the main channel and overbank can entrain parcels of water from the overbanks, again creating 9
DRAFT 50 X 40 0
CD o 30 z
Z 20 can 0 10 0
Q 10
-20 83 82 IC 81 2 80 (D 79 t 78
.s 77
< 76 75 74 10
'Q 8 0
4)6 0
4-I2 0 E -2
. 8 S
< -0 5/31/00 6/1/00 6/2/00 6/3/00 Figure 4. Hydrothermal Event with Spiking in Ambient Temperature at Station 13 10 co -
DRAFT intermittent fluctuations. As shown in Figure 5, shallow overbank areas prevail in the areas surrounding SQN, particularly on the east side of the reservoir across from and upstream of the plant. Both Station 13 and Station 8 are positioned in regions that could potentially be influenced by turbulent interactions between the main channel and overbanks.
Whereas the above processes depend on turbulent interactions, spikes in the ambient temperature might also occur due to advection from different areas by the mean flow. For example, as a part of routine river operations, Chickamauga Reservoir may undergo daily and weekly cycles of drawdown and filling. A common occurrence is for the water level to drop (i.e., drawdown) during afternoon peaking operations and rise (i.e., fill) during early morning periods of low flow.
Weekly variations occur for mosquito control. In these processes, water will fill into and drain out of the overbanks, embayment areas, and creeks. In the summer, water from these areas will likely be warmer than that in the main channel, and vice versa in the winter. When parcels of water from these areas are advected past a monitoring station, the temperature, subsequently, will fluctuate. In the summer, Soddy Creek and Opossum Creek, located upstream of SQN, are potential sources for parcels of warm water in Chickamauga Reservoir. Another mean flow process is related to the curvature of the river. Such curvature, which exists in the vicinity of SQN, will cause secondary currents to develop in directions transverse to the centerline of the river. This again can potentially cause the exchange of water between the main channel and overbanks, yielding fluctuations in the ambient temperature.
Overall, depending on the magnitude and extent of these processes, it may be that another more suitable location exists to measure the ambient temperature. However, such a location will need to:
- Remain clear of the navigation channel.
- Provide a good indication of the temperature of water entering the plant as well as that entering the mixing zone.
- Remain free of any thermal discharge that may propagate upstream from the diffusers.
- Be conveniently serviceable.
2.3 Mixing Zone The mixing zone for SQN was proposed by TVA based on a physical model study of the discharge diffusers conducted at the TVA Engineering Laboratory (TVA, 1978). The initial recommendation included a zone 750 feet wide and 1500 feet long, extending downstream from the diffusers over the entire depth of flow. In subsequent discussions with EPA and the State, the extent of the mixing zone was modified to provide for upstream excursions of a thermal wedge on the water surface during low and reverse river flow events. The permit effective July 1979 thus provided an additional zone extending 275 feet upstream of the diffusers with a depth that varied linearly from the water surface at 275 feet to the top of the diffuser pipes. This mixing zone has been certified by the State from 1979 to the NPDES permit effective August 2001. The 11
DRAFT 4
N Denotes Reservoir areas of water depth less than 20 feet DIFFUSERS Mm Figure 5. Main Channel and Overbank Areas near SQN (after TVA, 1978) 12
DRAFT present permit also specifies that if SQN is operated in closed mode, the mixing zone shall include the intake forebay of the plant (see Figure 3).
In general, prior to the current permit, there have been no issues concerning the definition of the mixing zone for SQN. As summarized later, studies have been performed regularly to evaluate water temperatures in and around the mixing zone. Whereas most of these studies have examined conditions with steady flows, recent concerns are more focused on the behavior of the thermal effluent for unsteady conditions stemming from hydro peaking operations.
3.0 PREVIOUS STUDIES 3.1 Physical Model Study In general, releasing waste heat through multiport diffusers situated on the bottom of the river hastens mixing of the effluent with the receiving water and significantly reduces the required size of the mixing zone (i.e., compared to side-channel discharges into the surface layer of the river, which were common at that time). The design of the submerged multiport diffusers for SQN was based on experience developed in the design of diffusers for the TVA Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN). The BFN analyses included a two-dimensional physical model study at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Harleman et al., 1968) and a three-dimensional physical model study at the TVA Engineering Laboratory (TVA, 1972).
Despite the confidence of the BFN work, a physical model study also was conducted for the proposed SQN diffusers (TVA, 1978 and TVA, 1979c). The objectives of the SQN model were to evaluate the performance of the diffusers for the specific conditions expected at the site and to determine empirical coefficients required to estimate the ambient entrainment and dilution of the diffuser discharge. The model was constructed at a scale of 1:90 in a 10-foot wide flume at the TVA Engineering Laboratory. The model corresponded to a section of the main channel about 900 feet wide and 6300 feet long. The overbanks were not modeled because it was estimated that they contribute little flow for the dilution of the thermal discharge. Also, because secondary currents were estimated to have only a minor impact on mixing, the model was constructed as a straight section of river rather than a curved channel. The model did include, however, an underwater dam located about 350 feet upstream of the diffusers.
It is emphasized that in all likelihood the model assumptions regarding the overbanks and river curvature are true in terms of the overall dilution of the SQN thermal discharge. Although perhaps small, interactions resulting in the exchange of water between the main channel and overbanks, as previously discussed, are problematic only in terms of their impacts on monitoring.
Compared to the model, secondary motions stemming from main channel/overbank interactions and river curvature will distort the prototype appearance of the SQN thermal discharge; however, the diffuser performance and entrainment coefficients should be roughly the same. Predictions from the model, though, will include bias due to measurement error and scale effects in the model.
13
DRAFT The SQN model included tests for prototype river flows varying between -5000 cfs (reverse flow) to 30,000 cfs and diffuser discharges corresponding to both one- and two-unit operation of the plant. Effluent temperatures were tested at 10 F, 20 F 0 , 30 F 0 above the ambient (upstream) temperature (5.56 Co, 11.11 Co, 16.67 C0). Roughly 100 thermistors were used to measure water temperatures in the model. The major findings from the model include the following:
- For the cases examined, the initial temperature difference between the ambient and SQN effluent is quickly reduced by the action of the diffuser jets to values below the thermal criteria (i.e., 3.0 C0/5.4 F0).
- A stratified surface layer is formed in nearly all the cases tested and extends upstream of the diffusers.
- The major portion of the jet mixing occurs within 500 feet downstream of the diffusers.
- The thermal criteria could be threatened for reverse flows of duration in excess of two hours, and may require cooling tower operation to prevent exceedances of the temperature limits. (Note: this finding is based on the thermal criteria of 1979, which included hourly averaging for the temperature rise.)
- The underwater dam does not adversely affect diffuser mixing.
- The underwater dam limits the thickness of stratified layers (thermal wedge) that may propagate upstream for low and reverse flow conditions.
- The experimentally determined entrainment coefficients yield mixed temperatures that are slightly conservative (i.e., lower) than those of the design theory.
Overall, the model study supports the adequacy of the diffuser design for efficiently mixing the thermal effluent in the receiving water. The model study also provided a good basis for defining the mixing zone. Although a large amount of the mixing occurs in the first 500 feet downstream of the diffuser, a length of about 1500 feet is needed, based on the overall design of the SQN heat dissipation system, to provide adequate dilution for the State thermal criteria. Confirmation of the diffuser performance and mixing zone, at least for the type of conditions examined in the model, is found in field studies, discussed in the following.
3.2 Field Studies Field studies of the SQN thermal discharge have been ongoing since the plant began releasing heat to Chickamauga Reservoir. The NPDES permit effective July 1979 stated that the
'permittee shall implement afieldprogram to verify model predictions and document the three-dimensional extent and configuration of the thermal plumes in the intake basin, diffuser pond, and Tennessee River. " The permit required studies for both one-unit and two-unit operation and specified that subsequent reports shall be submitted annually, if necessary.
14
DRAFT Commercial operation of Unit 1 began in early July 1981. Subsequently, on July 24, TVA conducted the first hydrothermal study for the diffuser discharge (TVA, 1982). A summary of river conditions and plant conditions for the test is given in Table 1. The river discharge was about 27,000 cfs with an ambient water temperature of 81.1 0 F (27.30C) and about 0.5 F 0 (0.3 CO) of stratification. SQN was operating in open mode, discharging about 1240 cfs through the upstream diffuser at a temperature about 20.9 F (11.6 C) above the ambient (5-foot) temperature. The study included measurements of water temperature in and around the diffuser mixing zone, allowing the development of isothermal plots to examine the three-dimensional extent of the thermal plumes. Example plots are given in Figure 6. In general, it was found that:
- The measured dilution of the thermal discharge was greater than that predicted by theory based on physical model tests.
- Intense initial mixing occurred with the cool bottom water in the immediate vicinity of the diffuser.
- Further mixing occurs at shallower depths, with the thermal plume emerging at the water surface about 660 feet downstream of the diffusers.
- After breaching the surface, the plume continued to spread, extending over a substantial depth at the downstream end of the mixing zone.
- A thermal wedge extended upstream of the diffuser about 300 feet.
- Water temperatures at the boundary of the mixing zone were well within NPDES limits.
As required by the permit, the hydrothermal study also included the diffuser pond, where it was found that the water temperature was fairly uniform and not significantly different from the temperature of that exiting the plant. This is because:
- The pond is small compared to the volume of water passing through the pond.
- The turbulence in the flow is strong enough to produce well-mixed conditions with little stratification.
- The surface area of the pond is small, resulting in very little heat loss to the atmosphere.
Because of these properties, it was concluded that the water temperature in the pond during helper mode operation, when the cooling towers are in service, would likely exhibit the same basic characteristics. Hence, no further hydrothermal studies were conducted for the pond. The diffuser pond, although part of the treatment system for SQN waste heat, is not naturally connected to Chickamauga Reservoir. As such, beginning with the NPDES permit effective September 1993, the diffuser pond is no longer recognized as waters of the State and is not included as part of the mixing zone.
15
DRAFT Table 1. Field Studies for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant River Conditions (A) Sequoyah Conditions (A) Measured NPDES(A Thermal ance Date Discharge Ambient Stratification (C) Generation Diffuser Operation Downstream Temperature Temp (B) D ischarge Discharge Temperature Rise (0)
(cfs) (F) () MWeLegs Disch Temp Temp Rise (F)
Jul24, 1981 26,700 81.1 0.5 1 1100 Open U/S 1240 1020 209 840 2.9 Apr4,1982 26,000 7.2 9 1&2 pen O2290 U7I20 1 24 614 May 14,1982 8,000 73.7 11.8 1& 2 1460 Open U/S&D/S 2550 80.5 6.8 72.6 -1.1 e 1000 77.9 01 &2 2 Open UIS&D/S " 2550 I 8 2 80.4 Nov 10, 1982 35,000 59.0 0.2 1 1150 Open U/S 1 1287 93.2 34.2 60.7 1.7 i 9,000 51.5 & 2100 Helper U/S9 14 5.
May 11, 1983 25,000 64.4 3.3 1&2 2350 Open U/S&D/Sl 2580 88.0 23.6 68.7 4.3
_Ma B. . 9>9. . .....
mar i, 996H) 4000 46.0
-0.1 S t. y '.rJA'o 1&2 2300 Open r1
,U/ShD/S 1a lUI W-2490 73.2 27.2 Unsteady Unsteady Jul 24, 1997 40,000 83.9 3.6 1&2 j 2310 Open U/S&D/S 2470 107.3 23.4 84.6 0.7
_ ia'T" -Ojo -= '&2 2080- Ope U/S&D/S. 2490 760 53.8 20 Aug 2,2000 9,000 82.1 0.2 1&2 2300 Helper U/S&D/S 2480 1 100.2 18.1 85.6 3.5 17, 002 17,000 84.0o 1 &2O 2290 Ielper U /S - 29926 15.3 86.I-Pi it Apr 23, 2003 30,000 63.2 1.1 i 1180 Open U/S&D/S 1260 88.3 25.1 64.6 1.4 Notes: (A) Approximate average values throughout duration of field study. Hourly conditions often vary throughout the study depending on the diurnal changes in meteorology, turbulent fluctuations, and perhaps other unsteady undulations in the mean flow.
(B) Ambient water temperature measured at 5-foot depth at Station 13 (SQN intake skimmer wall).
(C) Stratification computed as the difference in water temperature between the 5-foot depth and skimmer wall bottom opening.
(D) U/S = upstream diffuser leg and D/S = downstream diffuser leg.
(E) Diffuser discharge temperature rise computed as the difference between the diffuser discharge water temperature and the ambient water temperature.
(F) Downstream temperature as given by the average of field measurements at the 5-foot depth across the downstream edge of mixing zone.
(G) Temperature rise computed as the difference between the measured downstream water temperature and the ambient water temperature.
(H) Field study of March 1, 1996, conducted with unsteady river flows to evaluate temperature rate-of-change.
(I)Field studies of July 27, 2002, and April 23, 2003, included temperature measurements only at the downstream end of mixing zone.
DRAFT OIFFUSERS 1 0 100 00 . 300 I A ,I I UETERS (a) Water Temperature Distribution at 5-Foot Depth E
1o 0 - 200 400 600 DISTANCE FROM DIFFUSER, m (b) Water Temperature Distribution along Section B-B Figure 6. Water Temperature Measurements from Field Study of July 24, 1981 (after TVA, 1982) 17
DRAFT It should be emphasized that the same is not true of the intake forebay, which consists of an embayment connected to the main channel of the river. As previously indicated, during closed mode operation, the intake forebay is considered part of the mixing zone. SQN has operated in closed mode only once, about ten days in January 1985. This event occurred when severe cold weather entered the Southeast coincident with a period of low river flow. Due to the need for power, it was undesirable to derate the plant. Thus, to prevent violation of the temperature rise criterion, SQN initiated closed mode operation (i.e., at that time the AT limit included a maximum hourly average of 3.0 C0 /5.4 F0 ). Due to the unexpected nature of the event and the harsh winter conditions, it was not possible to perform a hydrothermal study of the forebay. It also is worth noting that in this event ice created about $1.2 million in damage to the cooling towers (1985 dollars). With the current thermal criteria and monitoring requirements, SQN should never again need to enter closed mode operation. However, if this were to change, and if sufficient time is available, TVA would perform appropriate studies of the intake forebay to determine the characteristics of the thermal discharge, per the intent of the NPDES permit of 1979, and to monitor indigenous populations of shellfish, fish, and wildlife.
Because not all the studies required by the 1979 permit were completed, the NPDES permit effective April 1983 again stated that the permittee shall implement a feld program to verify model predictions and document the three-dimensionalextent and configuration of the thermal plumes in the intake basin, diffuser pond, and Tennessee River." In addition, to support the validity of implementing a computed compliance, the 1983 permit also specified 'eld tests shall be conducted to establish the diffuser performance characteristicsto be used in the numerical model." These requirements were satisfied by six field studies conducted between April 1982 and May 1983 and summarized in a report dated August 1983 (TVA, 1983). The basic conditions of these tests again are given in Table 1. They include springtime studies conducted on April 4, 1982; May 14, 1982; March 31, 1983; and May 11, 1983; and fall studies conducted on September 2, 1982, and November 10, 1982. Depending on the specific study, the river discharge varied between about 8,000 cs and 35,000 cfs and the ambient water temperature between about 51.5 0 F and 77.90 F (10.80 C and 25.50 C). In one case, stratification was essentially nonexistent (i.e., study of November 10, 1982) and in another it was as large as 11.8 F0 (6.6 C0 ,
May 14, 1982). SQN operation also varied among the studies, including both one-unit and two-unit operation, open and helper mode operation, and single and dual diffuser leg operation.
The diffuser discharge temperatures varied between 6.8 F0 (3.8 C0 , May 14, 1982) and 34.2 F 0 (19.0 C', November 10, 1982) above the ambient (5-foot) temperature. The studies included measurements of water temperature at depths of 3 feet, 5 feet, and 7 feet (1.0 meter, 1.5 meters, and 2.0 meters) along several cross sections, including:
- Longitudinal sections along the left and right sides of the mixing zone, and along the centerline of the mixing zone (looking downstream).
- Lateral sections at the downstream end of the mixing zone.
- Lateral sections along three transects within the mixing zone (March 31, 1983, and May 11, 1983, only).
18
DRAFT The temperatures at the three depths were averaged to produce plots of the temperature at the 5-foot depth. An example for the study of May 11, 1983, is provided in Figure 7. This information, subsequently, was used to examine the three-dimensional extend of the thermal plumes. From the 1982 and 1983 tests it was found that:
- When hydrothermal conditions allow the thermal plumes to reach the surface, it usually does so very close to the diffusers.
- In some cases, the plumes extend upstream of the diffusers as a thermal wedge, the extent of which depends on the prevailing flow conditions.
- For studies conducted at higher river flows, 35,000 cfs and above, the thermal plumes are forced downstream (i.e., no thermal wedge extending upstream).
- For conditions with strong stratification, the thermal plumes can be diluted by cool bottom water before reaching the water surface, causing the plumes to remain submerged at depths perhaps greater than the 5-foot compliance depth (May 14, 1982).
- The thermal plumes are often asymmetric relative to the center of the mixing zone, with cooler water residing on the right side of the plume (facing downstream).
- The region where the thermal discharge raises the water temperature above ambient extends beyond the NPDES-defined mixing zone, and can be as much as 1500 feet wide at the downstream end of the mixing zone with both diffusers in operation.
- If the plume is defined by contours depicting the thermal criteria (e.g., for Td, the locations where the downstream temperature is 30.50 C/86.90 F; for AT, the locations where the temperature rise is 3.0 C0/5.4 P), the plume always remains within the NPDES-defined mixing zone.
Regarding the computed compliance, it was found that the hydrothermal model performed better in reproducing the measured temperature at the downstream end of the mixing zone than that of the Station 8 and Station 11 monitors (recall locations in Figure 1). The average discrepancy of the monitoring stations was about 0.72 F 0 (0.40 C0), whereas that of the numerical model was only 0.40 P (0.22 C0).
Based on the results of the above field studies in March 1984, the State granted approval for SQN to use the numerical model to monitor compliance with the NPDES requirements, provided "TVA verify that the measurement of the temperature of the water at the skimmer wall is not effected by the presence of the underwater dam and that this underwater dam has negligible effect upon the computed compliance model " Later, in June 1984, TVA provided a short report containing measurements from a field test that included water temperature at the skimmer wall and the underwater dam (TVA, 1984). The measurements showed that the skimmer wall and underwater dam temperatures usually agree within 1 C0 . The report also pointed out that any impact of the underwater dam would be properly incorporated into the computed compliance 19
DRAFT X
- I , ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
a TIf M30.44 TT It 3a
_ AWA a .#
- a . . a U Tt a **'0 a I .O6.
M X l l § .~~~~
U
.* tJ. aI. *aa aa* --- a- --
a"*v aa _ a 0 1; --------
a g9, _ , a _ _ _______a__
l l +t a@S **
- aI-a&.
a a
_ ,_ _ 9_*___ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ , _
I. a I
, a fow Is
- a. I
.l~~
~~ flo
~~. ~~~~~~~~ .
sl r a D-
- . .s ~~-
n-------------______r_
Lomr- orALUPTR RUN- CHNELC W Nft^ Aprx enterline of __ixing zone --- -
- IL ,.6 rd , t . 1 a I-
- 19. .* a. . a.
Ix.
t a . . u! a £1.
IF.+
£7.4 LONGITUDINAL UPSTR. RUN LS OF CHANNEL RS OF CHANNEL LoNGrTuorNAL UPSTR. RUN O CHANNEL CL LONGITUOINAL UPSTR. RUN (a) Approx left-hand side of mixing zone (b) Approx centerline of niixing zone 33.
(c) Approx right-hand side of mixing zone 21.3 3.1 I
- 3.03 ..w. - 3152 9. - ,43 *.. -- 11843 ...
.1114 s*... - 12157 p.. 41 ...
I -- 31247 .o.
21.3-- - ---- -11 ~- - - t.l
... at: a a l^.
U 2S. I I a o da LI
.S I t >------------------------
w .-- ---4.R- 4&'--~-
. l~~~~ ~/' \. ~~~ .. . a I 1~&~44 a a a 1.1 st.6 E~ _______ -~/ Js~ _ 412__ 7 E' 19.8 R ".I I
,~~~~~~~~~~~~ . . .. .
13.
Z 9B-- -'__-;: , . . .
(d APro 5 et wstram af aifsr in.S . a a a .-. D .\ I
., a _ .a a £3.3 a a a f a ~ ta s ea 1.5 13.5 13.3 a Me M m is Is n DISTANCE FRoN LCFT BANK U met) DISTANCE FROrM LErT BANK Cf..Ii DISTANCE FROM LEFT SAN (feet)
(d) Approx 500 feet downstream of diffulsers (e) Approx 1000 feet downstream of diffiusers (f) Approx 1500 feet downstream of diffusers (downstream end of mixing zone)
Figure 7. Water Temperature Measurements from Field Study of May 11, 1983 (after TVA, 1983; plots a, b, c based on facing northern side of main channel; plots d, e, f based on facing downstream)
DRAFT because the numerical model is validated based on data from field studies that include the effects of the dam on the mixing of the thermal discharge.
The next concern prompting requirements for field studies arose out of a meeting between TVA and the State in November 1986 (TVA, 1986 and TDWPC, 1987). The purpose of the meeting was to discuss reservoir dynamics, hydrothermal processes, power plant operation, and other factors influencing compliance with thermal water quality standards. In the meeting, it was agreed that TVA develop a quality assurance (QA) program consisting of field verification tests to ensure that the plant-induced effects on water temperature were being determined accurately and consistently. In response to this agreement, TVA issued a QA program in September 1987 calling for verification studies to be performed for a variety of river and plant conditions (TVA, 1987). These conditions are summarized in Table 2. Briefly, conditions for river flow QR were divided into four ranges, QR<1OOOO cfs; 10,000 cfs *QR< 2 5,000 cfs; 25,000 cfs <QR<3 5, 0 00 cfs; and QRŽ35,000 cfs. For each range it was desirable to perform a study for each season of the year. The largest release of heat will include SQN operation with two units. The original plan called for a winter study at low flow with one rather than two units, but the recommendation for this case has since shifted to a two-unit study. The QA program also provided a description of the proposed field testing, which included measurements at depths and locations somewhat similar to those of previous studies. In the QA program some of the recommended field studies were already fulfilled by previous tests, as summarized above.
Table 2. Field Studies by TVA QA Plan of 1987 35,000 At 3 I A. Field study summnarized in report by TVA (1982).
B. Field studies summarized in report by TVA (1983).
C. Field studies not documented in fornal TVA reports.
21
DRAFT It is important to note that the NPDES permit effective April 1983 was designated to expire in March 1988. However, in late 1986, both units at Sequoyah were removed from service due to nuclear safety concerns. Unit 2 did not return to service until May 1988 and Unit 1 did not return to service until November 1988. Due to this, and due to ongoing studies and negotiations related to the 316(a) variance request of 1989, the plant continued to operate under the NPDES permit of 1983. The next permit was finally issued in September 1993. The 1993 permit did not reference the TVA QA program of 1987, but did require that "the permittee shallperform instream surveys for the plume volume and area during November to March of 1992-1993 and 1993-1994 when the temperaturerise is within the range of 3 Co to S C. " In this statement, the period November to March of 1992-1993 must have been a misprint because it preceded the effective date of the permit (i.e., September 1993). As such, this requirement was interpreted to include November to March of 1993-1994 and 1994-1995.
In the ensuing periods (i.e., November to March of 1993-1994 and 1994-1995), the river flow and water temperature did not reach conditions suitable for a field study to be performed for a temperature rise in the range of 3.0 C0 to 5.0 C0 /5.4 F to 9.0 F. Short-term spikes in temperature rise occurred, but did not persist for a period long enough to mobilize equipment and personnel for field measurements. Under these conditions, TVA moved forward to perform field studies as summarized by the QA program summarized in Table 2. Note that this program yet recommends wintertime studies at low river discharge, which produces a large temperature rise of the type stipulated for study in the NPDES permit of September 1993.
The field tests conducted during the tenure of the NPDES permit effective September 1993 are given in Table 1. They include spring studies on March 1, 1996, and March 24, 1999, and summer studies on July 24, 1997, and August 2, 2000. The study of March 1, 1996, was conducted in support of the supplemental 316(a) demonstration of 1996. The purpose of the study was to determine the zone of impact for the temperature rate-of-change. To create a rate-of-change event, the river discharge was altered in a short period from a flow of about 43,000 cfs to a flow of 20,000 cfs. The focus of the study was to examine the longitudinal (i.e., downriver) extent of the temperature rise created by the event. In this manner, the study did not include detailed measurements of the three-dimensional configuration of the thermal discharge, but only temperature profiles along the center of the river. The study found that although the longitudinal extent of the mixing zone (i.e., 1500 feet) was sufficient for maintaining the wintertime criteria for instream temperature rise (i.e., 5.0 C/9.0 F"), changes at levels below the NPDES criteria can extend for a distance of at least two miles downstream of the diffuser.
In contrast, the studies of July 24, 1997, March 24, 1999, and August 2, 2000, were designed to evaluate the three-dimensional extent and configuration of the thermal discharge, as specified in the TVA QA program of 1987. Results of these studies are shown in Figure 8 through Figure 11.
Each figure contains: (a) a plot of the water temperature distribution at the 5-foot compliance depth, and (b) plots of the water temperature and water temperature rise along transects across the mixing zone at the sections about where the thermal plumes breach the water surface and at the downstream end of the mixing zone, again at the 5-foot depth. It is important to note that these measurements were made by trolling temperature sensors through the water from a boat.
The boat tracks are shown in the figures. The temperatures were measured with sensors having 22
DRAFT (a) Water Temperature Distribution at 5-Foot Depth 88 87 e 86 e
E 85 0
0.
E 84 ID 83 82 4
g¢ 2 00 Sl21 2 E
0 21 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 Distance From Left Side Of Mixing Zone (feet, facing downstream)
(b) Water Temperatures Across Mixing Zone at 5-Foot Depth Figure 8. Water Temperature Measurements from Field Study of July 24, 1997 23 Co9
DRAFT (a) Water Temperature Distribution at 5-Foot Depth 57 56
- 55 ID
- 54 E 53 0
ID 52 51 5
Of IL 4~ 4 S 3 22 Es 1 E
ID0
-1 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 Distance From Left Side Of Mixing Zone (feet, facing downstream)
(b) Water Temperatures Across Mixing Zone at 5-Foot Depth Figure 9. Water Temperature Measurements from Field Study of March 24, 1999 24 C! 0