ML041250592
| ML041250592 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 04/26/2004 |
| From: | Mckinney K We Energies |
| To: | Dam W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| Download: ML041250592 (71) | |
Text
we energies 231 W. Michigan Street Milwaukee, WI 53203 wwwwe-energiestcom April 26,2004 Mr. William Dam Environmental Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Mail Stop O1 IF1 Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Dam:
The attachments to this letter provide the additional information referenced in the e-mail regarding Point Beach License Renewal that I sent you on April 23, 2004.
That e-mail identified the information that would be provided via the U.S. mail.
The list below describes the information included as an attachment to this letter.
Intake Structure Tolling Agreement Annual Reports
- 1. Copy of annual reports submitted to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for 2001 (partial year), 2002, and 2003; Wastewater Retention Pond Closure Documentation
- 2. Letter to Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) dated June 3, 2003, documenting completion of retention pond closure activities;
- 3. Letter from WDNR dated April 30, 2002, granting approval of the abandonment plan for the retention pond;
- 4. Retention pond abandonment plan that was submitted to WDNR with cover letter dated March 8, 2002;
- 5. Letter from WDNR dated May 13, 2002, granting approval for soil removal and regrading in the wetland area near the retention pond as part of pond closure;
- 6. Chapter 30 permit application materials and cover letter dated March 20, 2002, that were submitted to WDNR for soil removal and regrading in the wetland area near the retention pond; Wastewater Mercury Monitoring Regulation
- 7. Copy of NR 106.145, Wisconsin Administrative Code, regarding wastewater mercury regulation; and Polvchlorinated Biphenvl (PCB) Transformer Registration
- 8. Copy of the PCB transformer registration dated November 13, 1998, that was submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Please let me know if you have any questions about this submittal.
Sincerely, Kris McKinney Environmental Lead Point Beach License Renewal Attachments (8) cc:
Jim Knorr Roger Newton (w/o attachments)
Intake Structure Tolling Agreement Annual Reports
I nAR-17-03 nON 03:02 PH FRONT OFFICE POINT BEACH FAX NO. 920 755' 6857 P. 02 Can vpta a~ W(-Pco aec a Wisconsin Electnc Po=nlNcl A WISCON:UN ENEROr COMPANYP 66 sO Nu OCIar Rd.
Two Rivkrs. WI 54241 Phone 920 tS -2321 NPL 2002.0014 Januaty 14, 2002
.£dward C. Spoon Slccial Agent U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Green Bay Ficid Office Dcar Mr. Spoon:
Rc:
Point Beach Nucicar Plant Vish and Dird Report for Pcriod June 1. 2001 through December 31, 2001 Wisconsin Illectcic Power Company ("WEPCO") and Nuclear Managcmcnt Company, U.C
("NMC") subniit the cnclosed report in satisfaction of the terns set forth in the letter dated JLunc 6, 2001 from the U.S. Attorney, Eitern District of Wisconsin, U.S. Department of Justice.
to Susan 11. Mirtin, Wisconsih Electric Power Company. This report contains a record of the birds and fish removed and recovcrcd from the fish basket associated with the traveling water screen screen-wash system of the cooling water intake at Point Beach Nuclear Plant for the pcriod iunc 1. 2001 to December 31, 2001. These records were kept and are submitted consistent with the teins agreed to in the June 2001 letter.
We woukl note that although inspection was done for smaller fish (smaller than six inches) consistent with paragraph two of the Junc 2001 Ictter, with the exception of the previously repoited intrusions of alewives on June 28, July 3, and Ruly 7, 2001, fish smaller than six inches have not bcen recovered from the traveling water screen screen-wash system during this time period.
With submission of Ihe enclosed infonnarion, WEPCO has satisfied the record keeping and reporting obligations for 2001 set forth in the June 2001 letter.
REGD APR 16 2004
. AR-17-03 MON 03:03 PM FRONT OFFICE POINT BEACH FAX NO. 920 755 6857 P. 03 NP1. 2002-0014 January 14, 2002 Page 2 if you have any further qucstions, please contact the undersigned.
Vcry truly yours, Susan H. Martin Counsel Wisconsin Electric Power Company Beach Nuclear Enclosure cc:
Matthew V. Richmond, Assistant U.S. Atcorney Dave Michaud, Wisconsin I1ccturic Power Company I
- 1 Point Bcach Nuclc3r Plant NTPL 2C02-0014 January 14,2002
_j Migratory Birds:
Fish larger than six (6) inches removed and recovered from (he rLsh basket.
GAAME & FOOD o 1 101 T Il 3
o0o 0 1 0] -
0 17 0
1 0
0 0
is O 1 O 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 -3 13 17 2
0 I0 0
I -S OO SALNION TROUT
, 1
- V U
.0~
U 1
9 Ck 8
Ln L.
L4 U
Co cI 0
U
%a.
0 b-e 0
0 0
0 3 4 0
7 1 2 0
12 29 0 43 I
0 1 24 0 0 26 0
0 0
3 0
0 3
I1 0
0 26 0 0 27 0
1 0 9
0 0 10 0
0 0
0 0 9 0
Co 0
0 U)
I 0
0 2
0 0
M 0
C la 0
0 U
0 0
0.
0 0
1 0
C:
0o6 C1
.eS 0
'0 e0 c
X C
0E.
i~
0 0
I 2
S 2
0 H
0 2
0 I
4 6
2 E0 0
0o 0
0 0
0 0
0 b-J I
0 2
2 0
0 11 0
.0 C
0 I
0 0
41.
-t 0
02 0 2 I10 I2 1-C
.!2 A4 11 0
I 0
2 10 5
-3
~1
-Il I
C)
Im I n
-F' CD r-)q
- X C >
-. 2 I, c Ci)
ICM)
U,-C I o I Seagulls vere removed and recovered on August 2,2001 and August 16, 2001.
Nuclear Management Company, LLC NMC Point Beach Nuclear Plant Commitdia NudJuarExca 6610 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, WI 54241 NPL 2003-0014 January 14, 2003 Edward C. Spoon Special Agent U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service Green Bay Field Office 1015 Challenger Ct.
Green Bay. WI 54311-8331 Re:
Point Beach Nuclear Plant Fish and Bird Report for Period January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2002
Dear Mr. Spoon:
Wisconsin Electric Power Co., d/b/a We Energies (We Energies) and Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC) hereby submit the enclosed report in satisfaction of the terms set forth in the letter dated June 6, 2001 from the U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Wisconsin, U.S. Department of Justice to Susan H. Martin, Wisconsin Electric Power Company. This report contains a record of the birds and fish removed and recovered from the fish basket associated with the traveling water screen screen-wash system of the cooling water intake at Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP) for the period January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002. These records were kept and are submitted consistent with the terms agreed to in the June 2001 letter.
Similar to the 2001 Fish and Bird Report submitted January 14, 2002, we would again note that although inspection was done for smaller fish (smaller than six inches) consistent with paragraph two of the June 2001 letter, fish smaller than six inches cannot typically be recovered from the traveling water screen screen-wash system because they pass through the screen. Fish smaller than six inches were recorded and are being reported by number rather than by aggregate weight due to the minimal number of fish recorded.
On August 27, 2002, Fred Cayia, Dave Michaud, and Susan Martin, met with the FWS and the Assistant U.S. Attorney to discuss issues related to the PBNP reporting requirements. At that meeting, we stated that We Energies and NMC would continue to perform its record keeping as performed during 2001, unless the U.S. Department of Justice of U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service provided additional information. To date, we have received no further information.
With submission of the enclosed information, We Energies continues to satisfy the record keeping and reporting obligations for 2002 as set forth in the June 2001 letter.
REC'D JAN 2 3 2003
f NPL 2003-0014 January 14, 2003 Page 2 If you have any further questions, please contact the undersigned.
Very truly yours, 4.
A ayi Sit ent End re cc:
Matthew V. Richmond, Assistant U.S. Attorney Susan H. Martin, Counsel - We Energies
Point Beach Nuclear Plant NPL 2003-0014 January 14, 2003 MIGRATORY BIRDS TROUT > 6" SALMON > 6" GAME & FOOD > 6"
-i
.I 2002 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV
?5 E
0U 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1*
M 0
10*
0 2*
0 o
0 0
0 2
V40 0
0 0
0 0
!0 0
0 1.
oI 0
0 0
0 0
0 a
0 0
I 0
0
.0
.C 0
0II
.0 3
0~
0 0
0 01 1-I..
I-Io 0
o o
o 0.
0 H0H I
0 3
0 I
01 I
0 0
e 0
.E2
.0
~0 0
0 0~
0 0
0 0
°l a0E la W
.0 I I3 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0S 0
V.
0 i2 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 I-o-Ci IE I oI; 0
!5 I
0.
0 4"
I 1 I 1 1313 I 1 00 0 0 I 1 00 00 2 K; U
ci I-0
.0 en
%a
.5 0
E V)
.0
' i W)
.0
'A 0.
I i 1).
Ic0 V
U WRQ.
0z 0
0 0
0 0
0 2 -2 0
0 1
0° 0 0
9 10 0
I 0
0 0
0 5
6 0 0100r a oit o 4 0
0 0
0 0 o 4 0
19 3
0 0
0 1
13 o I I o-1 01000001ll3 0
0 0
0 0
0 25 25 0
3 o0 tloo 01 25 IROUGH > 6" 0
1-IW 0
o }o o} 3 o 6 9,
00 0
10 634 I00 10 64209 00 0
0 1
1-1 12 0006
° 4 11 0000022 0
0 016 0
3 20i I^A
.v i'
0 16 2
I 0
I 0
1 0
0 I
0 0
OTHER**
'0 r
V
,.0 LILI o
0
'0 V
t 0 0
-0 0
1
-0 0
0 0
0 00 000 I
DEC I 0 0
0 0 l 1141142 0
0 l I
I I
I I
I
-TlTLI l ° 3
i LI T O T A 0 1 E I i ~ i i ~ f z i i i L T-s 0
5 4 0l5 30 3
0 4 0 4 9 9 L I2 i.
1~ 8
'The gulls were recovered on 2/24102,4/20/02, 5/10/02 (2), 7111/02,7/12102 (2), 7113/02, 7/18102, 7/19/02 (4), and 7/22102.
"'Fish smaller than six inches cannot typically be recovered from the traveling water screen screen-wash system because they pass through the screen.
Committed to Nuclearxcel en Point Beach Nuclear Plant Operated by Nuclear Management Company, LLC NPL 2004-0010 January 15, 2004 Edward C. Spoon Special Agent U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service Green Bay Field Office 1015 Challenger Ct.
Green Bay, WI 54311-8331 Point Beach Nuclear Plant Fish and Bird Report for Period January 1. 2003 through December 31. 2003
Dear Mr. Spoon:
Wisconsin Electric Power Company, doing business as We Energies (We Energies) and Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC), hereby submit the enclosed report in satisfaction of the terms set forth in the letter dated June 6, 2001 from the U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Wisconsin, U.S. Department of Justice to Susan H. Martin, Wisconsin Electric Power Company. This report contains a record of the birds and fish removed and recovered from the fish basket associated with the traveling water screen screen-wash system of the cooling water intake at Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP) for the period of January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003.
We wish to note that in 2003, the electronic data logs used to record information on birds recovered in the traveling water screen screen-wash system did not include identification of the individual bird species. The NMC staff is revising the data logs for 2004 to record that information.
In addition, as in the 2002 Fish and Bird Report submitted January 14, 2003, we would again note that although inspection for smaller fish (smaller than six inches) was completed consistent with paragraph two of the June 2001 letter, fish smaller than six inches cannot typically be recovered from the traveling water screen screen-wash system because they pass through the screen. When recovered in larger numbers, as was the case in June and July of 2003, the number of alewife was counted without the aggregate weight determined.
6590 Nuclear Road
- Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241 RED FEB O 9 2004 Telephone: 920.755.2321
NPL 2004-0010 Page 2 With submission of the enclosed information, We Energies has completed the third year of the five-year record keeping and reporting obligations as set forth in the June 2001 letter.
If you have any further questions, please contact the undersigned.
A.JMai Site ent Enclosure cc:
Matthew V. Richmond, Assistant U.S. Attorney Susan H. Martin, Counsel - We Energies
NPL 2004-0010 January 15, 2004 Page 1 of 2 POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT 2003 FISH AND BIRD REPORT MIGRATORY BIRDS AND FISH > 6' MIGRATORY BIRDS I
I TROUT > 6" I I -I 2
0 0
3 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC C) a-D m
.U C
C)
U 3
3 0
3 3
0 0
00 CA'
-a, I-j
.)
C) 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 E
0 0
0 0
O 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
fE 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 4
2
~0 O ~
09
.0
-0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 4
i; IL)
Q.
0z 0
0 2
I 0
0 1
0 1
IL 0-~
0 0
0 2
1 0
0 1
1 S
3 1
5 SALMON > 61" E
0
-C_
C0 0
0 3
C 0
0 0
o o
_ o o oI I
0 2 0 0 3 1-0
-O
-0 O1 O-0 00033 w
J m
0 CA 0
m-C'n
=
ea
& FOOD > 6" C-,
wc L.
C) 0.
U)
F C
z 04 8
0 0
0 o o 0
0 10 10 0
0 0
0 0
0 4
4 0
0 4
0 0
84 7
95 0
0 0
0 0
0 3
3 0
2
°
°
°T 0 6 8
0 0
0 1
°0°0 1
2 0
8 01 0
9 0
6 0
0 0
0 0
-6 0
2 0
0 0
0 0
2 05 1
° 0 1l3 2W,-I ROUGH > 6" lo o 1011 11 0
614 0
4 1618 0
I 1 14D-16 0
0 1
1 1 2 0
0 4
1 5 0
0 14 0 40 0
0
° 7
017
° 7
1 1 1 1 1101 1 1
- 0.
0 C)
A C.4 I
0 I
1 ro
.0 L2L
,0 3
1v l2o-r 16_ 1 1
6 22 3106721 0235 820 3T698733161 2616_ I73 27718
- Identifiable birds recovered on 1/20/03 (3), 2/22/03 (3), 419/2003 (3), 5/9/2003 (1), 51212002 (2), 8/26/03 (1), and 1212212003 (3). Unidentifiable bird recovered on 4/5/03.
NPL 2004-0010 January 15, 2004 Page 2 of 2 POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT 2003 FISH AND BIRD REPORT FORAGE AND SMALLER FISH START DATE END DATE Foraige Alew6f Nonp<6"i JUN I JUN 7 0
0 1
JUN 8 JUN 14 0
0 14 JUN 15 JUN21 0
111 0
JUN 22 JUN 28 0
0 0
JUN 29 JUL 50 0
0 JUL 6 JUL 12 0
8 0
JUL13 JUL19 0
44 0
JUL 20 JUL 26 0
0 0
JUL 27 AUG 2 0
29 0
SEP29 OCT4 0
0 0
OCT 5 OCT 11 0
0 0
OCT12 OCT18 0
0 0
OCT 19 OCT25 0
0 0
OCT 26 NOV I 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
NOV 16 NOV22 0
0 0
0 0
I TOTAL:
1 192 15
Wastewater Retention Pond Closure Documents
we energies 231 W. Michigan Street Milwaukee, WI 53203 June 3, 2003 www.we-energies.com Mr. Paul Luebke Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 7921 Madison, WI 53707-7921
SUBJECT:
ABANDONMENT of WASTE WATER RETENTION POND at POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT
Dear Mr. Luebke:
Wisconsin Electric Power Company (d/b/a We Energies) submitted an abandonment plan for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP) wastewater retention pond in March, 2002 and received approval of the plan from the Department of Natural Resources in a letter dated April 30, 2002.
The plan had been completed in accordance with Chapter NR 213.07 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code. The wastewater retention pond was taken out of service on October 1, 2002. The abandonment of the pond and the associated removal of impacted soils in the vicinity of the pond were carried out in accordance with the plan and were completed on November 1, 2002. Therefore, the wastewater retention pond has been properly abandoned within two years of the date on which the pond was last used to treat wastewater, as required by NR 213.07.
Please feel free to contact me at (414) 221-3235 with any questions you may have.
Sincerely, Elizabeth Hellman, P.E.
Principal Environmental Strategist cc:
Mr. David Gerdman, DNR-Mishicot Office bcc:
Gary Corell/Kjell Johansen - PBNP Nate Leech - PBNP ED File 1.8.2.2 / Corp. File 19.24.02 NP-File
State of Wisconsin \\ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Stat of Wicni PRMN O AUA EORE Scott McCallum, Governor Darrell Baizell, Secretary 101 S. Webster St.
Box 7921 Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7921 Telephone 608-266-2621 FAX 608-267-3579 TTY 608-267-6897 April 30, 2002 Elizabeth Heilman, P.E.
Wisconsin Energy Corporation 231 West Michigan Milwaukee, WI 53290-0001
Subject:
Point Beach Power Plant WPDES Permit WI-0000957-6 Abandonment Plan for Wastewater Retention Pond
Dear Ms. Hellman:
We are approving the abandonment plan for the wastewater retention pond located at the Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant. The plan was reviewed for compliance with the abandonment requirements contained in s. NR 213.07, Wis. Adm. Code. The plan was prepared by GeoSyntec Consultants and Elizabeth Hellman, and was received for approval on March 13, 2002. The information provided was thorough and provided all the necessary documentation. The following is our understanding of the abandonment plan.
Design Information Retention Pond NR 213 Evaluation Retention Pond Sediment The pond, with dimensions of 140 feet by 95 feet, was constructed in 1968. It received wastewater from a variety of sources including the.
sanitary treatment plant, turbine hall sumps, facade sumps, and discharges from the potable water treatment system. The pond provided suspended solids removal by gravity sedimentation.
Abandonment of the wastewater retention pond is necessary because its storage capacity has been reduced by the accumulation of 5 feet of sediment. It has been replaced by a new filtration system that was approved January 31, 2000, which will now provide suspended solids removal.
The retention pond was reviewed for compliance with the design requirements for industrial wastewater lagoons and groundwater quality standards. The report concluded the waters of the state were not adversely impacted by the retention pond. The retention pond was granted an exemption from the minimum separation from groundwater and was approved for continued use April 10, 1996.
Because the sediment has not adversely impacted groundwater quality, and testing confirmed it does not contain concentrations of contaminants at levels of concern, the sediment in the retention pond may be disposed of in place. Approximately 2000 cubic yards of www.dnr.state.wi.us www.wisconsin.gov Quality Natural Resources Management Through Excellent Customer Service R0,c~
Prkdon
Page 2 sediment will be stabilized with a cement mix and covered with 2 foot of soil and 0.5 feet of topsoil. Any residual contamination levels of radionuclides will be less than the NRC decommissioning guideline. The retention pond had previously been dredged and controls were implemented at the power plant after 1975 that reduced the presence of radionuclides in the sediment.
Wetland Soil Removal Site Grading Erosion control Chapter 30 Permit Prior to 1975, before the effluent was discharged with the cooling water to Lake Michigan, effluent from the retention pond was allowed to run overland and absorb into the soil in a wetland area.
Analysis of the soil outside of the retention pond indicates there is some contamination with radionuclides exceeding NRC standards.
An estimated 230 cubic yards of soil is imnpacted. Soil with concentrations of radionuclides greater than 10 pCi/g will be removed in containers and taken to a licensed facility.
The retention pond site will be graded to prevent the accumulation of any water. The area will be re-vegetated with native grasses.
The retention pond abandonment and wetland soil removal work involves an area about one acre is size. A storm water construction permit is not required if less than 5 acres of ground surface is disturbed. The plan includes runoff controls such as slit fences around the work areas. Questions on storm water permitting may be referred to Cheryl Bougie in the Northeast Region (920-448-5141).
An application was made for a chapter 30 permit March 20, 2002, for work in and around the wetland area. Mike Hanaway in the Mishicot Service Center will be handling that permitting if needed (920-755-4942).
If you have any questions, please call me at 608-266-0234.
Sincerely, tj/,, RZ oiKz Paul W. Luebke, P.H.
Wastewater Permits and Pretreatment Section Bureau of Watershed Management copy: Duane Schuettpelz - WT/2 David Gerdman - Northeast Region Mike Hanaway -Mishicot Service Center Cheryl Bougie -Northeast Region
Wisconsi ectric Wisconsin Electric-Wisconsin Gas WISCONSIN ENERGY COMPANIES 231 W. Michigan St.
Milwauk~ee. WI 53290-OO01
'WISCONSINGZIS Phone 414 221-2345 March 20, 2002 Mike Hanoway Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 2220 E. CTH V Mishicott, WI 54228 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
Dear Mr. Hanoway:
SUBJECT:
WETLAND SOIL REMOVAL ASSOCIATED WITH POND ABANDONMENT AT POUNT BEACH NUCLEAR POWER PLANT - TWO RIVERS (MANITOWOC COUNTY)
As part of our retention pond abandonment, Wisconsin Electric-Wisconsin Gas Company(WFIWG) requests chapter 30 permit approval to remove soil from wetland areas on our Point Beach Nuclear Plant property. We propose to remove up to one foot of soil from less than one-quarter acre (approximately 230 cubic yards) of wetland adjacent to the retention pond. Tree removal and grubbing will also be required. The attached site drawing shows four soil remediation areas near the retention pond and the approximate T3K wetland boundary indicated on the Wisconsin Wetland Inventory. Further details on the project are included in-our retention pond abandonment plan filed in early March, 2002 with Mr. Paul Luebke, DNR Wastewater Permits and Pretreatment Section, Bureau of Wastewater Management in Madison.
We anticipate performing this work during dry conditions sometime between mid June and October, 2002 and expect it will take approximately two weeks to complete the site clearing and soil removal. Erosion controls including staked in straw bales, silt fence, and mulch will be installed and maintained as necessary to stabilize the area until successfully revegetated.
The following materials are attached:
- 1. Joint State/Federal Application Form 3500-053
- 2. Check for $300.00 Application Fee
- 3. USGS/WWI Map
- 4. Site Drawing The retention pond is an earthen settling basin that has been in service for over 30 years. It is being replaced by a new wastewater treatment system that is undergoing final testing. Once the new system is operational, the pond will be removed from service and our abandonment plans will be implemented. NR 213.07 requires that this pond be properly abandoned within 2 years after it is removed from service. Therefore, because this work is part of a retention pond abandonment plan and is subject to the two year time limitation, we would appreciate your review of this application at your nearest opportunity. Please call me at (414) 221-4434 if you have any questions or need any further information.
Sincerely, Richard Sternkopf Water Quality Specialist attabcc:
Gary Corell attacmentsKjell Johansen cc:
Dale Gross, USACoE Np -JFile Paul Luebke, DNR-Madison Terry Slack David Lee/Beth Heliman, WEIWG ED File:
1.11.2 (19.15.03.002)
I
,,PAYEE NAME
)NR NORTHEAST REGION HDQRS PAYEE CODE CHECK DATE 10J280 8 03/12/2002 148 1 08J
.'TE.::
.YOUR..INVOICF REF:'
w......
I GROSS NE NJT 03/0o7/200Z f><,;
,^,,
,e:;f RC 021812 021812 300.00 To: RICHARD A STERNKOPI WETLAND PERMIT 300.00 Wisconsin Electric Power Company
'Wisconsin Gas Company PO Box 2179, Milwaukee, WYI 53201-2179 DNR NORTHEAST REGION HDQRS FISHERES MIGMT AND HABITAT PROTECT PO BOX 10448 GREEN BAY WI 54307-044S Effective lanuary 1, 1996, Wisconsin Electric Power Company will submit the appropriate use tax for this purchase directly to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue under direct pay permit number WDP 96-01-01022. The use of this direct pay permit is for this purchas= only.
IS MULTI-TONE AREA OF THE DOCUMENT CHANGES COLOR GRADUALLY AND EVENLY FROM DARK TO LIGHT.WITH DARKER AREAS BOTH TOP AND BOTTOM 7
i
-LI6.
Ch<<
- i mbder2 gP.O.z
& 2.703/12/2002
-1487108.
.. :.OI
.. f-
- r. 6 Month PAY :. Three Hundred Dollars And No Cents
. ; OID After 6 Months
\\.h~
k A n i~
t A
F
.300.0 To The DNR NORTHEAST REGION HDQRS Order FISHERIES MGMT AND HABITAT PROTECT Of PO:BOX 10448 GREEN.BAY WI 54307-0448
- FFitrstran~
wavau
... I I rl ri I en rl..a inn q CO i Lrn:w_
Lrsi,?Lq $It Pill
State of Wisconsin State/Federal Application for Water Regulatory Department of Natural Resources Permits and Approvals eturn to appropriate DNR District Office Form 3500-053 (R I 1100) WEFocsimile Page I of 2 PLEASE COMPLETE BOTH PAGES I & 2 OF THIS APPLICATION. PRINT OR TYPE. The Department requires use of this form for any application filed pursuant to Chapter 30, Wis. Stats. The Department will not consider your application unless you complete and submit this application form.
Personally identifiable information on this form wilt be used for any other purpose, but it must be made available to requesters under Wisconsin's open records law [s. 19.31-19.39, Wis. Stats.]. (See attached Project Drawings lieu of page 2)
- 1.
Applicant (Individual or corporate name)
- 2.
Agent/Contractor (firm name)
Wisconsin Energy Corporation Address Address 231 W. Michigan Street City State, Zip Fire Number City, State, Zip Code Milwaukee, WI 53290-0001 Telephone Tax Parcel Number Telephone No. (include Area code)
- 3.
If applicant is not owner of the property where the proposed activity will be conducted, provide name and address of owner and include letter of authorization from owner. Owner must be the applicant or co-applicant for structure, diversion and stream realignment activities.
Owner's Name Address City, State, Zip Code
- 4.
Is the applicant a business?
0 Yes [
No
- 5.
Project Location If yes, is the permit or approval you are applying for necessary Address 6610 Nuclear Road for you to conduct this business in the State of Wisconsin Village/City/Town Two Rivers, WI 54241 0 Yes [: No Fire Number Tax Parcel Number If YES, please explain why (attach additional sheets if necessary)
Waterway unnamed T3K wetland Site remediation according to retention pond County Manitowoc abandonment plan filed with Mr. Paul Luebke DNR Govt Lot OR SW 1/4, NW 1/4, ofsection 24 Wastewater Permit Section Township 21
- North, Range 24 (East) (West)
- 6.
Adjoining Riparian(Neighboring Waterfront Property Owner) Information)
Name of Riparian # I Street or Route City, State, Zip Code N/A Name of Riparian #2 street or Route City, State, Zip Code
- 7.
Project Information(Attach additional sheets if necessary)
(a) Describe proposed activity (include how this project will be constructed)
Soil excavation and removal to approx. Ift. depth (b) Purpose, need and intended use of project Site remediation according to retention pond remediation plan (c) I have applied for or received permits from the following agencies. (Check )
rl Municipal n County ln. Wis DNR n Corp. of Engineers (d) Date activity will commence if permit is issued be completed (e) Is any portion of the project now complete?
If yes, identify the completed portion on the enclosed drawings and a Yes G No indicate here the date activity was completed I hereby certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. I also certity that I am entitled to apply for a permit, or that I am Mte duly auttnCzea representative or agent of an applicant who is entitled to apply for a permit. Any Inaccurate information submitted may result in permit revocation, the imposition of a forfeiture(s) and requirement of restoration.
f Withhold personal identifiers collected on this form from disclosure on any list of 10 or more individuals that the DNR is requested to provide to another person [s. 23.45, Wis. Stats.].
Sign;tu of Appl~icans) oDuly Authorized Agent Date Signed TV X,,<
% 02-
___I
?
C:), %\\ i, -r> DX~
o',
A A,%
t to z, S ).\\
,t Q
A -,o,
,-, V, W sky C., NA
ii (P
y N1-N 0
fI 73K C Wuf)
/ 0%2fo.
/
I~rg A\\>SE J-q
°,S.
ob \\D t~;
- a
,e A-\\"\\- S; e-\\ A I
'I Os ct,\\
7O-I ajyvroy. 3100 l
I AWE-U\\Xe<XoxGu SW /'L 1 a
W kJ'14 4
S ect. aLA TZ \\
W2pLt.
1\\ \\
K w
I
'\\\\
V 0Vvq
UNWTED BTATES
- HPAflThMENT OF THE INTERIOR 01!OLOICAL.URVEY I'
N t
STATE OF WISCONSIN DIVISION OF HIOIIWAYS OEOLOOICAI. AND NATURAL HIISTORY SURVEY TWO CREEKS QUADRANGLE wisr-ORSIN 7J MINUTE BeRIES (tOPOoRAPHIC)
AS, we or l d
- I Jos G
d-0'
.2ls 0
TcolW z
}
O' mrrr.J4... Xi IS O.*~ IA I4 2
2X304
ar~rsu ii ZB30 OO rut II
~i Mapped. eddied, and published by khe Gaocglulj Sewvey in cooperation withi the Wuscorisla Divisimo of Highways utWsosnGoolcoical "n Ntabural History Surmy C"by USGS em 1406/NOAA 5id.ed h~~ig'phIc data vIm~k Iwwu hO$)hGO iaaol90 C19715. TWAi WV-W.m Is PA W60d
-V44w
-~
tv owwar dap L-Ih WW wkmp AO) CLASSIFICATICtI
\\
Light 4vuj 1*4. Iurd or
'CAIONTLGOUR IICEV(AAL 10 FEET T3K ajw alouhI~iS us it: IPAlUM A LWw WAZILA h 116 fft
'Jiviiplshd rGAS IU. S.
keul Osa4 Rauate i
- l
_,.14
.. _U. A_
- u~mbt catr.
ar
' 4 1"Uai4.14 AkAA baed Ca W16Mft. C.Q~dkfla ML"S OC"%JES WmWWKW kw)~Ac1k-y sIdADCiS FOR BALZ BY U-I. GEOLOGICAL SUM'j% £lENVEPR.CgOLAAQ ONA. OR PAST&51OGNI22m11 ANOWMSCeOgu GEL IOG)CALAW* HATURAMS.
aORY SURVIa'. MAD"ISON WSCONSIN $121Q 5-aM"AS IS dIALAAAIU QN AdOiST TWO CREEFKB. WI 1A14 Pg-15.1 IW iUADAV.I Al441S-Wd)3th7.3 E2K sale
- 9.*U..fl be
oh isconsin Electric Wisconsin Electric-Wisconsin Gas WIscni Elcti 231 W.
Michigan St.
WISCONSIN ENERGY COMPANIES Michak an St.
.Milwaukee, WI 53290-0001
'WISCONSINO4AQS Phone 414 221-2345 March 8, 2002 Mr. Paul Luebke Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 7921 Madison, WI 53707-7921
SUBJECT:
ABANDONMENT PLAN for POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT WASTE WATER RETENTION POND
Dear Mr. Luebke:
Wisconsin Electric is requesting approval of the attached abandonment plan for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP) wastewater retention pond. The plan has been completed in accordance with Chapter NR 213.07 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code. We are also submitting an application for a Chapter 30 permit to Mr. Mike Hanoway, since we will need to remove some soil from a wetland area as part of the retention pond abandonment. Because we would like to schedule the abandonment work to begin this summer, we will need your approval of the abandonment plan by the end of May in order to allow time to incorporate any changes that may need to be made as a result of your review.
Please feel free to contact me at (414) 221-3235 with any questions you may have.
Sincerely, 1 '
Elizabeth Hellman, P.E.
Principal Environmental Strategist cc:
Mr. Mike Hanoway, DNR-Mishicot Office bcc:
Gary CorellIKjell Johansen - PBNP Nate Leech - PBNP Dave Lee - A231 (w/o attachments to plan)
Tim Muehlfeld - A231 (w/o attachments to plan)
Kris Krause - P454 (cover letter only)
ED File 1.8.2.2 / Corp. File 19.24.02 NP-File
t\\2 -c State of Wisconsin X DEPARTMENT OF
\\C, C),o A-~00)
C\\.\\\\NTR)
NATURAL RESOURCES Scott McCallum, Governor Darrell Bazzell, Secretary Ronald W. Kazmlerczak, Regional Director Mishicot Field Office 2220 E. CHY V Mishicot, Wisconsin 54228 Telephone 920-755-4942 FAX 920-7554981 3-NE-2002-36-0349LB May 13, 2002 Wisconsin Energy Corporation Attn: Richard Stemkopf 231 W. Michigan Street Milwaukee, WI 53290-0001 Dear Sir The Department of Natural Resources has received and evaluated your application for a U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers GENERAL Permit (GPILOP-WI) to remove 230 cubic yards of materials from a wetland and regrade the area. This project affects.07acres of wetlands.
Our records indicate your project is located in the SWA/4, NW%, S24, T21 N, R24E, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc County.
Your application is complete, and the Department has determined that this activity complies with the conditions of the Corps general permit and state Water quality certification. One of the conditions of this permit is that you shall allow Department personnel reasonable entry and access to the site to inspect the work for compliance with certification and applicable laws. You shall also protect the adjacent stream from erosion during and after construction with the use of erosion fabric, straw bale barriers, and/or placement of sandbags along the stream bank.
No further information is required of you before you begin your project. Please keep this letter as a confirmation of your contact with us.
Sincerely, L
A Michael Hanaway Water Management Specialist cc:
Dick Koch - NER Warden - Mishicot U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Manitowoc County Zoning Administrator www.dnr.state.wi.us www.wisconsin.gov Quality Natural Resources Management Through Excellent Customer Service PRacyer paper
ABANDONMENT PLAN POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT WASTEWATER RETENTION POND Preparedfor Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Prepared by Elizabeth Hellman Wisconsin Electric - Wisconsin Gas March 8,2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
....................................... I PROJECT BACKGROUND/HISTORY OF POND.............................
1.......
RETENTION POND CLOSURE....................................
2 Identity and Characterization of Pond Sediments....................................
2 Plans for Pond Sediments....................................
2 Closure Plan for Pond....................................
3 SOILS ASSOCIATED WITH RETENTION POND..................................... ;
3 Impact to Soils and Groundwater....................................
3 NR 720 Applicability....................................
4 Plans for Soil Remediation....................................
4 FINAL SITE DISPOSITION (SITE RESTORATION)......................................5.
CONCLUSION.......................................................................................
5 ATTACHMENTS
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP) will soon be discontinuing the use of its retention pond for wastewater treatment. The pond is being replaced with a more modem wastewater filtration system that was approved by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and is in the final phase of testing. Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter NR 213.07 requires that the pond be properly abandoned within two years of the date on which the pond was last used to treat wastewater. NR 213 also requires compliance with NR 720 for any soils contaminated by the contents of the pond. This document describes our plan for abandonment of the pond and cleanup of the surrounding soils.
PROJECT BACKGROUND/HISTORY OF POND The retention pond is an earthen lagoon designed for settling total suspended solids from various plant discharges. After receiving state approval (DNR approval no. 68478), the pond was constructed in 1968. In 1973, state approval (DNR approval no.73-921) was received to dredge and deepen the pond and to redirect the discharge into the plant so that it could be routed to the condenser cooling water outfalls (001 or 002). That work was completed by the end of 1975.
The dredging project increased the basin depth to 7 feet and expanded the pond volume to about 520,000 gallons. On-site disposal of the dredged solids in an area north of the pond was approved by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC - the predecessor to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC).
Since 1975, considerable solids accumulation has occurred. Sediments are near the top of the pond in the northeast corner where the inlet pipe is located, and the average depth of the pond is now in the range of two to three feet. The available volume is less than half of the design level, and over the next several years there is a risk that adequate solids settling will not be achieved.
If the situation is left unchecked, solids levels in the pond may reach a point that will hinder our ability to comply with the WPDES permit limits. Therefore, in 1998 Wisconsin Electric (WE) began to study the pond in anticipation of the regulatory requirements associated with closing it.
Plant staff also modified the wastewater treatment system by installing fabric filters that are capable of performing the suspended solids removal function of the retention pond. DNR granted approval for the modification plan on January 31, 2000. The modification was implemented in stages, with the final stage completed in late 2001. Testing and minor modifications are in progress, and the system is expected to be placed in service full-time in 2002. Once the new system is placed in service full time, the retention pond can be taken out of service.
There are both non-radiological and radiological technical issues to be addressed in connection with our intentions to close the pond. The non-radiological issues were examined in a 1992 environmental study of the retention pond completed for WE by Woodward-Clyde Consultants as required by ChapterNR 213 "Lining of Industrial Lagoons and Storage Structures." The DNR determined that the pond was in compliance with NR 213 and provided an approval letter on April 10, 1996 (Attachment 1). For the radiological issues, we retained outside consultants with experience in conducting environmental radiological studies for the nuclear power industry.
They aided us in characterizing the pond and the surrounding environment to determine the nature of any radioactivity in and around the pond. Their findings, which are described below, Page 1 of 5
show that there are no exceedances of any NRC radiological criteria nor any exceedances of the NR 809 drinking water criteria for the plant well that is located between the pond and the lake and drilled into the dolomite aquifer. Furthermore, we have concluded that no state or federal release reporting requirements have been triggered.
RETENTION POND CLOSURE IDENTITY AND CHARATERIZATION OF POND SEDIMENTS The pond sediments consist mainly of: 1. sediments that entered the plant from Lake Michigan via service water and were removed by the makeup water treatment system, and 2. lime that was used ini the makeup water treatment system to soften the water for use in the steam generators as well as elsewhere in the plant. The pond also contains solids collected by floor drains in the turbine hall and facades.
As a result of normal pond operations over the course of the years, some radionuclides have accumulated in the pond sediments. A radiological characterization study of the pond sediments was completed in mid-2001 by J. Stewart Bland Associates, Inc. Sampling for this study was conducted during the period November 15-17, 2000. A total of 93 samples were collected from the pond sediment and liner in 38 locations. The sampling pattern was based on Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) guidance for conducting radiological surveys in support of license termination. All sediment and liner samples were analyzed by gamma spectrometry, and radiochemical analysis was performed on three composite samples to determine the concentrations of radionuclides not quantifiable by gamma spectrometry. Generally, only Co-60 and Cs-137 were positively identified. Am-241 was also identified in six samples but at very low concentrations.
Site-specific dose calculations were performed using RESRAD, a Department of Energy computer code developed by Argonne National Laboratory, to determine compliance with NRC residual radioactive material guidelines. The calculations assumed that the pond sediments would be dewatered, left in place, and covered with a nominal one-foot-thick topsoil cover.
Based on the results, the residual contamination levels will not result in a dose in excess of the NRC decommissioning guideline. In fact, the resulting dose for the first year will be less than 7 percent of the NRC decommissioning guideline of 25 mrem per year. (The dose will decrease with time.) According to 10 CFR 20.1402, a site resulting in a dose of 25 mrem per year or less (in addition to natural background radiation) is considered acceptable for unrestricted use. By comparison, the area's natural background radiation dose is 300 mrem per year.
PLANS FOR POND SEDIMENTS Our plan is to dewater the sediments, leave them in place, and cover them with about 2.5 feet of soil and vegetation. Prior to covering the sediments with soil, solidifying reagents will be added to improve their ability to support the weight of construction equipment. We believe this is an acceptable method of sediment management for the following reasons.
Page 2 of 5
. 1. The sediments are non-hazardous.
The sediments are not listed and do not exhibit any of the four traditional characteristics of a hazardous waste - ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic. (See Attachment 2 for Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure test results for a sediment sample that was obtained by collecting four samples from different locations within the pond, combining and homogenizing the four samples, and collecting one sample of the homogenized mixture for analysis.)
- 2. The operating pond complies with NR 213.
In its April 10, 1996 letter to WE (Attachment 1), the DNR states that the retention pond is in compliance with NR 213 based on information provided that concludes that adverse impacts to waters of the state are not anticipated from operation of the pond. It follows that if the sediments are not adversely impacting waters of the state during operation, they will not do so after operation ceases.
- 3. Tle soil cover exceeds NRC requirements.
The thickness of the soil cover that will be placed over the sediments will be more than two times the thickness used in the RESRAD calculations described above. Therefore, leaving the sediments in place will not pose any radiological hazard.
For the above reasons, the sediments meet the criteria for disposal of sludge in place put forth in DNR's November, 1994 NR 213 lagoon abandonment guidance. Although disposal in place is fourth in the list of preferred management approaches (after landspreading, leaving in place as beneficial use, and disposal at a licensed solid waste landfill) mentioned in the guidance' it is the
- only approach that is feasible in this case. Because of the presence of radionuclides in the sediments, landspreading would require a special exemption from the NRC, since the rule that would have allowed it no longer exists. Since the sediments are not expected to provide a nutritional soil conditioning value to the area, we cannot pursue the beneficial use approach.
Disposal of the sediments in a landfill is not a practical option because removal, dewatering, and off-site disposal of the sediments would more than double the cost of the project. Also, some of the sediments may not be eligible for disposal in a solid waste landfill because of the presence of radionuclides, which would mean a further increase in the cost of disposal. For all of the reasons explained above, leaving the sediments in place is the most prudent approach in this case.
CLOSURE PLAN FOR POND In 2001, we retained GeoSyntec Consultants to aid us in determining an appropriate method for closing the retention pond. The closure plan for the pond is based on leaving the sediments in place, as described above. Details on the closure plan are contained in section 2.3 of the attached report by GeoSyntec Consultants (Attachment 3). The proposed schedule for the project is included as Attachment 4.
SOILS ASSOCIATED WITH RETENTION POND IMPACT TO SOILS AND GROUNDWATER From the time the retention pond began operation until 1975, the normal discharge path was to an intermittent creek to the west of the pond, which discharges to Lake Michigan approximately Page 3 of 5
one-half mile south of the plant. As stated previously, in. 1975 the pond effluent was redirected into the plant for discharge via the condenser cooling water outfalls. The original discharge pathway has remained a permitted outfall and has occasionally been used since 1975 in preparation for pond maintenance activities. Studies conducted in 1998 indicated that, as a result of normal operation and maintenance of the pond over the years, some radioactive material accumulated in the soils to the west and southwest of the pond. Pond discharges have consistently met both WPDES permit limits and radionuclide concentration limits for releases from the plant. But because the path to the intermittent creek was via surface flow across the ground, filtration and adsorption occurred within the top soil layer along the discharge path.
Underlying soils of lower permeability limited significant penetration beyond the top approximately one foot of soil.
The studies conducted in 1998 included analysis of over 100 soil samples as well as 18 standing and shallow groundwater samples. Analysis of the soil samples showed that low levels of Cs-137 and trace amounts of Co-60 and Cs-134 were present in some of the samples. Tritium was the only radionuclide identified in the groundwater samples, and it was found to be present at concentrations below the NR 809 drinking water criterion. The tritium does not pose a direct contact concern, and there is no drinking water pathway. As mentioned above, there are low levels of radionuclides in the shallow soil in the area around the retention pond, but the radiation dose levels from those radionuclides are very small. Based on the levels of radionuclides detected in the soil, calculations indicate that the average dose to an on-site worker spending 2000 hours0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> per year in the vicinity of the pond would be approximately 3 mrem/year, which is one hundred times less than the area's natural background radiation dose of 300 mrem per year.
NR 720 APPLICABILITY As mentioned previously, Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter NR 213.07 states that abandonment plans shall comply with Chapter NR 720 for soils that have been contaminated by the contents of the lagoon, storage structure, or treatment structure for which the abandonment plan is prepared. In the case of the PBNP retention pond, the only potential contaminants of concern are the radionuclides that were included in the 1998 studies. We have no reason to believe that the soils in the vicinity of the retention pond have been contaminated by any other substances. Due to the unique nature of the PBNP case, none of the standard methods for determining soil cleanup standards that are described in NR 720 apply to the situation at PBNP.
Therefore, the soil cleanup level has been determined using the NRC dose screening criterion for decommissioning, as explained in the next section.
PLANS FOR SOIL REMEDIATION All areas with radionuclide levels greater than 10 pCi/g will be excavated and shipped off-site to a licensed facility for disposal. Areas below 10 pCi/g correspond to doses less than NRC's dose screening criterion for decommissioning of 25 mremn/year. As stated previously, a site resulting in a dose of 25 mrem per year or less is considered acceptable for unrestricted use. More about the excavation of the soil to the west of the pond is contained in section 2.4 of the attached GeoSyntec Consultants abandonment plan.
Page 4 of 5
.1.
FINAL SITE DISPOSITION (SITE RESTORATION)
As part of the abandonment, the retention pond area will be restored to green space. Site restoration activities will include minor regrading of the area in order to prevent the accumulation of standing water on the soil cover while achieving grades consistent with the surrounding area. The retention pond cover will be seeded with native species grasses.
Regrading of a portion of the excavated soil area outside of the pond will also take place in order to achieve consistency with pre-excavation grades in the area. The portion of the excavated soil area that is classified as a wetland area will remain a wetland area.
CONCLUSION The PBNP retention pond abandonment plan outlined in this document is based on comprehensive studies of the pond sediments and the surrounding soils as well as advice from external consultants with experience in this field of work. We believe that the activities described in our plan comprise a prudent course of action that is protective of public health and the environment.
Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENT 1 NR 213 APPROVAL LETTER
j1 g,21Z State of Wisconsin \\ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PO Box 7921 Tommy G. Thompson, Governor 101 South Webster Street George E. Meyer, Secretary Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7921 OF NA
,TELEPHONE 608-266-2621 FAX 608-267-3579 TDD 608-267-6897 April 10, 1996 IN REPLY REFER TO:
3440 Mr. David Lee Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
231 W. Michigan Ave.
P.O. Box 2046 Milwaukee, WI 53201-2046
SUBJECT:
Ch. NR 2f3 WI Adm Code Lagoon Compliance Evaluations Point Beach Nuclear Plant (Retention Basin); and Oak Creek Power Plant (East and West Settling Basins)
FINAL DETERMINATION
Dear Mr. Lee:
The Department of Natural Resources, Industrial Wastewater Section has reviewed the above referenced reports submitted by Woodward-Clyde Consultants on behalf of Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO), dated September 1992, and the additional information provided by you on April 6, 1996.
The reports conclude that adverse impacts to waters of the state are not anticipated primarily because any and all leakage that may emigrate from these basins will discharge into Lake Michigan, and the water quality in the basins is suitable to meet the most restrictive water quality criteria listed in chs.
NP 102 and NR 105 Wis. Adm. Code.
WEPCO has consequently requested to maintain the basins for use as they currently exist.
The reports also contain information which indicates that groundwater is at or somewhat below the base of the basins at both facilities.
Section NR 213.08 (2) (c) requires a minimum separation distance of five feet between the base of an industrial wastewater lagoon and the top of the water table.
Since these basins are not able to meet this requirement, an exemption would be needed for their continued use.
The Department has determined that the information provided is adequate to meet the requirements of ch. NR 213 Wis. Adm. Code and an exemption from the design standards and material requirements of ch. NR 213 Wis. Adm. Code is thus being granted.
If you are aware of any changes in this information, please notify me.
Additionally, please see that the following conditions are adhered to:
- 1.
that the basins be maintained in a manner that discourages the growth of any and all vegetation; and Quality Natural Resources Management
WEPCO Point Beach and Oak Creek Lagoon Evaluations Final Determination A.pril 10, 1596
- 2.
that the basins be maintained to avoid desiccation and cracking of the liners.
Thank you for your continued cooperation in this matter.
I look forward to receiving your proposals for additional investigation at the Port Washington and Pleasant Prairie sites.
NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you believe that you have a right to challenge this decision, you should know that Wisconsin Statutes and administrative rules establish time periods within which requests to review Department decisions must be filed.
For judicial review of a decision pursuant to secs. 227.52 and 227.53, Wis.
Stats., you have 30 days after the decision is mailed, or otherwise served by the Department,. to file your petition with the appropriate circuit court and serve the petition on the Department.
Such a petition for judicial review shall name the Department of Natural Resources as the respondent.
To request a contested case hearing pursuant to sec. 227.42, Wis. Stats., you have 30 days after the decision is mailed, or otherwise served by the Department, to serve a petition for hearing on the Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources. The filing of a request for a contested case hearing is not a prerequisite for judicial reviewr and does not extend the 30-day period for filing a petition for judicial review:
This notice is provided pursuant to sec. 227.48(2), Wis. Stats.
Sincerely, A. Nichol Kosewski, Hydrogeologist Industrial Wastewater Section Bureau of Wastewater Management c:wpco.Fl cc:
Paul Luebke, WW/2 Larry Benson, WW/2 Jeff Haack, Green Bay Area Jerry Jarmuz, SED
.2
ATTACHMENT 2 TCLP TEST RESULTS
TestIY erica I N C O A P O A A T E D Ms. Bronia Grob TELEDYNE BROWN ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 700 Landwehr Road Northbrook, IL 60062 11/24/1999 NET Job Number:
IEPA WDNR A2LA Cert. No.:
Cert. No.:
Cert. No.:
99.12332 100221 999447130 0453-01 Enclosed is the Analytical following samples submitted
'for analysis.
and Quality Control reports for the to Bartlett Division of TestAmerica Project
Description:
Sludge Analysis Sample Number Sample Description Date Taken Date Received 553669 PBNP Retention Pond; ESG-8626 07/14 /1 9 9 11/05/19 99 Sample analysis in support of the project referenced above has been completed and results are presented on the following pages..
These results apply only to the samples analyzed.
Reproduction of this report only in whole is permitted.
Please refer to the enclosed "Key to Abbreviations" for definition of terms.
Procedures used follow TestAmerica Standard Operating Procedures which reference the methods listed on your report.
Should you have questions regarding procedures or results, please do not hesitate to call.
TestAmerica has been pleased to provide these analytical services for you.
This Quaiity Control report is generated on a batch basis.
All information contained in this report is for the analytical batch(es) in which your sample(s) were analyzed.
Aiproved by:
Mary Pearson Project Manager 850 W. BARTLETT RDJ BARTLETT. IL 60103 / 630-289-3100 / FAX: 630-289-5445 / 800-378-5700
Test] nerica I N C OR P O R A T E 0
- ANALYTICAL REPORT Ms. Bronia Grob TELEDYNE BROWN ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 700 Landwehr Road Northbrook, IL 60062 Sample
Description:
PBNP C1 llCP 11/24/1999 Sample No. : 553669 Job No.:
99.12332 Retention Pond; ESG-8626
.e Analysis Date Taken:
Time Taken:
07/14/1999 Date Received:
Time Received:
11/05/1999 09 :05 knalyte
- TCLP, ZHE Volatiles Prep TCLP Metals Extraction SCLP-Arsenic.
ICP SCLP-Barium, ICP TCLP-Cadmium.
ICP TCLP-Chromium *lCP TCP-Lead.
ICP TCLP-Mercury.
CVAA TC P-Selenium, ICP SCLP-Silver.
ICP TCLP Organic Prep Prep, Pesticides 8081 TCLP Prep, Herbicides SCL?
TCLP-PES'ICIDES 8081 TCLP-gamma-BHC (Lindane)
TCLP-Chlordane TCLP-Endrin TSP-Heptachlcr TCLP-Hepeachlor epoxide TCLP-Methoxychlor TCLP-Toxaphene Su-r: Tetrachloroxylene (TC=)
Surr: Decachlorobiphenyl (DOC)
Result Flag Units Reporting Date Analysc Analytical Limit Analyzed Initials Meehod leached leached O0.20 0.332 (0.010 0: 040 c0.200
- 0.0002
<0.20 0.050 leached Extracted Extracted 40.0400 0.005 40.0020
- 0.0008 (0.0008
<1.000 (0.050 50.0 58.0 mg/L rg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L 0.20 0.020 0.010 0.040 0.200 0.0004 0.20 0.050 0.04 00 O.005 0.0020 o. coooa 0. 0008
- 1. 000
- 0. 050 D-110 "1.110 11/09/1999 11/08/1999 11/11/1999 11/11/1999 11/11/1999 11/11/1999 11/11/1999 i1/15/1999 11/11/1999 11/11/19 9 9 11/08/1999 11/18/1999 11/19/199 9 11/22/199 9 11/22/1999 11/22/1999 11/22/1999 11/22/19 9 9 11/22/19 9 9 11/22/19 9 9 11/22/19 99 11/22/1999 nbk nbk kdw kdw kdw kdw kdw vgm kdw kdw nbk out out out out cut out out ou I out out out SW 1311 SW 1311 SW solo6 SW 6010B SW 60100 SW 60109 SW 6010B SW 7470A SW 60109 SW 60109 SW 1311 SW 3510C sW 8151 SW S081A SW BO0lA SW 6081A SW SOBIA SW 8o0lA SW BO81A SW 8a0lA SW 80B1A SW 8081A Page 2 of S 850 W. BARTLETT RDI BARTLETT. IL 60103 / 630-289-3 100 / FAX: 630-289-5445 / 800.3713-5700
Testmrnerica I H C I R P 0 R A T E 0 ANALYTICAL RtEPORT Ms. Bronia Grob TELEDYNE BROWN ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 700 Landwehr Road Northbrook, IL 60062 Sample
Description:
PBNP Sludc 11/24/1999 Sample No. : 553669 Job No.:
99.12332 Retention Pond; ESG-8626 ye Analysis Date Taken:
Time Taken:
07/14/1999 Date Received:
Time Received:
11/05/1999 09:05 Analyce Result Flag Units Reporting Date Analyst Analytical Limit Analyzed Initials Method TCLP-HERBICIDES 8151 TCLP-2.4-D TCLP-2.4.5-$P Surr: DCAA Prep, BNA Extract (TCLP3 TCLP-ACID COMPOUNDS 8270.
TCLP-Cresols. Total TCLP-o-Cresol T(MP-mZ&p Cresol TCLP-Pentachlorophenol TCLP-24. 5-Trichlorophenol TCLP-2,4.6-Trichlorophenol Surr: Phenol-d6 Surr: 2-Fluorophenol Surr: 2.4.6-Tribromophenol
<1.0 VO.10 130.0 mg/L 1.0 mg/L 0.10 23-131 11/19/1999 11/19/1999 11/19/1999 out out out SW 5ls1 SW 8151 SW 8151 extracted 11/11/1999 rap Sw 3510C (0.10 (0.10
<0.10
<O.50
<0.50 c0.10 2B.0 41.S 67.S mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L m5/L mg/L 1kI 0.10 0.10 0.10 O.50 0.50 0.10 10-94 21-100 10-123 11/19/1999 11/19/1999 11/19/1999 11/19/1999 11/19/1999 11/19/1999 11/19 /19 9 9 11/19/1999 11/19/1999 p11 p11 p1 1 p11 p11 phl p11 SW 82703 SW 82703 SW 82708 SW 82703 SW 8270B SW a270B SW 8270a SW 8270B SW 82703 Page 3 of S 850 W. BARTLETr RDJ BARTLE.T. IL 60103 / 630-289-3100 / FAX: 630-289-5445 / UOO-378-5700
Test] merica A H C 0 E P R R A r E 0 ANALYTICAL REPORT.
Ms. Bronia Grob TELEDYNE BROWN ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 700 Landwehr Road Northbrook, IL 60062 11/24/1999 Sample No. : 553669 Job No.:
99.12332 Sample
Description:
PBNP Retention Pond; ESG-8626 Sludge Analysis 9
Date Received:
Time Received:
Date Taken:
Time Taken:
07/14/199 11/05/1999 09 : 05 Analyte Result Flag Units Reporting Date Analyst Analytical Limit Analyzed Initials Method TCLP-VOLATILES B260 TCLP-Benzene TCLP-Carbon Tetrachloride TCLP-Chlorobenzene TCLP-Chloroform TCLP-1.4-Dichlorobenzene TCLP-1.2-Dichloroethane TCLP-1.1-Dichloroethene TCLP-Mezhyl Ethyl Ketone TCLP-Tetrachloroethene TCLP-Trichloroethene TCLP-Vinyl Chloride Surr: Dibromofluoromethane Surr: Toluene-d8 Surr: 5romofluorobenzene c 0.020
<0. 020
<0.020 C0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
'0.40 e0.020 cO.020
<0.020 98.0 108.0 114. 0 mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L tI 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.40 0.020 0.020 0.020 75-130 8S-117 80-116 11/15/1999 11/15/1999 11/lS/1999 11/15/1999 11/1S/1999 11/15/1999 11/15/1999 11/15/1999 11/15/1999 11/15/1199 9 11/15/1999 11/15/1999 11/15/1999 11/15/1999 mjo mjo mjo mjo mjo mjo mjo mjo mjo mjo mjo mjo mjo mjo SW 8260B SW 82605 SW 0260B SW 82605 SW 8260B SW 6260B SW 8260B Sw 8260B SW 8260B SW 8260B SW 826CB SW 8260B SW 826c0 SW 8260B Page 4 of S 850 W. BARTLETT RD./ BARTL.ETT. IL 60103/ 630-289-3 100 / F.X: 630-289-5445 / 800-378-5700
Test]nierica I N C
0 A P Y R E TOE ANALYTICALJ REPORT.
Ms. Bronia Grob TELEDYNE BROWN ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 700 Landwehr Road Northbrook, IL 60062 Sample
Description:
PBNP Sludi 11/24/1999 Sample No. :
553669 Job No.:
99.12332 Retention Pond; ESG-8626 ge Analysis -
Date Received:
Time Received:
Date Taken:
Time Taken:
07/14/1999 11/05/1999 09 :05 Analyce TCLP BASE NEUrRAL COMPOUNDS TCLP-1.4-Dichlorobenzene TCLP-Hexachloroethane TCLP-Nitroben:ene TCLP-Hexachlorobutadiene TCtP-2*4-Dinitrotoluene TCLP-Hexachlorobenzene TCLP-Pyridine Surr: Nicrobenzene-dS Surr: 2-Fluorobiphenyl Sur:: Terphenyl-d14 Result
'0.10 C0.10 Co. 10' CO.10 C0.10 40.10 cC.10
-67.0 62.0 63.0 Flag Units
-Reporting Date Analyst Analytical Limit Analyzed Initials Method mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L rng/L mg/L t
0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 35-114 43-116 33-141 11/19/1999 11/19/1999 11/19/19 99 11/19/1999 11/19/1999 11/19/1999 11/19/1999 11/19/1999 11/19/19 99 11/19/19 99 p11 p11 p11 p 1 1 p 1 1 p 1 1 P11 p11 Pll SW 8270B SW 8270B SW 9270B SW 8270B SW 8270B SW 8270B SW 82703 SW 82703 SW 827C3 SW 82703 Page S of S 850 W. B,\\RTLErr RD./ BARTLE1,.IL 60103 / 630-2189-310() / I'AX: 630.289-5445 / 800-378-5700
mg/L ug/L I N C O R P o IAT A D
I Less than; When appearing in the results column indicates the analyte was not detected at or above the reported value.
Concentration in units of milligrams of analyte per liter of sample.
Measurement used for aqueous samples. Can also be expressed as parts per million (ppm).
Concentration in units of micrograms of analyte per gram of sample.
Measurement used for non-aqueous samples.
Can also be expressed as parts per million (ppm) or mg/Kg.
Concentration in units of micrograms of analyte per liter of sample. Measurement used for aqueous samples. Can also be expressed as parts per billion (ppb).
Concentration in units of micrograms of analyte per kilogram of sample.
Measurement used for non-aqueous samples. Can also be expressed as parts per billion (ppb).
These initials appearing in front of an analyce name indicate that the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) was performed for.this test.
These initials are the abbreviation for surrogate. Surrogates are compounds that are chemically similar to the compounds of interest. They are part of the method quality control requirements.
Percent:
To convert ppm to %, divide the result by 10.000.
To convert % to ppm, multiply the result by 10.000.
Indicates analysis was performed using Inductively Coupled Plasma Spectroscopy.
Indicates analysis was performed using Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy.
Indicates analysis was performed using Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy.
Practical Quantitation Limit: the lowest level that can be reliably achieved within specified limits of precision and accuracy during routine laboratory operating conditions.
TCAL Surm:
IC?
AA GAA POL Method References (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
CS)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
Methods 1000 throuch 9999: see 'Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste-. USEPA SW.846.
3rd Edition. 1986.
ASTM 'American Society for Testing Materials, Methods 100 through 499 see 'Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes'. USEPA.
600/4-79-020. Rev. 1983.
See 'Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater", 17th Ed. APHA. 1989.
Methods 600 throuoh 525: see 'Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants", USEPA Federal Register Vol. 49 No. 209, October 1984.
Methods 500 throuch S99: see 'Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water.y USEPA 600/4-88/039. Rev. 1988.
See 'Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples', Supplement I EPA-600/R-94/111, May 1994.
See 'Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,, 18th Ed.. APHA, 1992.
Methods 1000 throuoh 9999: see "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,, USEPA SW-846.
3rd Edition, 1986. Including Updates I and II.
This method is from the 2nd Edition of "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste", USEPA SW-846.
It has been dropped from the 3rd Edition. 1986.
850 W. BARTLETT RDJ BARTLETT. IL 60103 / 630-289-310() / FAX: 630-289-5445 / 800-378-570()
ATTACHMENT 3 ABANDONMENT PLAN BY GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Prepared for:
Wisconsin Electric-Wisconsin Gas Corporation 333 W. Everett Street Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53290 ABANDONMENT PLAN WASTEWATER RETENTION POND POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT TWO RIVERS, WISCONSIN Prepared by:
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS 55 West Wacker Drive, Suite 1100 "Chicago, Illinois 60601 (312) 658-0500 Project Number:. CHE8094D-01 February 2002
GeoSyntec Consultants TABLE OF CONTENTS
- 1. INTRODUCTION......................
1 1.1 Terms of Reference...............................
1 1.2 Project and Regulatory Background.1 1.3 Report Objectives.................
.3
- 2.
ABANDONMENT OF WASTEWATER RETENTION POND 4
2.1 General...................
4 2.2 Site Preparation.............
5 2.3 Abandonment of the WWRP 5
2.3.1 Construction of Soil Cover...............................................
5 2.3.2 Requirements for Soil Cover
.7 2.4 Removal of Potentially Impacted Soils from Outside WWRP 8
2.5 Final Regrading and End Use 9
FIGURES CHE8094D-Ol/CH020004 i
02.02.20
GeoSyntec Consultants LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1:
Site Location - Point Beach Nuclear Plant Figure 2:
Layout of Existing WWRP Figure 3:
Soil Cover for WWRP Figure 4:
Cross Section of Abandoned WWRP Figure 5:
Lateral Extent of Potentially Impacted Soils CHE8094D-OlI/CH020004 ii 02.02.20
GeoSyntec Consultants
- 1.
INTRODUCTION 1.1 Terms of Reference This Abandonment Plan (AP) has been prepared by GeoSyntec Consultants (GeoSyntec) on behalf of Wisconsin Electric-Wisconsin Gas Corporation (WE-WG).
This AP addresses the implementation of various activities associated with the abandonment of the wastewater retention pond (WWRP) at the Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP) located in Two Rivers, Wisconsin.
1.2 Project and Regulatory Background The PBNP is located in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin (Figure 1). The WWRP at the PBNP was constructed in 1968 and is located on the west side of the facility. The WWRP is approximately 140-ft long and 95-ft wide. Currently, there is a maximum thickness of sediment of approximately 5 ft in the WWRP. The WWRP liner comprises natural silty and sandy clays.
Process wastewaters and sewage treatment plant effluent are routinely routed to the WWRP. The sources of process wastewaters include the water treatment plant, plant floor drains, and turbine hall sumps. The sewage treatment plant receives water from the plant and energy information center sanitary systems and from floor drains. Treated sewage effluent flows by gravity to the sump pump station. This sump also collects water from the power plant water treatment clarifier and filter backwash.
This combined water is then pumped to the WWRP with final discharge to Lake Michigan via the power plant cooling water discharge.
WE-WG anticipates that active wastewater treatment in the WWRP will end during 2002. It is WE-WG's intent, therefore, to abandon the WWRP in accordance with requirements described in ch. NR 213.07, which states:
"Lagoons, storage structures and treatment structures which will no longer be used, shall be properly abandoned within 2 years of the date on which waste material was last stored or treated. A plan outlining the proposed method of CHE8094D-O1/CH020004 1
02.02.20
GeoSyntec Consultants abandonment shall be submitted to the department for approval. This plan shall contain a procedure to properly identify the presence and characteristics of any accumulated solid waste and provide appropriate removal, disposal or recycling or treatment alternatives in accordance with applicable solid and hazardous waste laws. All recycling, treatment, and disposal shall be conducted so as to protect public health and the environment. Unless otherwise directed by the department, all abandonment plans shall comply with ch. NR 720 for soils that have been contaminated by the contents of the lagoon, storage structure or treatment structure..The plan shall also address site restoration and any landscaping that will prevent accumulation of standing water or runoff. The department may require groundwater monitoringfor a period of time after abandonment of the land treatment system to assess groundwater impacts.
The design, installation, construction, abandonment and documentation of all monitoring wells shall be in accordance with the requirements on ch. NR 141."
In a letter dated 10 April 1996 from Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), WE-WG received exemption from specific Wisconsin Administrative Code ch. NR 213 design standards and material requirements for the WWRP.
This exemption. was based, in part, on information presented in the September 1992 Woodward-Clyde (WC) report titled, `NR 213 Compliance Evaluation, Results of Investigations, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Two Rivers, Wisconsin" (1992 WC Report).
The 1992 WC report concluded that the WWRP does not adversely affect waters of the state, including groundwater. Therefore, WE-WG proposes to satisfy the requirements of ch. NR 213.07 by covering the in-place WWRP sediment with soil. Because the uncovered WWRP sediment and liquid have been shown to not adversely affect waters of the state including groundwater, it can be concluded that the primary function of the proposed soil cover should be to promote drainage to prevent accumulation of standing water or runoff.
The regulation ch. NR 213.07 also indicates that, "all abandonment plans shall comply with ch. NR 720 for soils that have been contaminated by the contents of the lagoon, storage structure or treatment structure." The abandonment of the WWV P will include soil removal activities in areas outside the limits of the WVRP. These areas had been in the discharge path of the WWRP prior to the modification of the CHE8094D-01/CH020004.
20.22 2
02.02.20
GeoSyntec Consultants discharge pathway in the mid-1970s. These areas have been found to contain small amounts of radionuclides. WE-WG has developed an estimate of the distribution of these substances. As part of the abandonment of the WWRP, these potentially impacted soils will be removed and disposed of at a licensed off-site facility. As discussed in Section 2.4 of this AP, confirmation testing and/or sampling will be performed to establish that radionuclide levels are below those required for NRC decommissioning.
A description of the procedures used to: (i) properly identify the presence and characteristics of any accumulated waste within the WWRP and; (ii) verify that NR 720 soil clean up levels are achieved for the potentially impacted soils is provided in the PBNP Retention Pond Abandonment Plan prepared by WE-WG.
1.3 Report Objectives In the remainder of this AP, the major design elements of the WWRP abandonment are described including the in-place abandonment of the WWRP using a soil cover and the removal of potentially impacted soils from outside the footprint of the WWRP. This AP provides information on the implementation of the abandonment and criteria that
- will be used to abandon the WWRP consistent with the requirements of ch. NR 213.07.
CHES094D-Ol/CH020004 3
02.02.20
GeoSyntec Consultants
- 2.
ABANDONMENT OF WASTEWATER RETENTION POND 2.1 General The abandonment of the WWRP comprises three primary design elements: (i) construction of a soil cover over the in-place sediment; (ii) removal and disposal of near-surface potentially impacted soils from outside the limits of the WWRP; and (iii) final grading of the abandoned WWRP and surrounding area. An additional design element includes improvement (i.e., strengthening) of the in-place iWWRP sediment to facilitate soil cover construction by improving the load carrying capabilities of the in-place sediment.
The areas of the site where WWRP abandonment activities will be performed are shown.on Figure 2. The overall construction sequence for the abandonment of the WWRP includes the following activities:
- site preparation;
- removal of WWRP liquids;
- in-place improvement of WWRP sediment;
- WWRP soil cover construction; excavation, shipping, and disposal of potentially impacted soils from outside the WWRP; and
- final regrading and implementation of end use requirements.
Work associated with the. excayation, shipping, and disposal of potentially impacted soils from outside the WWRP may be performed at the same time as the activities associated with WWRP sediment improvement and soil cover construction over the W\\VRP.
CHE8094D-OI/CH020004 4
02.02.20
GeoSyntec Consultants 2.2 Site Preparation Normal site preparation activities associated with general earthwork will be required to implement the WWRP abandonment. These activities will include providing necessary temporary utilities (e.g., power, water, and telephone services) and establishing required site support facilities, equipment and material staging areas, and personnel and equipment decontamination facilities.
Before any construction occurs, erosion and sediment controls (e.g., silt fencing) will be placed around work areas and will also be placed so as to prevent adverse affects on low lying areas around the WWRP. WE-WG will secure an erosion and sedimentation control permit, as required. Other controls will be established to minimize run-on and off-site runoff during construction.
2.3 Abandonment of the WWYRP 2.3.1 Construction of Soil Cover The overall construction sequence for abandoning the WWRP is described below.
- 1. Liquids in the WWRP will be drained via the discharge weir structure at the southwest comer of the WWRP. Gravity drainage using the weir is anticipated to bring the water down to an elevation approximately 2 ft above the sediment surface in the vicinity of the weir. Further dewatering that may be required during construction will be achieved by pumping standing water via a discharge line to the bottom of the weir. This pump will be used throughout construction, as needed, to maintain a reasonably dewatered condition. All waters that enter the weir are conveyed to the plant before they eventually discharge to Lake Michigan under WPDES Permit No. WI-0000957-6.
Throughout dewatering operations, samples of the liquids will be taken to evaluate TSS levels. WE-WG will implement engineering measures during construction, as necessary, to assure that TSS are within currently acceptable levels.
CBE8094D-01/CH020004 5s 02.02.20
GeoSyntec Consultants
- 2. The in-place sediment will be improved after dewatering the WWRP.
As noted, the in-place sediment is weak and will not support the weight of construction equipment that will be used to construct the soil cover. For this project, it is anticipated that an excavator will be used to mix cement intot he in-place sediment. The mix design (i.e., percentages of reagent and in-place sediment) will be evaluated in the laboratory prior to full-scale improvement operations and is discussed further in Section 2.3.2 of this AP. A total of approximately 2,000 yd3 of sediment will be improved to a maximum depth of approximately 5 ft. Reagent material will either be temporarily stored on-site or will be trucked in on an as-needed basis.
- 3. The improved sediment will be graded (i.e., relocated using bulldozers) to form the final slope configuration. This final slope configuration will prevent the accumulation of standing water on the soil cover during the post-abandonment period.
During construction confirmation testing will be performed to demonstrate that the required strength of the improved sediment has been achieved. This testing will include excavating small test pits to approximately the bottom of the improved sediment to verify that appropriate mixing has been achieved and that the improved sediment is sufficiently strong to enable construction equipment to access the sediment surface.
.4. The decommissioning of the weir structure will be one of the last activities to be performed.
This decommissioning will include: (i) grouting the underground discharge line (see Figure 2) from the weir to approximately the manhole located just to the east of the WWRP; (ii) dismantling the aboveground (i.e., above the elevation of the existing sedimnent surface) walls of the weir structure; and (iii) backfilling the weir with controlled backfill material such as lean-mix concrete.
- 5. Installation of the soil cover will occur after all improvement activities are finished. The components of the soil cover for the WWRP and the improved sediment are shown in Figure 3. Installation of the soil cover will occur in general accordance with the following construction sequence:
CHE8094D-01/CH020004 6
02.02.20
GeoSyntec Consultants
- the 2-ft thick (min.) protective soil layer will be placed in lifts and appropriately moisture conditioned and compacted to achieve required grades; and
- a minimum of 0.5 ft of vegetative support soil (e.g., topsoil or appropriately amended soil) will be placed and seeded.
A cross section of the WWRP improved sediment and soil cover is shown on Figure 4.
2.3.2 Requirements for Soil Cover The functional requirements of this soil cover include: (i) function with minimum maintenance; (ii) prevent the accumulation of standing water and minimize erosion of the soil cover; and (iii) accommodate settling and subsidence so that the integrity of the soil cover is maintained. This section addresses these requirements.
Sediment Improvement Testing Prior to full-scale improvement operations, laboratory testing on sediment/reagent mixtures will be performed. The goal of the laboratory testing program is to identify a sediment/reagent mix design that results in a firm, soil-like material (which is not a solid or hazardous waste) that supports construction equipment with an appropriate margin of safety, and reduces long-term settlement of the soil cover. For this testing program, sediment samples from the WWRP will be collected and shipped to a licensed laboratory for testing. This sample collection activity will occur before any full-scale construction activities commence.
It is anticipated that cement will be used as the sole reagent. Combinations of sediment and cement will be used to form samples and laboratory unconfined compressive strength testing will be performed on these samples.
Soil Cover Settlement Positive drainage needs to be maintained during the post-abandonment period.
Differential settlements (which can result in the development of localized grade reversals) are expected to be negligible for the proposed soil cover primarily because CHE8094D-01/CH020004 7
02.02.20
GeoSyntec Consultants the improved sediment will be stiff and will undergo negligible compression (i.e.,
settlement) under the weight of the cover system and the as-constructed soil cover slope will be at least 2 percent.
Erosion of Soil Cover To minimize the potential for significant erosion of the sofi cover, topsoil (or appropriately amended soils) and vegetation will be selected to minimize the potential for significant erosion. Erosion is anticipated to be relatively insignificant for the WWRP soil cover.
2.4 Removal of Potentially Impacted Soils from Outside WWRP The abandonment of the WWRP will also include the removal of potentially impacted soils from outside the WWRP.
The lateral extent of these potentially impacted soils has been delineated and is shown in Figure 5. These areas became impacted as the result of aboveground operations, therefore it is expected that the vertical extent of these impacted soils will be limited to no greater than I ft.
The overall construction sequence for this work element of the WVWRP abandonment is as follows:
- 1. Trees and brush within the delineated areas will be cleared and removed. The.
above ground portion of these trees will be bumed, chipped, or stockpiled on the site premises.
- 2. The work areas where excavation of impacted soils is to be performed will be accessed using small excavation equipment.
All excavated soils will be transferred to the staging area of the site for impacted soil storage containers.
- 3. Appropriate shipping containers for the impacted soils will be used to ship the impacted soils to licensed off-site disposal facilities.
- 4. Each container will be shipped to a licensed off-site facility for disposal.
CHES094D-01/CH020004 8
02.02.20
GeoSyntec Consultants
- 5. Confirmation testing and/or sampling to verify that appropriate clean-up levels have been met in the area outside the WWRP will be performed.
2.5 Final Regrading and End Use Site restoration activities associated with the abandonment of the WWRP will include minor regrading of the WWRP berms and the excavated soil areas from outside the WWRP. These areas will be graded to be consistent with pre-excavation grades in these areas. Vegetation will be established over the. soil cover using native species grasses.,
CHE8094D-OI/CH020004 9
02.02.20
SITE LOCATION POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT
,-'\\
1* I N Two Creeks
'C ColInIt Park
-~ _ *_;Boat Ramp 1
Two Cree I.
!s
-( -
\\12 I,-.
.o./
i-,,,
. 14' i
13\\
.29 C.)
SITE
'In
- \\.
>-Point Beach Nuclear Powerplant Subbta j
j
- *adio To f.-
Park take
- wer, t
r-I V
- 676 ROA A IGEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS NOT TO SCALE FIGURE NO.
1 PROJECT NO.
CHE8094D-01 DOCUMENT NO.
ChO20004 FILE NO.
8094D001.cdr CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
LAYOUT OF EXISTING WWRP
/
. 2Z I
CL/
/
i I
I I
i I I NOT TO SCALE EXISTING CHAINUNK FENCE
-i/
9I Ail Id~
0 01 01
/
/
/ DISCHARGE LINE
' FROM SEWAGE
/
TREATMENT PLANT-
//
./
i.
i -
I i
-ABANDONED DISCHARGE PIPE
-It
-APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TREE.UNE m
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS FIGURE NO.
2 PROJECT NO.
CHE8094D DOCUMENT NO.
ChO20004 CHICAGO, ILUNOIS IFILE NO.
8094D001ledwg
SOIL COVER FOR WWRP FIGURE NO.
3 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO.
CHE8094D-01 DOCUMENT NO.
ChO20004 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS FILE NO.
8094D001.cdr
CROSS SECTION OF ABANDONED WWRP SOIL COVER 20/% (mn) rIVESOIL`S-,.
t NOT TO SCALE FIGURE NO.
4
.=
GEo SYNTEc CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO.
CHE8094D-01 CHICAGO. ILLINOIS DOCUMENT NO.
ChO20004 FILE NO.
8094D001.cdr
LATERAL EXTENT OF POTENTIALLY IMPACTED SOILS APPROXIMATE SCALE 1-=50ft SOURCE: WEPCO INTERNAL FILES Figure 2, Contours of Cs-1 37 Levels (pCig) in Soil' FIGURE NO.
5 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO.
CHE8094D-01 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS DOCUMENT NO.
ChO20004 I___
FILE NO.
8094DO01.Cdr
ATTACHMENT 4 SCHEDULE
I PBNP WWRP Abandonment Project Schedule 12002 Task Name I
Start I
Finish I
Jan I Feb I
Mar I
Apr I
May I
Jun I
Jul I
Aug I
Sep I
Oct I
Nov I
Dec Regulatory Requirements Complete Abandonment Plan Complete Wetlands Permit Application Submit Plan/Permit to WDNR Resolve WDNR comments Receive Approved PlanlPermit Initiation Phase Study Phase Detailed Planning Phase Implementation/Construction Phase Contaminated Soil Removal Soil Shipment for Disposal Verify Contamination Levels - JS Bland Pond Closure Area landscaping Demobilization Field Complete
- Closeout Phase Financial Closeout completed Project Complete Wed 1116102 Wed 1116/02 Wed 1116/02 Fri 318/02 Fri 3/8/02 Mon 6)32 Wed 1116102 Thu 1/17102 Fri 2122102 Mon 718102 Mon 7/8/02 Tue 911 7102 Fri 7119/02 Mon 7/8/02 Tue 9/17/02 Mon 9/23/02 Fri 9/27/02 Tue 9117102 Fri 9/27/02 Tue 12/31/02 Mon 613102 Fri 3/8/02 FrP 3/8/02 FrP 3/8/02 Mon 6/3102 Mon 6/3/02 Thu 217/02 Frd 4/26102 Mon 711102 Tue 1011102 Tue 9117/02 Tue 10/1102 Frd 920/02 Tue 9/17/02 Mon 9/23/02 Fri 9/27/02 Fri 9/27/02 Wed 1214102 Tue 12/31/02 Tue 12/31/02
_~
awl MOR i
LI I 1. I.
CEMMEM...
0.0.....
MMOMOM....-
'i A
Task l_
Rolled Up Task l
External Tasks c-4Ca i..A-it1/2 Critical Task Rolled Up Critical Task Project Summary Thu 317/02 Progress Rolled Up Milestone External Milestone Milestone 4>
Rolled Up Progress External Milestone Summary Split 1 of1
Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB)
Transformer Registration
Wisconsin Electric w
A WISCONSIN ENERGY COMPANY Wisconsin Electric 231 W. Michigan P.O. Box 2046 Milwaukee, WI 53201-2046 Phone 414 221-2345 November 13, 1998 Fibers & Organics Branch (7404)
Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 RE: PCB TRANSFORMER REGISTRATION In accordance 40 CFR Part 761.30, Authorizations, attached is Wisconsin Electric Power Company's 'PCB Transformer Registration" for our Point Beach Nuclear Plant.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at (414) 221-2181.
Very truly yours, Tim G. Krueger Hazardous Waste Specialist Environmental Services Attachment -
bcc: Richard Mende ES File: In Service PCBs - Power Plants
USE
.PA
'.USEPA Urithe SLU~C EaviroCWCQLul Protedlon kgecne Wash~nqon. DC 2046 Form Approved ONB No. 2070 PCB TRANSFORMER REGISTRATION Return To:
, Fo r Ofiki Use Outy Fib-cr & Orgpnic: Branch (7404)
Office of Polltiaon Prevention & Toxics U.S. Environmental Protccio Agcocy 401 M Strect, S.W.
Washlngtom, DC 20460
- 1. Company Nac Addrs Coatar Namc & Phone #
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
P 0 Box 2046 Tim G. Krue er
.Milwaukee, WI 53201 (414) 2212l81
- 2.. Loctiou or PCB Trartsformcr(s) - Lion # I
- 2. L Locaion of PCB Trmfornc:(s) - Lc[idoa #2 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 6610 Nuclear Rd.
Two Rivers, WI 54241 b.No. of Transfornmns and wt. (kg):
8-12,496 Kg.
- b. No. of Tnsftortcrs and wt. (kg):
- c. Any Lrsmsformcm contaIning fl+/-am.ble diclect ic fluid Ye Me C. Any truifornc: cori;nig fla m~abe dkkiectric Did: Yes or No
- 2.. Locaton 6f PCB Tr-nsformer(s) - Location #3
- 2. a.Locadon of PCB Trformr(s) - Locc-a #4
- b. No. of Transforme and wL (kg):
- b. No. of Trxnsformer ad wt. (kg):
- c. Any -=n formc-a coaairnng flamable diclecic fluid: Ye or No
- c. Any t:-asformncr Coning flammnbie dielectric fluid: Yes or No
- 7. Ccrtificatia Under civil and criminal penalties'of law for the making or submission of false or fraudulent statements or representations (18 U.S.C. 1001 and 15 U.S.C. 2615),- I certify that the informationcontained in or accompanying this document is true, accurate, and complete. As to the identified section(s) of this document for whic.4I cannot personally verify truth and accuracy, I certify as a company official having for te pesonswhocompanyy irofficialtaing supervisory responsibility for the persons who, acting under my direct instructions, made the verificaton that this information is true, accurate, and complete.
Name and Official Title (Type of Print)
D*Ac Signed Rithard G. Mende, Manager 1O-Z7-9b Paperwork Reduction Act Noodce The annual public reporting burden for this -collection of information is estimated to average 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> per response. This estimate includes time for reading instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing and reviewing collection of information.
Send comrnents regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden to: Director, OPPE Regulatory Information Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (mail code 2137), 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OM number identified above in any correspondcncc. Do not sed the completed form to this address.
The actual information or form should be submitted in accordance with the instructions accompanying the form, or as specified in the corresponding regulations.
EPA Form 7720-12
..:,:..
p
.1
.,
.. .sJ
C
.
J C
'I C
0 41 a,a.
E 0
SENDER:
- Comp! et Items 1 andlor 2 for additional services.
I also wish to receive the EComplete Items 3. 4a. and 4b.
following services (for an aPrint your name nd addres on the reverse ofthis form so that we can return this extra fee):
caud to you.
Is
- Attarch fs form to the frort d the malplece. or on the back H space does no
- 1. 0 Addressee's Address permit2 a Write'Retum Recelpt Requeste on the mallpiece below the artice number.
- 2. 0 Restricted Delivery aThe Return Recelpt wiU show to whom the aflle was delivered and the date delivered.
Consult postmaster for fee.
a
- 3. Article Addressed to:
4a. Article Number IS GG oF1At\\vn; W
r t
L 4b. Service Type e
I Registered O Certified r
_0J O Express Mail Insured £ Ia-reet, R Return Receptforperchandse O CPD
- 8. Ad6\\s;\\
A (Only Datt rq Des ted
/
and fee Is pald)
- 6. SFgnaturm 1,(ddressc b
1p 90nt)
D i R R
PS Form 3 1, December 1994 1
102595-97-840179 Domestic Retum Receipt I. :. --------- -.-
I
.,1
- SENDER:
X
- Comple Iterms 1 and/or 2 for additional services.
w
- Complete items 3, 4a. and 4b.
c Pdnt your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we cfrard to you.
- Attacr this form to the font of the mallplece, or on the back If spac W
pe.rmit.
e,
- WrIteRetum Receipt Requesedr on the mailpece below the artid
- The Return Receipt wilt show to whom the artide was delivered an c
delivered 0-
- 3. Article Addressed to:
7I
-S ;-:
2 )essraic
~cc
)
E49?vttV;vn eir~n Toxic5
- t A ?D5 En~aselon Prwe On P
\\$
E ror //i~c S.Rcive A/~Pd ae) 1
- 6. Signatur :
dress Vent)
X A
fi i can return this
- does not e numbet id the date I also wish to receive the following services (for an extra fee):
- 1. 0 Addressee's Address
- 2. 0 Restricted Delivery Consult postmaster for fee.
I.
S.11 a'
,1 4a. Arnice Nu~ber
,,,, &C I~.
4b. Service Type
, Registered 0 Certified O Express Mall O Insured 51 Retum Receipt forMerchandise O C5)D 7.Dt P ~livey.-/,7 f /
I 5970'
- 8. Addressee~s Address (Onl if requested and fee Is pald) 595.97B6t0179 Domestic Retum Receipt mi.
.St I.2 I1.
E-W1 IP-0rmr;j1l1, December1994 I
V 10m
Wastewater Mercury Monitoring Regulation
/
62-3 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Unofficial Text (See Printed Volume). Current through date and Register shown on Title Page.
NR 106.145 represented in the data base. The limitation for purposes of this section shall be equal to the lowest resultant value. A limitation can be calculated for an additive only if both LCso and EC5o data for at least one of the invertebrate species and at least one of the fish species listed above are available.
(b) Effluent limitations based on chronic toxicity to aquatic life shall be established using the procedures described in this para-graph for additives whenever chronic toxicity criteria are not available from s. NR 105.06. The calculation of limitations shall be in accordance with the requirements of s. NR 106.06 (4) (b). In this calculation, the water quality criterion concentration shall be equal to the final acute value for that additive as provided in s. NR 105.05, or the effluent limitation as determined in par. (a), divided by the geometric mean of all the vertebrate and invertebrate spe-cies mean acute-chronic ratios determined in accordance with s.
NR 105.06 (5) for that additive. A water quality criterion con-centration may be calculated for an additive only if a final acute value, as provided in s. NR 105.05 or an effluent limitation as determined in par. (a), and an acute-chronic ratio for a vertebrate species and an acute-chronic ratio for an invertebrate species are available.
(c) Groundwater which is withdrawn from a location because of noncompliance with the standards contained in ch. NR 140 and.
which is used as noncontact cooling water shall not be subject to this exclusion.
(d) Regardless of the results of the analysis conducted under this section, the department may, whenever determined necessary, require whole effluent toxicity testing for a point source dis-charge.
(2) INTERrITTENTDISCHARGES. Effluent limitations derived as specified in s. NR 106.06 (3) and (4) for substances which rapidly degrade and which are discharged for less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> per day shall be calculated as specified in those subsections, unless the discharger demonstrates to the department that, as a result of the duration and frequency of the discharge, adverse effects will not occur when limitations are increased.
History: Cr. Register. February. 1989. No. 398, eff. 3-I-89; am. (1) (a), (b) and (2), cr. (1) (d). August, 1997, No. 500. efT 9-1-97.
NR 106.11 Multiple discharges. Whenever the depart-ment determines that more than one discharge may be affecting the water quality of the same receiving Water for one or more sub-stances, the provisions of this chapter shall be used to calculate the combined allowable load from the discharges necessary to meet the water quality criteria for the substances. The resultant com-bined allowable load shall be divided among the various dis-charges using an allocation method based on site-specific consid-erations. Whenever the department makes a determination under this section, the department shall notify all permittees who may be affecting the water quality of the same receiving water of the determination and any limitations developed under this section.
Permittees shall be given the opportunity to comment to the department on any determination made under this section.
History: Cr. Registes, February, t9S9,No. 39, eff. 3-149; am. Register. August.
1997. No. 500, eff. 9-1-97.
NR 106.12 Limitations for ammonia nitrogen.
Regardless of any other requirement of this chapter, the depart-ment shall establish, on a case-by-case basis, water quality based effluent limitations for discharges of ammonia nitrogen. The crite-ria and limitations established in s. NR 104.02 (3) (a) 2. b. and 3.
- a. for discharges to surface waters not supporting a balanced aquatic community shall apply.
History: Cr. Register, February, 1989. No. 398, ef. 3-1-89.
NR 106.13 Leachate In publicly owned treatment works. Publicly owned treatment works subject to ch. NR 210 may demonstrate to the department that leachate from a licensed solid waste facility materially affects the quality of effluent from that treatment works and affects the capability of the treatment works to meet the effluent limitations established under this chap-ter. If the department determines that a proper demonstration has been made, the department shall, within its capabilities, provide reasonable assistance to the owner of the treatment works and establish an appropriate schedule of compliance.
History: Cr. Register, February, 1989, No. 398. eff. 3-1-89.
NR 106.14 Analytical methods and laboratory requirements. (1) Methods used for analysis of samples shall be those specified in ch. NR 219 unless alternative methods are specified in the WPDES discharge permits. Where more than one approved analytical method for a pollutant exists, the department may specify in the permit which method shall be used.
(2) The permittee shall submit, with all monitoring results, appropriate quality control information, as specified by the department.
(3) The permnittee shall report numerical values for all moni-toring results greater than the limit of detection, as determined by a method specified by the department, unless analyte-specific instructions in the WPDES permit specify otherwise. The permit-tee shall appropriately identify all results greater than the limit of detection but less than the limit of quantitation.
History: Cr. Register, February. 1989, No. 398, elf. 3-1-89; renurs.NR 106.14 to be (1) cr. (2) and (3). Register, August, 1997, No. 500. fr. 9-1-97.
NR 106.145 Mercury regulation. This section provides an alternative means of regulating mercury in WPDES permits through the establishment of alternative mercury eMuent limita-tions and other requirements and is intended as a supplement to the authority and procedures contained in other sections of this chapter. For purposes of this section, an alternative mercury efflu-ent limitation represents a variance to water quality standards spe-cified in chs. NR 102 to 105.
(1) FImNDos. On November 1, 2002, the department finds all of the following:
(a) Requiring all dischargers of mercury to remove mercury using wastewater treatment technology to achieve discharge con-centrations necessary to meet water quality standards would result in substantial and widespread adverse -social and economic impacts.
(b) Representative data on the relatively low concentrations of mercury in wastewater are rare and methods for collecting that data have only recently been developed.
(c) Appropriate mercury source reduction activities are envi-ronmentally preferable to wastewater treatment technology in many cases because wastewater treatment for mercury produces a sludge or other resultant wastewater stream that can be as much or more of an environmental liability than the untreated effluent.
(2) DETERINNING THE NECESSITY OF MERCURY EFFLUENT LIMI-TATIONS. (a) The department shall determine whether a mercury effluent limitation is necessary using the procedures in s. NR 106.05.
(b) For the determination under par. (a), the department shall use representative data that comply with all of the following:
- 1. Data shall meet the sampling and analysis requirements of subs. (9) and (10).
- 2. Data shall consist of at least 12 monitoring results spaced out over a period of at least 2 years.
(3) DATA GENERATION. (a) In this paragraph, "major munici-pal discharge" and 'minor municipal discharge" have the mean-ings specified in s. NR 200.02 (7) and (8). If an applicant in any of the categories specified in this subsection does not have suffi-cient discharge data that meet the criteria of sub. (2) at the time of application for permit reissuance, the reissued permit shall require the permittee to monitor and report mercury at the following fre-quency and location:
I I
I i
. I i
Register, October, 2002, No. 562
NR 106.145 WISCONSIN ADMMISTRAIW1 DQPDE 62-4 Unofficial Text (See Printed Volume). Current through date and Register-shown on Title Page.
- 1. Monthly influent and effluent for a major municipal dis-charge with an average flow rate greater than or equal to 5 million gallons per day.
- 2. Once every 3 months influent and effluent for a major municipal discharge with anaverage flow rate greater than or equal to one million gallons per day but less than 5 million gallons per day.
- 3. Once every 3 months influent and effluent for a minor municiPal discharge if there are 2 or more exceedances in the last 5 years of the high quality sludge mercury concentration of 17 mg/kg specified in s. NR 204.07 (5).
- 4. Monthly eflluent for an industrial discharge that the depart-ment determines is likely to contribute net discharges of mercury to the environment or if sludge or biosolids mercury concentra-tions indicate a source of mercury.
- 5. Once every 3 months effluent for an industrial discharge with an average flow rate, excluding noncontact cooling water as defined in s.NR 205.03 (21), of more than 100,000 gallons per day and the department has no information on mercury concentrations in similar discharges. The department may exempt discharges in this category if the department determines-that there is little risk that the effluent will contain mercury.
Note: Any permittee who believes that a significant portion of the mercury in its eMuent originates from it intake orsurface water is encouraged to provide results of intake monitoring.
- 6. The department may reduce monitoring frequency from monthly to once every 3 months for discharges described in subds.
- 1. and 4. after at least 12 representative results have been gener-ated.
(b) The department may require mercury monitoring for other discharges not included in one of the categories specified in par..
(a) if the department has a reasonable expectation that the dis-charge includes significaitjuatnities Pf mercury.
(c) Permittees shall collect and analyze samples according to the requirements in subs. (9) and (1O).
(4) ALTERNATIVE MERCURY EFFLUENT LIMITATION ELIGIBILITY.
(a) When the department Makes a determination of the necessity for a water quality based effluent liimiitation for mercury under sub. (2), the department shall determine if an alternative mercury effluent limitation is justified based on information submitted by the permittee in an alternative mercury effluent limitation applica-tion.
(b) The department may notfestablish an alternative mercury effluent limitation fora new discharge to waters in the Great Lakes system, as defined in s. NR 102.12 (I),unless the proposed dis-charge is necessary to alleviate an imminent and substantial dan-ger to the public health or welfare. For the purposes of this section, a new discharger is any building, structure, facility or installation from which there is or may be a discharge of pollutants, as defined in s. NR 200.02 (4), the construction of which commenced after November 1, 2002. An existing discharger that relocates its out-fall after November 1, 2002 may not be considered a new dis-charger for purposes of this paragraph. Relocation includes the diversion of a discharge from a land treatment system or systems to a surface water.
(c) The term of an alternative mercury effluent limitation may not extend beyond the term of the permit.
(d) An alternative mercury effluent limitation may be renewed using the procedures and requirements in subs. (5) to (8). An alter-native mercury effluent limitation may not be renewed if the per-mittee did not substantially comply with all of the mercury-regu-lation conditions of the previous permit.
(5) CALCULATION OF AN ALTERNATIVE MERCURY EFFLUENT LIM-ITATION. (a) An alternative mercury effluent limitation shall equal the upper 99th percentile of representative daily discharge con-centrations as calculated under s. NR 106.05 (4) (a), except as pro-vided in par. (c).
(b)
The alternative mercury effluent limitation shall be expressed as a daily maximum concentration.
(c) An alternative mercury effluent limitation may not be greater than the alternative mercury effluent limitation contained in the previous permit, unless the permittee demonstrates that the previous alternative mercury effluent limitation was based on monitoring that did not represent actual discharge concentrations.
(6) DEPARTMENT ACTION ON ALTERNATIVE MERCURY EFFLUENT uLMITATION APPLICATIONS. (a) The department shall establish an alternative mercury effluent limitation for a discharger when all of the following have been met:
- 1. The information provided in the alternative mercury efflu-ent limitation application described in sub. (8) supports establish-ing the alternative mercury effluent limitation.
- 2. The permittee and the department agree upon the altema-tive mercury effluent limitation and the specific permit language requiring implementation of the pollution minimization program described in sub. (7).
(b) If the information provided in the alternative mercury effluent limitation application does not support establishing an alternative mercury effluent limitation or if the department and the permittee cannot agree on the alternative mercury effluent limita-tion and the specific permit language incorporating the pollutant minimization program, the department shall include the water quality based effluent limitation or limitations in the permit. This paragraph does not prohibit the department from seeking and the applicant providing supplemental information after the initial application is submitted.
(c) If the department grants an alternative mercury effluent limitation. the permit shall require monitoring subject to the data quality requirements of subs. (9) and (10), at the following loca-tions:
- 1. Effluent for both municipal and industrial discharges.
- 2. Influent and sludge or biosolids for major and minor municipal discharges.
(7) POLLUTANT MINIMIZATION PROGRAMS.. (a). If the depart-ment grants an alternative mercury effluent limitation under sub.
(6), the reissued permit shall require the permittee to implement a pollutant minimization program as defined in s. NR 106.04 (5) and detailed for mercury in this subsection.
(b) If the reissued permit requires monthly data generation under sub. (3) (a) 1. or 4., the permit shall contain a special condi-tion that triggers a pollutant minimization program if the first 24 months of data demonstrate that a limit will be necessary under sub. (2). The permit shall also require that the permittee do all of the following:
- 1. Submit to the department within 36 months of permit reis-suance a pollutant minimization program plan meeting the requirements specified in this subsection.
- 2. Implement the pollutant minimization program following submittal of the plan.
- 3. Submit the first annual status report required in par. (g) within 48 months of permit reissuance.
(c) For municipal permittees, a pollutant minimization pro-gram shall consist of all of the following elements:
- 1. Source identification.
- 2. Activities to help educate the general public, health profes-sionals, school teachers, laboratory personnel or other profession-als about ways to reduce use of mercury-containing products, recycle mercury-containing products and prevent spills.
- 3. A program for collecting mercury from the permittee's sewer system users. This program may be independently operated by the permittee, jointly by the permittee and others or by another governmental unit.
Register. October. 2002. No. 562
I 62-5 DEPARTMENT OFcI4ATURAL RESOURCES Unofficial Text (See Printed Volume). Curren' through date and Register shown on Title Page.
NR 106.145 IV
- 4. Other activities that the department, in consultation with the permittee, deems appropriate for the individual permittee's circumstances.
(d) For industrial permittees, a pollutant minimization pro-gram may consist of any of the following elements:
- 1. Source identification and inventory.
- 2. Improvement of operational, maintenance or management practices.
- 3. Substitution of raw materials or chemical additives with low-mercury alternatives.
- 4. Institution of alternative processes.
(e) In assessing the appropriate elements for a pollutant mini-mization program, the department may consider any of the fol-lowing:
- 1. The type of discharger.
- 2. The operations that generate the wastewater.
- 3. The level of mercury in the effluent, influent and biosolids or sludge.
- 4. The costs of potential source reduction measures.
- 5. The environmental costs and benefits of the pollutant mini-mization program elements.
- 6. The characteristics of the community in which the dis-charger is located.
- 7. The opportunities for material substitution.
- 8. The opportunities available for support from or coopera-tion with other organizations.
- 9. The actions the discharger has taken in the past to reduce mercury use or discharges.
- 10. Any other relevant information.
(f) The pollutant minimization program plan shall include all of the following:
- 1. Identify specific activities to be undertaken and a relative timeline to implement those activities.
- 2. State which, if any, activities have already been imple-mented and how effective they were in reducing potential and actual mercury discharges.
- 3. Commit the permittee to document how the pollutant mini-mization program plan was implemented including measures such as the number of contacts of various types made, programs implemented and other activities.
- 4. Provide for steps to measure the effectiveness of the pollu-tion minimization program elements in reducing potential and actual mercury discharges. Where the permittee regularly moni-tors influent, effluent, sludge or biosolids for mercury, measures shall include any changes in mercury concentrations over compa-rable historic data. Where practicable, other measures or esti-mates of mercury reductions from programs such as mercury recycling, collection or disposal may also be included.
(g) Within 12 months of the beginning of implementation of the pollutant minimization program and annually thereafter, the permittee shall report to the department on the progress of the pol-lutant minimization program as required in s. NR 106.04 (5). This annual report shall include all of the following:
- 1. An evaluation of the effectiveness of the program in accor-dance with the plan..
- 2. Identification of barriers that have limited program effec-tiveness and adjustments to the program that will be implemented during the next year to help address these barriers.
(h) Permittees may collaborate with one another or other par-ties to plan and implement a pollutant minimization program.
Note: Permittees that do not prepare or effectively implement a pollutant mini.
mization program are subject to regulatory requirements for mercury, without alter.
native mercury emuent limitations to water quality standards For municipal permit.
tees this may mean development and enforcement of mercury discharge standards for users of the public sewerage system pursuant to s. NR 211.10 (3). For users ofthe municipal sewerage system this may mean changes in processes installation of treat-ment technology, or other means to comply with the municipal mercury discharge standards pursuant to s.NR211.10 (I). Implementationof the municipal mercury discharge standards may require a program of user discharge permits and wastewater discharge monitoring.
(8) ALTERNATIVE MERCURY EFFLUENT LIINTATION APPUCA-TIONS. (a) To apply for an alternative mercury effluent limitation under this section, a permittee shall do all of the following:
- 1. Submit an alternative mercury effluent limitation applica-tion at the same time as the application for permit reissuance fol-lowing data generation.
- 2. State the basis for concluding that wastewater treatment technology for mercury is impractical.
- 3. Supply representative effluent monitoring results of suffi-cient number and analytical sensitivity to quantify with reason-able certainty the concentration and mais of mercury discharged.
Representative sample results shall meet all of the following requirements:
- a. Be of sufficient quantity to allow calculation of the upper 9 9th percentile values pursuant to s. NR 106.05 (5).
- b. Reasonably represent current conditions.
- c. Meet the data quality requirements of subs. (9) and (10).
- d. Represent a time period of at least 2 years.
- 4. Submit a pollution minimization program plan described in sub. (7) (f).
(b) A permittee applying for renewal of an alternative mercury effluent limitation previously granted shall follow the procedures in par. (a) except for all of the following:
- 1. The permittee shall submit information indicating whether the permittee substantially complied with mercury regulation conditions of the existing permit. *
- 2. A new pollutant minimization prdgram plan shall re-evalu-ate the plan required under the previous permit.
(9) SAMPLiNO REQUIRPEMENTS. (a) :Safnfile types may be grab or 24-hour composite. "Grab sample" and "24-hour composite sample" have the meanings specified in s. NR 218.04.
(b) Sample collection methods shall be consistent with EPA Method 1669: Saumpling Ambient Waterfor Trace Metals t EPA Water Quality Criteria Levels; EPA-221--R-96-01 1.
Note: This method provides flexible procedures for collecting samples under clean conditions. Sasrtple collection personnel may modify this procedure or elimi-nate steps if the modification does not lead to unacceptable contmination of the sam-plea. This method may be accessed on the department's website at bttp:I/www.dnrstate.wi.ustorg6wstermtwwhnercury/1669.pdf.
(c) Requirements for field blanks ari as follows. A field blank means an aliquot of mercury-free reagent water that is placed in a sample container, shipped to the field and treated as a sample in all respects, including contact with the sampling devices and exposure to sampling site cotiditions, filtration, storage, preserva-ton, and all analytical procedures. The purpose of the field blank is to determine whether the field or sample transporting proce-dures and environments have contaminated the satnple:
- 1. At least one field blank shall be collected at each site for each day a sample is collected. If more than one sample is col-lected in a day, at least one field blank for each 10 samples col-lected on that day shall be collected.
- 2. If mercury or any potentially interfering substance is found in the field blank at a concentration equal to or greater than 05 ng/
L, the limit of detection or oiie-fifth the level in the associated sample, whichever is greater, results for associated samples may not be used for regulatory compliance purposes unless the condi-tions in subd. 3. are met.
- 3. If at least 3 field blanks are collected on a day when samples are collected and the average mercury concentration of the field blanks plus 2 standard deviations is less than or equal to one-half of the level in the associated sample or less than the lowest water quality criterion for mercury found in ch. NR 105, whichever is greater, results may be used.
Register, October. 2002, No. 562
NR 106.145 WISCONSIN ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 62-6 Unofficial Text (See Printed Volume). Current through date and Register shown on Title Page.
Note: As of November 1, 2002 the lowest water quality criterion listed in ch. NR 105 is 13t ngL
- 4. Once a permittee demonstrates the ability to collect sam-ples from a given site using an established procedure that meets the use-criteria of subd. 2., the permittee may decrease the num-ber of field blanks to no fewer than one field blank for each 4 sam-pling days.
- a. The initial demonstration shall consist of at least 6 consecu-tive sampling days.
- b. If the permittee makes significant changes to the sampling procedure or sampling personnel, the 6-day demonstration shall be repeated.
- c. If after reducing the field blank frequency, a field blank fails to meet the use-criteria, the permittee shall take corrective action and return to collecting field blanks on each sampling day until it can meet the use-criteria for at least 3 consecutive sam-pling days.
- d. In no case may the permittee decrease field blanks to fewer than one for each 10 samples.
- 5. The permittee shall report, but may not subtract, field blank concentrations when reporting sample results.
Note:
BWhen using the data, the department may subeat field blanks from sample concentrations on a case-by-case basis.
(10) LABORATORY ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTs. (a) In this sub-section, "method blank", "matrix spike" and "limit of detection" have the meanings specified in s. NR 149.03.
(b) The analytical method used shall be sensitive enough to quantify mercury concentrations in the sample or mercury con-centrations down to the lowest water quality criterion found in ch.
NR 105, whichever is greater.
(c) The department may exempt a permittee from the sensitiv-ity requirement in par. (b) if the permittee can demonstrate to the department's satisfaction that the specific effluent matrix does not allow this level of sensitivity using the most sensitive approved method with all reasonable precautions.
(d) The laboratory performing the analyses shall be certified under ch. NR 149 for low-level mercury analyses. Until low-level mercury certification is available, the lab shall be certified under ch. NR 149 for mercury and recognized by the department as having demonstrated its low-level mercury capabilities under the emerging technology provision contained in s. NR 149.12 (2).
(e) Method blanks analyzed concurrently with samples shall be reported with sample results. Method blanks may be subtracted from sample results unless concentrations of mercury in the method blank exceed the laboratory's limit of detection, 0.5 ng/L or 5% of the sample concentration, whichever is greater.
(f) Matrix spikes analyzed concurrently with samples shall have recoveries between 71 and 125 percent.
(11) DATA REJECTION. The department may reject any sample results if data quality requirements specified in subs. (9) and (10) are not met or if results are produced by a laboratory that is not in compliance with certification requirements specified in ch. NR 149.
(12) APPLICABILITY OF THE VARIANCE PROCESS UNDER S. 283.15.
STATS. If a water quality based effluent limitation is included in a permit under sub. (6) (b), a permittee may apply to the depart-ment for a variance from the water quality standard used to derive the limitation following the procedure specified in s. 283.15, Stats. Where a permittee has been granted an alternative mercury effluent limitation under this section, the procedures of s. 283.15, Stats., are not applicable.
History: CR 02-019: cr. Register October 2002 No. 562, eff. 11-1-02.
NR 106.15 Limitations for mercury. Regardless ofthe effluent limitations determined under this chapter, the discharge of organic mercury compounds, inorganic mercury compounds, and metallic mercury shall not exceed the requirements in s.
281.17 (7), Stats., and ch. NR 100.
History: Cr. Register. February, 1989, No. 398, eff. 3-1-89.
NR 106.16 Additivity of dioxins and furans. The 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalence concentration in effluent shall be used when developing waste load allocations and for pur-poses of establishing water quality based effluent limits.
(1) For the chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs) listed in Tables 7, 8 and 9 in ch. NR 105, the potential adverse additive effects of all dioxin (CDD) and chlorinated dibenzofuran (CDF) congeners in effluents shall be accounted for as specified in this section.
(2) The Toxicity Equivalency Factors (TEFs) in Table I and Bioaccumulation Equivalency Factors (BEFs) in Table 2 shall be used when calculating a 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalence con-centration in effluent to be used when implementing both human health noncancer and cancer criteria. The chemical concentration of each CDD and CDF in effluent shall be converted to a 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalence concentration in effluent by using the following equation:
(TEC)tcdd - v (C)X (TEF)x (BEF)x where:
(TEC)trdd -,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalence
- concentration in effluent (C)x - concentration of total chemical x in effluent (TEF)X = TCDD toxicity equivalency factor for x from table I (BEF)x - TCDD bioaccumulation equivalency factor for x from table 2 Table 1 Toxicity Equivalency Factors for CDDS and CDFs Congener 1EE 2,3,7,8-TCDD..................
1.0 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD................
0.5 1,2,3,4,7,8-RxCDD..............
0.1 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD..............
0.1 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD..............
0.1 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD........
0.01 OCDD.......................
0.001 2,3,7,8-TCDF..................
0.1 I,2,3,7,8-PeCDF................
0.05 2,3,4,7,8-PcCDF................
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF..............
I,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF..............
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF..............
I,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF..............
I,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF.............
0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.01 I,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF..............
0.01 OCDF..............
0.001 Register. October. 2002, No. 562