ML053460255

Request for Minor Revision Due to Minor Modification of Facility Discharge of Dewatering Effluent Resulting from Dry Cask Storage Pad Construction

ML053460255
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	11/30/2005
From:	Jefferson W Florida Atlantic Univ
To:	Hubbard A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, State of FL, Dept of Environmental Protection
References
Download: ML053460255 (89)

Text

-

i I

Florida Power & Light Company. 6501 S. Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, FL 34957 FPL November 30, 2005 Allen Hubbard, P.E.

Industrial Wastewater Section Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 RE:

FPL - St. Lucie Plant State IWW Permit # FL0002208 Request for Minor Revision Due to Minor Modification of Facility Discharge of Dewatering Effluent Resulting From Dry Cask Storage Pad Construction

Dear Mr. Hubbard:

Attached please find the following items to support the request for a minor revision to the Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) St. Lucie Plant State IWW Permit Number FL0002208:

1)

Four signed, sealed copies of DEP Form 62-620.910(9) "Application for a Minor Revision to a Wastewater Facility or Activity Permit" including Attachment 1 -

Description of Proposed Minor Plant Modification Necessitating Minor Permit Revision with Figures and Appendices.

2)

An FPL check (check no. 0938588) payable to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for the $250 application fee.

If you have any questions or need additional information on this matter, please contact Ron Hix at (561) 691-7641.

Sincerely, 1 iam rson, Vice President - St. Lucie Plant Enclosures Vpps1038 cc:

L'-USNRC Document Control Desk FDEP Tallahassee - Donnie McClougherty CCa FDEP - SE District - Tim Powell FDEP - SE District - Paul Wierzbicki an FPL Group company

1APPLICATION FOR A MINOR REVISION TO A WASTEWATER FACILITY OR ACTIVITY DPERMIT

1. Instructions

a. In accordance with Rule 62-620.325, F.A.C., this form must be submitted to the appropriate Department district office or approved local program when requests for minor revisions to a permit or minor modifications to a facility are made by a permittee, except for transfer of a permit to a new permittee and addition of a major user of reclaimed water to a Part III reuse system. Application for transfer of a permit to a new permittee shall be made on DEP Form 62-620.910(11). Application for addition of a major user of reclaimed water shall be made on DEP Form 62-610.300(4)(a)1.

b. Each applicable item must be completed in full in order to avoid delay in processing of this form. Where attached sheets or other technical documentation are provided, indicate appropriate cross-references.

c. Three (3) copies of this application with supporting documentation shall be submitted with this form.

d. All information is to be typed or printed in ink. Dates are to be entered in MM/DD/YR format.

e. This application and attachments shall be signed in accordance with Rule 62-620.305, F.A.C. Also, as applicable, this application and all attachments shall be signed and sealed by a professional engineer registered in Florida in accordance with Rule 62-620.310, F.A.C.

2. Facility Information

a. Permit Number:

FL0002208

b. Facility Identification Number:

FL0002208

c. Project/Facility Name:

FPL St. Lucie Steam Electric Power Plant

d. Contact Name:

Ron Hix Number and Street:

700 Universe Boulevard City/State/Zip Code:

Juno Beach, Florida 34997 Telephone (561) 691-7641

3. Type of Revision E Correct Typographical Errors' - Submit one copy of each page of the permit showing revisions being requested.

E Change Improvement Schedule' - Provide a description of the improvement, a list of the dates to be revised, and a reason for the proposed change in each date.

E Change Expiration Date of Permit' - Provide the current and proposed expiration dates for the permit and the reasons for the proposed change.

E Change Staffing Requirements2 - Describe the proposed change and submit justification for the change in accordance with Chapter 62-699, F.A.C.

IA processing fee is not required.

I DEP Form 62-620.910X9) 2A processing tee is required with the application Effmctivc October 23, 200)0 in accordance with RuLn 624.050. FAc.

n Change Monitoring and Reporting Requirements2 - Describe the proposed change and submit justification for the change in accordance with Chapter 62-601, F.A.C.

E Modify Approved Pretreatment Program' - Describe the proposed modification and provide the information required by Rule 62-625.540, F.A.C.

E Delete Point Source Outfallt - Identify the outfall and explain why the outfall is being eliminated.

E Modify or Expand Approved Residuals Land Application Sites2 - Attach a new or updated Agricultural Use or Dedicated Site Plan as required by Chapter 62-640, F.A.C.

Z Minor Modification to the Facility2 - Provide a description of the proposed modification. If applicable, attach any reports, plans, and specifications which have been developed to implement this modification.

E Other2 - Provide appropriate documentation. Describe.

4. Certifications

a. Applicant or Authorized Representative I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this application and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of persons immediately responsible for obtaining the information contained in the application, I believe that the information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are sig at penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine andji onment

]

11/30/2005 (Date)

Name (please type)

William Jeffereson, Jr.

Title Vice President, St. Lucie Plant Phone:

772-467-7100 Company Name FPL Company Address:

6451 S Ocean Drive City/State/Zip Code:

Jensen Beach, Florida 34957

b. Professional Engineer Registered in Florida I certify that the engineering features of this project have been (4oigPe)

(i) by me and found to conform to engineering principles applicable to such projects. In my professional judgement, this facility, when properly constructed, operated, and maintained, will comply with all applicable statutes of the State of Florida and rules of the Department.

Name (please type):

Carl F. St.Cin Florida Registration Number:

28556 Company Name:

Tetra Tech EC, Inc.

Company Address:

759 S. Federal Highway, Suite 100 City/State/Zip Code:

Stuart, Florida 34994 Phone Number:

(772) 781-3412

'If signed by the authorized repnrsenalive.

2 attach a letter of authorization in accordance Rub 62-620.305. I.AC.

II /3o

/oS (Seal, Signature, Date, and Registration Number)

S 7

'W DEl Otorrn 62-620.910X9) r~rtt!,t~-

It' Efixctiwe~thr32t)

Description of Proposed Minor Plant Modification Necessitating Minor Permit Revision Description of Dry Cask Storage:

The Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) St. Lucie Nuclear Plant is located on Hutchinson Island, between Jensen Beach and Ft. Pierce, Florida (see Figure 1). Unit 1 has been in service since 1976, with Unit 2 commencing operation in 1983.

FPL is engaging in a project to construct a dry storage facility to store some of its used nuclear fuel. The facility, also known as an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), is licensed and approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The St. Lucie ISFSI is needed because the current spent fuel pool storage facilities for St. Lucie Unit No. I will have reached maximum storage capacity in 2008. In an ISFSI, used fuel is placed into controlled environment, completely sealed, metal containers which are then loaded into 3-foot thick reinforced concrete storage units, known as storage casks. ISFSIs are currently licensed and operated at 25 nuclear plants around the country.

The St. Lucie Plant ISFSI will be comprised of a 450 foot square area located on the southern corner of the plant site (see Figure 2 for location). The construction of the "floor" for the ISFSI, a specially engineered concrete pad, is also strictly regulated by the NRC.

Reason for the Minor Plant Modification:

In order to ensure proper construction of the ISFSI and meet NRC requirements, the soil under the pad must be "improved". The existing soil will be excavated to a depth of approximately 18 feet and improved soil placed back into the excavated area. "Engineered" fill will then be added to achieve an elevation of 3-8 feet above current grade. In order to conduct the required excavation, the site must be dewatered. To conduct the dewatering; approximately 30 wells will be placed to a depth of approximately 40 feet. It is expected that, worst case (the final design has not yet been completed), the maximum initial dewatering flow will be approximately 4,500 gallons per minute (gpm), which, after reaching steady state within about two weeks, will be reduced to approximately 1,500 gpm for the duration of the dewatering (approximately 90-120 days). FPL is exploring the feasibility of various methods, such as using sheet piling on several, or all, of the sides of the dewatering area, to reduce the rate of dewatering. This dewatering effluent will be discharged to the plant's intake canal. The flow in the intake canal is approximately 1,000,000 gpm with both units operating and approximately 500,000 gpm with one unit operating.

The effluent from dewatering will combine with the high volume of intake water, be routed through the plant to the plant's discharge canal, and then finally to the Atlantic Ocean..doc Page 1 FPL St. Lucie ISFSI

Figure 3 shows the "worst case" Zone of Influence for the dewatering effort (see Appendix A, GZA Report, for specific information on the modeling used to obtain this information). Due to the close proximity of the intake canal, it is expected that, at steady state, approximately 70%

of the dewatering effluent will actually be intake (Atlantic Ocean) water.

In addition, in the groundwater on the north side of the proposed site for the ISFSI, there exists a "mixed plume" of petroleum and chlorinated solvents (see Figure 4). Management of this mixed plume has been addressed in a 1999 Consent Order with the Waste Clean-up Section of the Southeast District DEP. At the present time, the remaining contaminant of concern is vinyl chloride. Recent sampling (June 2005) has indicated that Monitoring Wells 8 and 9 contain less than 1.0 [tg/L of vinyl chloride, while Well 7a contained 1.2 pg/L of vinyl chloride and Well 12, 10 jigAL. FPL has evaluated various methods for ensuring that this mixed plume will not be significantly moved by and, therefore, impact the dewatering process. A Pump & Treat (P&T) approach will be employed to maintain the natural gradient of the plume and to intercept migrating VOCs for recovery followed by conventional treatment using air stripping.

From 1 to 3 plume control wells will be placed on the north side of the project. These wells will be pumped at a combined rate of approximately 25 to200 gpm. This recovered, treated groundwater effluent will be sent to one of the on-site industrial wastewater treatment ponds and may eventually need to be discharged to the intake canal via existing outfall 1-008.

Please note that measures associated with control of the mixed plume will be conducted under an Interim Remedial Action Plan that was submitted to the FDEP Southeast District, Waste Clean-up Section, on November 21, 2005.

Characterization of the Dewatering Effluent:

As estimated in the GZA Report, at least 70% of the total dewatering effluent is seepage drawn from the nearby Intake Canal by steep flow gradients that will be induced. For purposes of this analysis, the amount and constituent concentrations of dewatering effluent pumped to the Intake Canal that is assumed to be from Intake Canal seepage is not included as "new input" to the Intake Canal. Stated another way, this simplifying assumption says that Intake Canal water is drawn from the Canal into the dewatering wells and then returned to the Canal as dewatering pump effluent, without attenuation of the Intake Canal constituent concentrations. This is a conservative assumption that allows for a simplified analysis of impact to the Outfall D-001 Point of Discharge (POD).

In order to characterize the quality of the native groundwater component (approximately 30 percent of the total dewatering effluent, as estimated in the GZA Report) of the dewatering effluent, FPL used a direct push groundwater sampling technique ("Geo-probe") to collect representative samples from the area on which the ISFSI will be located.

Samples were collected at depths of 25, 50 and 75 feet. Appendix B contains analytical results from these samples reported on Form 2CS.

The values entered on Form 2CS represent the native groundwater component of the dewatering effluent, and are the maximum values from respective samples taken at the 3 depths. Further, the transient flow rate of 4,500 gpm is used as the basis for calculating the estimated concentration impacts at the Outfall D-00 I POD..doc Page 2 FPL St. Lucie ISFSI

Characterization of Mixed Plume "Pump and Treat" Effluent:

To characterize the quality of the mixed plume P&T effluent, FPL used the same samples described above, but used the higher of the values from the 25 and 50 foot samples for reporting on Form 2CS. Appendix C contains these results. These constituent concentrations are applied to 100 percent of the groundwater recovered by the plume control wells. For conservatism, it is assumed that the P&T system does not attenuate any constituent concentrations in the recovered groundwater. For additional conservatism, FPL assumes that the intermittent pumping rate of 1,900 gpm currently permitted at outfall I-008 be applied to the P&T effluent for estimating the short-term worst case concentration impacts at Outfall D-001 POD.

Proiected Water Quality Impacts at Outfall D-00 1 POD:

Details of the approach and methodology for obtaining the following conclusions are found in Appendix D. Evaluation of this data indicates that dewatering effluent and P&T effluent, combined with other concurrent discharges to the intake and discharge canal, will at all times meet all applicable water quality standards for Class III marine waters at the plant's POD, located at the end of the discharge canal.

Chemicals to Be Used in the Pump and Treat System:

Due to the high "salt" (i.e., calcium and magnesium hardness, and iron) content of the groundwater on the site and the potential for the growth of iron reducing bacteria, several water treatment chemicals may be used to prevent the air strippers from scaling and fouling.

The chemicals proposed to be used are:

Redux 380 - A blended deposit (scaling) control agent The P&T equipment vendor has proposed feeding Redux 380 at a rate of 35 mg/I. If the flow rate is 25 gpm, 1.15 gallons per day (gpd) at a rate of 0.048 gallons per hour (gph) is recommended.

If the system flow rate is 200 gpm, 9.2 gpd at a rate of 0.38 gph is recommended.

Redux B a gluteraldehyde-based water treatment microbiocide Based on the use of the Redux 380, the equipment vendor does not anticipate having to use a biocide and would only do so if needed. However, if required, B-15 would be fed at a rate of 17 to 40 fluid ounces of product per 1,000 gallons of water one (1) out of every seven (7) days, should slime growth appear. Because the half-life of B-15 is measured in hours, and aqueous hydrolysis of the chemical yields a simple dimmer that is non-biocidal and relatively non-toxic to aquatic organisms, no adverse impact is expected at the POD..doc Page 3 FPL St. Lucie ISFSI

This is particularly true as the time frame for the P&T effluent to get from the south basin, to the southeast basin and finally from 1-008 to the discharge canal would be days, rather than hours.

Since the discharge of the P&T effluent is scheduled to coincide with the spring, plant refueling outage, FPL proposes that the potential effect of these chemicals in the effluent be evaluated as part of the toxicity testing already required in the most recent St. Lucie Plant State IWW permit.

Appendices E and F respectively contain the product description, MSDSs and toxicological information for these two chemicals..doc Page 4 FPL St. Lucie ISFSI

O2tl-GUA GaEmrcnnienalr.

hc.

NOTES:

1. BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM TOPOGRAPHIC MAP PREPARED BY USGS ENTITLED ANKONIA QUADRANGLE MAP.

LEGEND CONSTANT HEAD BOUNDARY GENERAL HEAD BOUNDARY HORIZONTAL FLOW BOUNDARY DEWATERING WELL

_ft 00 1

x 4 '

PSL ISFSI

• SOUTH 40 REV. NO.

DESCRITON DATE HUTCHINSON ISLAND, FLORIDA PROJ GR DS DRWN B:

MJI HUTCHINSONcISLANDFLORIDA SCALE DESIGNED BY:

APPROVED BY:

REVISED BY:

DAlE:

10-25-05 MODEL BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 0

1 000FT, Q )

l GZA eorefa l4Inc.

=0~

GeolEnvironmnento I Inc.

X:\\MODEFILE\\PortStLucic\\reports\\FIGURE_I.dwg. Layoutl, 10/26/2005 1:02:20 PM, mjg, Acrobat PDFWritcr, 1:1

LII NOTES:

(

1.

BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY ENERCON ENTITLED 'ISFSI SECURITY STUDY. SINGLE E/WPAD/HAUL PATH-. DATED 02/05, DRAWING NO.

S5107-SKO6.

KI If~(

0.:,

ING.

I a

i ozI(

ion I

D-

• "N..

..I LIZIZ

... I....

r___l - - - - - - - -

-. INTAKE CANAL '

020 -

GZA ftu~rwironmentd, Inc.

/N i

/0-ES:

Iif J,1.

BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM MAP PROVIDED BY PSL. PREPARED BY FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT, ENTITLED i-SITE DESCRIPTION MAP, AND DATED

/

9/9/04.

ORIGINAL SCALE WAS NOT RECORDED. DRAWING NO.

PSL-SD-MAP.

-2.

GROUNDWATER CONTOURS ARE

,.BASED ON MODELED RESULTS AND

,AND MAY NOT REFLECT ACTUAL

'SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.

LEGEND

,.WATE NG WELLS

\\

\\

/

t

>t7z1f X;z

>\\

\\

\\

\\

\\\\

/GROUNDWATER CONTOURS (0.5 FOOT INTERVAL)

Y'.

PSL ISrSI I

ESOUTH 40' REV. NO.

DL0CRIP1DON BY DATE

-oHUTCHINSON ISLAND, FLORIDA PRO MGR: DS DRAwN oY:

MJG SCALE DESIGNED UT:

APPROVED BY:

MODELED GROUNDWATER CONTOURS REVISED EY:

DATE:

10-25-05 P

NO SHEETING WITH DEWATERING 0

200FT.

I GZA MCIGAN 48150 AND REMEDIATION WELLS Gaix GeoEnvironmenial, Inc.

X:\\MODEFILE\\PortStLucic\\rcport.\\figurc_3.dwg, Layout, I 10/26/2005 8:45:18 AM, mjg, Acrobat PDFWiitcr, 1:1

LEGEND

+

Nti

-c MLL D(WliCBN IILL (DW) o KUIMc CDRL WELL (PM NOTES

1. THh t)RAlNG WAS NOT SURVEYED BY PROFUSIONA LAND S1WrTYRS.

LOCATIONS OF ITEUG ARE CONWtR TOD BE APPROXIAILA

2.

LOCATION O IASINGS, LAND FENAIRES AMD PROPOSED ISI CONSTRCTION DEWATERING AREA RFERNCED TO C2A GEo n

-tl.

hc. PROXCT 4330I.ID.

IURE S AS ATTACHED TO THE AOOEINC FVOT (APPENDIX C OF PAP). MSM CONSRUCTION DEWATERNG AREA LOCATION S4OWN IS BASED ADtIONALLY ON FFL DIRECTION.

1 PCW-1/2/3 LOCATIDNS ARE APPROXILATE.

FINAL LOCATION AND NWMBER OF PC WELLS TO BE DETEIMNED BASED ON FINAl DMEATENG CONSTRUCTION NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ISSUED FOR REGULATORY AGENCY REVIEW 0

50 100 200 Graphic Scale in Feet (Apprax)

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SITE LAYOUT (WITH PLUME)

RI TETRA TECH EC, INC.

SCALE AS SHOWN I PREPARED HB

[

CADSLE NO.

APPROVED CFS FIGURE No.

DATE: 11/22/05 APRVE F

1

APPENDIX A GZA Groundwater Modeling Report for the ISFSI Project.doc FPL St. Lucie ISFSI

GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.

November 14, 2005 File No. 43301.10 Ekinm and Sanristr 140 Broadway Providence Rhode Island 02903 40I-421-4I40 Fax: 401-751-8613 www.gza.com Mr. Ron Miranda Enercon Services, Inc.

400 Valley Road Mount Arlington, New Jersey 07856 Re:

Groundwater Dewatering Analysis Proposed ISFSI Construction St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant-

Dear Mr. Miranda:

GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. (GZA) completed an evaluation of dewatering requirements for earthwork construction for the proposed Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant.

These services were performed for Enercon Services, Inc. in general accordance with our agreement dated October 25, 2005.

PURPOSE The purpose of our services was twofold:

(1) to develop estimates of the dewatering requirements for the proposed ISFSI construction; and (2) to identify ways to manage the.

volatile organic compound (VOC) groundwater contaminant plume located immediately north of the ISFSI, during construction.

The results of our work are to be used in developing construction specifications and as an aid in obtaining necessary permits.

This report is subject to the limitations presented in Appendix A.

BACKGROUND The ISFSI is proposed to be located to the south of the existing Protected Area, within an area referred to as the "South 40". Figure 1 presents a Site Locus. Figure 2 indicates the approximate project location. While the ISFSI design is on going, current development features are:

Two pads, oriented as shown on Figure 2;

• The dimensions of each pad are approximately 275 feet (length) by 100 feet (width);

• The pads will be constructed as reinforced concrete mats ranging from about 28 to 36 inches in thickness;

• Approximately 40-foot wide aprons will be located between the pads, as well as abutting their north, east and west sides. The surface construction of the aprons (i.e., concrete or gravel) has not been determined at this time; An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/V/H

Enercon Services, Inc.

-File No. 43301. 10 November 14, 2005 Pace 2

%'Z,

• The developed area of the ISFSI Pads and Aprons (including adjacent security and nuisance fences) will be about 202,500 square feet (about 5.0 acres); and;

• Finish grade of the top of the pad will be approximately Elevation 18 Mean Low Water (MLW)'.

We completed a geotechnical study for the design of the ISFSI. This study included the performance of subsurface explorations (including test borings, cone penetrometer explorations and soil sampling). Details of this study are presented in the draft report entitled "Draft Report - Geotechnical Site Investigation and Evaluation, Proposed ISFSI Pad-"South 40" Site, St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Hutchinson Island, Florida", draft dated September 2005.

This study identified the presence of organic soils that, due to their compressibility, are unsuited for support of the ISFSI pad.

Over-excavation of the organic deposits and replacement with a granular structural fill was recommended. This method would involve excavating the soils to depths ranging from about 12 feet to 25 feet below existing grade (average depth of about 16 feet) to remove the upper compressible clay, peat and organic silt soils and replace them, in the dry, with compacted Structural Fill. This will require excavation below the water table.

The excavation will include the following:

1. Install sheet piling for temporary earth support to protect existing structures and

-limit the lateral extent of the excavation, and as required to provide hydraulic control;

2. Dewater the excavation;

3. Excavate the soil with a large hydraulic excavators, bulldozers and front-end loaders.

4. Approximately 60,000 cubic yards of earth will be excavated or placed below the water table. Assuming 1,000 cubic yards of earthwork per day and a five day work week, on the order of 90 days of dewatering will be required.

5. The total volume of material to be placed is approximately 90,000 cubic yards; A similar construction approach was utilized for the existing plant construction.

Information presented in the updated Final Safety Analysis Report (uFSAR) and substantiated through recent conversations with the dewatering contractor for the original plant construction, indicates that dewatering for the original construction included 90 to 100 wells, installed to depths of about 100 feet. The wells were constructed on 50-foot spacing and maintained the water table at about elevation -40. Total dewatering flows were about 8,000 gallons per minute (GPM). The dewatering contractor also reported that waters in portions of the aquifer had a low pH and were rich in iron.

' Per conversations with Florida Power and Light, the plant datum is Mean Low Water, referenced to the ocean. The conversion to MLW from NGVD 1929 is NGVD (ft) minus 1.56 feet.

Enercon Services, Inc.

November 14, 2005 File No. 43301.10 Page 3 A release of petroleum and chlorinated solvents was identified between 1985 and 1990 in an area located to the immediate north (up gradient) of the proposed ISFSI. Details of the release are presented elsewhere.

The area is currently being remediated by natural attenuation in accordance with a consent order. We understand the contaminant of concern is vinyl chloride (Vy). This contamination is shallow being found only in two water-table monitoring wells, with the highest observed concentration of VC being 10 ug/L. There-is no evidence of a release of DNAPLs.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS As described in the uFSAR, the St. Lucie area is underlain by the Anastasia geologic formation, locally an approximately 150 feet thick sequence of Pleistocene unconsolidated to partially cemented sands and sandy limestone2. Underlying the Anastasia formation is a thin sequence of shell marls and sands known as the Tamiarni formnation, which is in turn underlain by partially cemented and indurated sands, clays and sandy limestone of the Miocene Hawthorne Formation.

As identified during the geotechnical investigation, the proposed ISFSI pad area is underlain by about 6 to 10 feet of loose to dense sand fill (extending down to about El.4 to El - 0 MLW.), overlying naturally-deposited layers of clay, organic silt and peat (surficial, natural materials deposited in the former mangrove swamps). These deposits are underlain by loose sand with occasional, discontinuous lenses (up to 9 inches thick) of organic silt, extending to depths of about 12 to 25 feet (elevation -2 to -15 MLW). Below this depth, the subsurface profile observed in the explorations performed for this study was generally consistent with the conditions described in the uFSAR.

As presented in the uFSAR, the subsurface materials were separated into three zones: 1) an upper zone of 50 to 60 feet consisting principally of loose to medium dense sand; 2) an intermediate zone extending from 60 to 150 feet depth consisting of similar material as the*

upper zone, only in a more dense state and containing a greater percentage of fine-grained soil; and 3) a clayey, very dense lower zone.

The elevation of the base of the aquifer is at the top of, or within, the intermediate zone.

We have assumed the bottom of the aquifer is at elevation -135 MLW which should result in a conservative assumption of groundwater extraction rates. Note that, the purpose of this study, we have assumed that an over-estimation of extraction rates is conservative.

Figure 3 presents the location of GZA's subsurface explorations. Figures 4 through 6 present conceptual subsurface profile of the ISFSI area.

2 Reference is Chapter 2.5 of the updated Final Safety Analysis Report.

Enercon Services, Inc.

November 14, 2005 FileNo. 43301.10 Page 4 Groundwater investigations performed to evaluate the environmental release have measured groundwater elevations, flow direction and gradient in the site vicinity. In brief, these studies identified the following:

• The direction of groundwater flow is governed by local geohydrologic boundaries including the intake and discharge channels;

• The direction of groundwater flow in the vicinity of the contaminated ground and the proposed excavation is northeast to southwest; a The thickness of a fresh water lens in the area of the ISFIS is limited. For the limited purpose of this study, the thickness is of little interest other than to note that

.:--construction dewatering will include salt-water flow;-

Existing information on the hydraulic conductivity of the shallow soils indicates that the aquifer in non-homogeneous. Reported values range from less than one (1) foot per day (3.5E-4 cmlsec) to more than six hundred (600) feet per day (2E-1 cm/sec). Based primarily on reports of the dewatering system required to construct Unit Two, our current opinion is that the effective average hydraulic conductivity is about 40 feet per day (IE-2 cm/sec). This results in a transmissivity of on the order of 5,200 feet squared per day (39,000 gallons per day per foot). We note that pump test data was not available;

• Based on grain size and density we believe the effective porosity of the shallow soils is approximately 0.25.

GROUNDWATER MODEL DEVELOPMENT The groundwater model was developed to assess the effects of groundwater extraction during construction. Because of the close proximity of boundary conditions as described below, we believe it is inappropriate to say the model is calibrated. Because pump test data was not available, we were unable to test the model against stressed aquifer conditions. Consequently, the model is not verified.

However, because of the close proximity of strong geologic boundaries and the assumptions used to develop the model, it will likely over-estimate dewatering flow rates; and is consequently (for the purposes of this study) conservative. See Appendix B for a list of assumptions we used in developing the model.

We utilized the USGS modular three-dimensional finite difference groundwater flow model MODFLOW. MODPATH, a particle-tracking post-processing package was also used to compute three-dimensional flow paths using output from steady-state groundwater flow simulations by MODFLOW.

GMS v. 5.1, a graphical user environment for

Enercon Services, Inc.

November 14,2005 File No. 43301.10 Page 5 performing groundwater simulations, developed by the Environmental Modeling Research Laboratory of Brigham Young University, was used as a pre-processor and post-processor.

The model area and boundary conditions are shown on Figure 7. The total area modeled was approximately 1.3x107 square feet (ft2) or 300 acres. The model domain was divided into discrete 113 columns and 103 rows. The vertical and horizontal grid spacing was varied across the modeled domain such that grid spacing within the area of interest (dewatering area) was relatively small (10 feet by 10 feet) and grew to 100 feet by 100 feet near the model boundaries.

Four layers were incorporated into the model. Layer 1 was created at Elevations 10.0 feet MLW to -5.0 feet MLW, layer 2 was created at elevations -5.0 feet MLW to -10.0 feet MLW, layer 3 was created at elevations -10 feet MLW to -40 feet MLW, and layer 4 was created at elevations -40 feet MLW to -135 feet MLW. Layers 1, 3, and 4 were assumed to consist of sand and were assigned the same hydraulic properties (including a hydraulic conductivity of 40 ft/day and Specific Yield of 0.25). Layer 2 was comprised of silt, clay, and organic material and it was assumed that the hydraulic conductivity of this layer would be less than the others.

The hydraulic properties of Layer 2 included a hydraulic conductivity of 4.0 feet/day and Specific Yield of 0.1.

MODEL SIMULATIONS We used the model to simulate three flow patterns; (1) ambient, (2) dewatering without sheeting, and (3) dewatering with sheeting as a. partial. groundwater control measure.

Simulations two and three included additional groundwater extraction wells for the-purpose of management of the groundwater contaminant plume. The results are shown on Figures 8 through 13 and are discussed below.

Simulation 1 - Ambient Flow Figure 8 depicts the simulated water table under non-pumping conditions. The shape of the water table is in agreement with the existing conditions observed at the site.

The predominant direction of flow is from the discharge canal (at elevation 8.3 NGVD) to.

the intake canal (at elevation -4.8 NGVD).

The apparent groundwater sink shown in the southwest corner of Figure 8 is the result of recharge from the stormwater management pond in that area.

This is the superposition of a groundwater mound on a sloping water table. Because of the general shape of the simulated water table, it is our opinion that the simulation demonstrates that the model is an effective tool for its intended purpose.

Enercon Services, Inc.

November 14, 2005 File No. 43301.10 Page 6 Simulation 2 - Pumping Without Sheeting Simulation 2 evaluated the extraction of groundwater, without the use of sheeting for groundwater control purposes. This simulation indicates that at steady-state conditions, the extraction rate of approximately 1500 GPM, from 31 perimeter wells, will produce the draw-downs required for construction. Pumping rates at start-up will be larger; for planning purposes we have estimated that these initial flows could be as large as 4500 GPM.

Figure 9 depicts the simulated groundwater table contours for this condition. A comparison of this figure and figure 8 indicates that the general direction of groundwater flow in the vicinity of the plume is not altered by the construction dewatering (the plume is located up-gradient of the proposed excavation.)

Figure 10 depicts simulated draw-downs (i.e., it represents the amount that the simulated water table is lowered by construction dewatering). The model simulates draw-downs from 10 to 14.5 feet; where required draws vary from less than two feet to as much as 15 feet (averaging eight feet). This indicates that, while these estimated steady-state extraction rates are reasonable, the contractor will need to build flexibility into this system to meet the actual dewatering needs encountered during construction. Not all 31 wells will be installed before pumping commences, and the number, spacing, and depth of wells will be varied based on the observer aquifer response, and project needs.

flow This model simulation indicates that approximately 1,000 GPM or 70 percent of the flow being extracted will be flows from the intake canal. This indicates that the extracted, water will become saline, and that waters from the western side of the excavation may have less iron and be less corrosive than waters extracted from the eastern side.

Three additional extraction wells are located near the northeast corner of the excavation, for the purpose of managing the groundwater contaminant plume (specifically to intercept VOC contamination before it is pumped by the construction dewatering). The exact number and location of interceptor wells will need to be refined; however, the simulation suggests that pumping at the rate of 150 to 200 GPM may be required to intercept the low level of VOCs that would otherwise migrate towards the excavation.

Also, note it is possible that a single well located farther north in conjunction with groundwater recharge could also be used to hydrodynamically limit contaminated water migration. This would, however, require construction and operation of a system within the security area, and runs the risk that recharge could drive portions of that contamination deeper into the aquifer.

Enercon Services, Inc.

File No. 43301.10 November 14, 2005 Pae7 Simulation 3 - Pumping With Sheeting -

Simulation 3 is similar to Simulation 2, except in this case steel sheet-piling (or

+

-other comparable hydraulic barrier) is used to help control groundwater flows. Figures 11 and 12 depict the shape of the water table and the resulting draw-downs generated by simulating the extraction of 700 GPM from 29 extraction locations, situated inside a '60 foot deep no-flow boundary (sheeting).

The construction dewatering extraction nodes along the parameter are as described in the proceeding section. As noted, the actual well depth and spacing will be refined in

-the field during construction to meet project needs.

'b This simulation indicates there are at least four advantages to using sheeting:

.1. Required extraction rates are reduced by at least half.

Because' of our assumed aquifer' properties.(constant to elevation -135), we believe the actual flows would be less than 50 percent of flows extracted without

.sheeting;

2. Draw-downs and gradients away from the excavation are less than would be observed if sheeting were not used.

This retards the movement of contaminants and limits increases in effective soil stresses;

3. It significantly reduces the volume of groundwater that needs to be extracted to control the migration of the VOC contaminated groundwater.

-We simulated this control by using a single extraction location (outside the sheeting) and an extraction rate of 25 GPM. Using this approach we were concerned that pumping from within the excavation would induce flows of contaminated water beneath the sheeting. Our simulations show that this is not the case. Figure 13 was generated by up-gradient particle tracking from inside and beneath the sheeting. It demonstrates that the shallow ground water will be intercepted by the exterior well and not by the interior extraction wells; and

4. The travel time between the remedial extraction well and the construction dewatering wells is longer. With this approach, should the extraction well temporarily stop operating, it would be days before low levels of VOCs would be induced to the excavation wells.

Our observations relative to the need for building flexibility into the proposed dewatering system, noted in the previous section, apply here as well. And again, this simulation indicates that approximately 500 GPM or 70 percent of the flow being extracted will be flows induced from the intake canal. We believe water quality will vary from well to well, with water quality being extracted from the west side being generally more saline and lower in iron.

Enercon Services, Inc..

File No. 43301.10 November 14, 2005 Page 8 RESULTS

,.f The following presents the results of our dewatering evaluations. To understand how we-developed these findings and their limitations, please read the report in its entirety.

C i.I...

t I

1. Extraction of groundwater during construction will increase hydraulic gradients in the area of the excavation. This in turn has the potential to alter ongoing attenuation processes, allowing for migration of low levels of VOCs.

Modeling indicates that VOC migration (if it occurs) will be along the current pathway, and can be managed with the installation of interceptor wells located outside the construction area (i.e. a pump and treat system);

-2. Our simulation of ambient conditions (Simulation 1) suggests the model is a useful tool for estimating groundwater extraction rates. Aquifer heterogeneities and water quality may make withdrawal of groundwater more complex than suggested by the model; The model indicates that without sheeting as a groundwater control (Simulation-2), the steady-state dewatering flow will be about.1,500 GPM and plume

-treatment flow will be approximately 200 GPM;

4. The model indicates that with sheeting (Simulation 3) the steady state dewatering flow will be less than 700 GPM, and plume treatment flow will be about 25 GPM;

5. For permitting purposes, we recommend:

a. A pumping duration of 90 days,

-b.

A peak discharge flow of 4,500 GPM,

c. A total discharge volume of 324 million gallons.

6. Provided below are preliminary details for the groundwater treatment extraction wells.

Note that actual conditions may vary form those assumed here.

Consequently modification may be required as additional field data becomes available or to better accommodate the well driller's equipment and/or methods.

a. Extraction wells (two to four) without the use of sheeting as a groundwater control method (Simulation 2):

i. Minimum well diameter: 12 inches.

ii. Minimum well depth: 40 feet iii. Minimum screen length: 20 feet iv. Minimum percent open area: 10 percent

v. Maximum entrance velocity: 0.1 feet/second

b. Extraction well used in conjunction with sheeting for groundwater control (Simulation 3):

i. Minimum well diameter: 6 inches ii. Minimum well depth: 25 feet iii. Minimum screen length: 10 feet iv. Minimum percent open area: 10 percent

v. Maximum entrance velocity: 0.1 feet/second

Enercon Services, Inc.

File No. 43301.10 November 14,2005 Page 9 If you.have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call Michael Powers at (401) 421-4140, ext. 3404 or via E-mail at rnpowers(gza.com

.Very truly yours, -

GZA GEOENVIR ENTAL, INC.

Sr. Technical Specialist -

-..- Seni Principal Associate Principal I

. a MAP:lds At.ta.c n

... Attachments:

1........

Figures 1 through 13 Appendix A - Limitations Appendix B - Assumptions -

J:\\ENV\\43301-I O.nap\\Groundwater Mon Report\\43301-I OLet-I.doc

APPENDIX A MODEL LIMITATIONS I. The model was developed for use at a specific site. Results should not be used in evaluating other locations.

2. The model was developed for the specific purposes identified in the report. Use of the model, or model results, for other purposes, may lead to inappropriate conclusions.

3. The model is a mathematical representation of an idealized aquifer system. The model uses a finite difference method to compute heads and other mathematical methods to develop groundwater contours. These approximations result in small, generally insignificant, errors that should, however, be kept in mind in reviewing small scale changes in gradients, or curious results.

4. The model was developed using available field data from widely spaced points and discrete intervals, and we made assumptions based on that data. As additional data becomes available, it may be necessary to modify our assumptions.

5. The mathematical model is based on a conceptual model of a complex subsurface environment and by nature is a simplification of the actual conditions.

In constructing the model, point specific data was generalized and extrapolated across the project space.

In addition, in areas where field data was not available, professional judgment based experience and regional information was used.

6. Model assumptions are provided in Appendix B. Actual conditions are likely more complex than assumed. These variations may cause flow patterns, or volumes, to be other than simulated.

7. As field data becomes available, the model can be modified to better reflect actual conditions.

If observed conditions are not consistent with model results, we recommend that GZA be retained to reassess our findings.

8. The model was developed using the level of care customary of other professions providing similar services for similar purposes in 2005. No other warranty, stated or implied, is made.

J:\\ENV\\43301-IO.map\\Groundwater Mon Report\\APPENDIX A.doc

APPENDIX B MODEL ASSUMPTIONS The model was developed to assist in permitting and the development of groundwater control specifications required for the ISFSI construction at the Port St. Lucie Nuclear Power Station. The following is a list of the major assumptions we used in developing the model.

• It is conservative to develop a model that tends to overestimate groundwater extraction rates.

• We have assumed that the code for MODFLOW and MODPATH are correct.

• Soil conditions across the model area are similar and are represented by conditions observed in test borings completed for the ISFSI.

• The aquifer is typically 135 feet thick. The finer grained soils observed in the lower 55 feet of the borings have the same hydraulic conductivity (40 feet/day, 1.4 x 10-2 cm/sec) as the upper coarser deposits.

• Our assumption of a continuous low hydraulic conductivity layer (representing shallow clay) does not significantly alter our findings.

• The vertical hydraulic conductivity of the soils is one third the horizontal hydraulic conductivity.

• The porosity of aquifer is 0.25.

• The intake, discharge canals, mud creek, and the Atlantic Ocean are in perfect hydraulic communication with the aquifer at the boundary.

• Average reported elevations of water level at the boundaries were used, and are assumed to be constant over time (tidal variations, and variations due to changes in pumping rates at the plant were not considered).

• Stormwater control structures were assumed to recharge the aquifer at rates ranging from.07 ft3/day/ft2 to.19 ft3/day/ft2.

• Areal recharge due to precipitation was assumed to be 10 inches per year.

• The differences in flows flowing to fluid properties (fresh vs. saline water) were ignored.

• Due to the proximity of the intake canal (about 125 feet) and the anticipated duration of extraction (90 day) steady state simulations were used.

JAENV\\43301-1O.map\\APPENDIX B.doc

I- ; 3i W t..&3 t~vrru*

Uw-

=:'iA H.

ttatl 4i '`V ti#t+

s iX _

a,,

,, i L

1. i

} +

R-I It, i, -I fe 3

~I 11" A4 4t N

4

-n i

Site

'j s.. I 1'~j 1 "=2000' 0

1000' 2000' 4000' I

SOURCE: U.S.G.S. ANKONA QUADRANGLE MAP PSL ISFSI "SOUTH 40" HUTCHINSON ISLAND, FLORIDA I

43301 G:\\JOBS\\43301.P78\\43301-0O.DCS\\43301-CAD\\DWG\\LOCUS.DWG Sep 08, 2005-11:46am

&o4'~

.1..

t L

NOTES:

1.

BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PR(IADED BY ENECON DlnT.LED 'ISFSI SECURITY STUDY, SINGLE E/WPAD/HAUL PATH-. BATED 02/05, DRAWING NO.

SLO 17-SK06.

FD

........... I j

rm I

A..........

\\...

...........-. g

.. I NTAKE CANAL '..

Ho

-2 TES BOINGLOCTIO (BSERES TET ORNG(G-S~ES TISSTDY

.9 TESECTION

(-NE b

7 TETES BOIN (G-EIS THSSUY z

0 Al

1.

BASE MAP DEVELOS FROM PLAN PROVDED BY ENERCON UNZ e~mLED 'ismS SECURITY STUDY, slNGLE E/WPAD/HUL PATH.P o

O DATED 02/05, DRAWVING NO. SL017-SKWB AND SURVEY PLAN a

L 1

w/ AEL PHDTO PROVIDED BY GCY, DATED S/30/05. THE x

B-SERIES BORINGS WERE PERFORED BY LAw ENGINEERING e

AND PRESENTED ON THEIR FIGURE ENTITLED 'FELD ILL z

Q EXPLORATION PLAN sTA GENERATOR REPLACEMENT'. DATED tn I

0 12/93, FIGURE NO: 3.

1

)

-J

2.

THE LOCA;IION OF THE B-SERIES (LAW ENGINEERING) BORINGS 0n z o

Z WERE APPROXIATELY DETERMINED BY SCAUNG THE LOCATnONS

[L voa)

O FROM PREVIOUS EXPLORATION LOCATION PLANS.

THE z

GZ-9ERIES BORINGS AND CONE PENETROMIETER EXPLORATIONSI 1

WERE LOCATED BY SURVEY BY GCY INC. DURING AUGUST I

20050

3.

B-SsERS BORINGS PERFORM4ED BY LAw ENGINEERING INJ OCTOBER 1993.

GZ-SERIES BORINGS PERFORIAED BY EARTH CL 7

TECH DRILUNG IN MRCH AND JuLY 2005 AND 0OBSERVED AND X

R LOGGED BY GZA PESNEL J

tn

4.

CONE PENDETOMETER EXPLOROTIONS PERFORIED BY GREGG J

DRALTNG AND TESTING INC. IN JULY 205D AND OBSURVEY BY I.1 0 B-S ERISBORNGSWRNEROMEBLLWEGNERN f

UIMT OF PROPOSED PERIMETER SECURIIY FENCE UMIT OF PROPOSED ISFSI APRONS AND PADS w

sqS MmC f0 d*

'Il 0 h ru2 U 15 nV '

z 0

C.)

w 0

am u0I 0

z V)

~o5 b

0

-a.Niz d

8 U)I

7) 0 iIt I--

(i )~

a-c,0 0

0 0*

z

-j z0 U)

Z 0

I-I-0 a-I W

-J I-L 0~

Lir C-)

z 00 OBSERVED GROUNDWATER DEPTH (1993 BORINGS)

OBSERVED GROUNDWATER DEPTH (2005 BORINGS)

LFQEND B-OIING DESIGNATION 1

10' N OFS DISTANCE AND DIRECIION FROM SECTION UNE r

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST N-VALUE (BLOWS PER 25il FTOT) WOH.

WEIGHT OF HAUMER 1

1 04.BO TO OF D(PLORATION NOTES:

1. REFER TO TEXT FOR MORE DETAILED S1RATA DESCRIPTIONS.

2. THE STRATIFICATION UNES ARE BASED UPON INTERPOLATIONS BETWEEN WIDELY SPACED TEST BORING EXPLORATIONS AND THUS REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES.

ACTUAL TRANSITIONS MAY VARY FROM THOSE SHOWN.

3. WATER LEVEL READINGS WERE MADE IN THE BOREHOLES DURING DRIUUNG. THIS DATA HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND INTERPRETATIONS MADE IN THE TEXT OF THIS REPORT. FLUCTUATIONS IN GROUNDWATER LEVEL OCCUR DUE TO VARIATIONS IN TIDE, RAINFALL AND OTHER FACTORS.

4. APPROXIMATE GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION IS 10 MEAN LOW WATER.

CONE PENETRROIETER T

LOCATION ID 0EPT0 BELOW0 400 0

Qt (tat)

GROUND SURFACE tor 5-,

JOB NO.

43301.10 el FIGURE NO.

II 4

'5

.5

I I I -

LUTrr OF PROPOSED PERIMETER SECURIlY FENCE I-UIMIT OF PROPOSED lFSI APRONS AND PADS i

I I

b N

Z0, I b

0 2

m o

0 0

V I

6 Iz m -,

I-f Ld

-J 0

a.

a-a-I-J C-)

z0

)

LEGEND C_~-ORING DESIGNATIlON OBSERVED GROUNDWATER DEPTH T N OrFSE DISTANCE AND DIRECTION FROM SECTION LINE (1993 BORINGS)

ANDARD PENETRATION TEST N-VALUE (BLOWS PER 25 FOOT) WOH -WEIGHT OF HAMER OBSERVED GROUNDWATER DEPTH M

O (2005 BORINGS)

CP-CONE PENETROMETER LOCAiON ID I

D 00 110 OD t (ta)

DEPTH BELOW -

GROUND SURFACE NOTES:

1. REFER TO TEXT FOR MORE DETAILED STRATA DESCRIPTIONS.

2. THE STRATIFICATION LINES ARE BASED UPON INTERPOLATIONS BETWEEN WIDELY SPACED TEST BORING EXPLORATIONS AND THUS REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES BEtWEEN SOIL TYPES.

ACTUAL TRANSITIONS MAY VARY FROM THOSE SHOWN.

3. WATER LEVEL READINGS WERE MADE IN THE BOREHOLES DURING DRILUNG.

THIS DATA HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND INTERPMATAIONS MADE IN THE TEXT OF THIS REPORT. FLUCTUATIONS IN GROUNDWATER LEVEL OCCUR DUE TO VARIATIONS IN TIDE. RINFALL AND OTHER FACTORS.

4. APPROXIMATE GROUND SRUFACE ELEVATION IS 10 MEAN LOW WATER.

JOB NO.

43301.10 FIGURE NO.

5 I

• ,,.!-I-I-UMIT OF PROPOSED PERIMETER SECURITY FENCE I -

LUMIT OF PROPOSED ISFSI APRONS AND PADS l

0 z0 ELJ 5

10 100 n:<

0Do Z3 cn -l

..MM ICs 00 T~w j

IXiS IN ro

,e~

\\

iI i U 6

z:

o B"

a 0

L I LL z V) I_<,

0Z I-Tj=)

b I

C.)

LIJ

-i o

0~

-J I-w C.)

z 0o LEGEND C

II-ORN C DESIGNATION OSSERVED GROUNDWATER DEPTH 10 N OFFSE DISTANCE AND DIRECTION FROM SECTION UNE (1093 BORINGS)

ANDARD PENETRATION TEST N-VALUE (BLOWS PER OBSERVED GROUNDWATER DEPTH ~

1 OM OF EXPLORTION AME (2005 BORINGS) 25 T

OF EXPLORAION C-CONE PENETROMETER LOCATION ID DEPTH BELOW -

o 200 Oo 00 Ot (tot)

GROUND SURFACE 10 NOTES:

1. REFER TO TEXT FOR MORE DETAILED STRATA DESCRIPTIONS.

2. THE STRATIFICATION UNES ARE BASED UPON INTERPOLATIONS BETWEEN WIDELY SPACED TEST BORING EXPLORATIONS AND THUS REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES BEIWEEN SOIL TYPES.

ACTUAL TRWNSITIONS MAY VARY FROM THOSE SHOWN.

3. WATER LEVEL READINGS WERE MADE IN THE BOREHOLES DURING DRILUNG.

THIS DATA HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND INTERPRETATIONS MADE IN THE TEXT OF THIS REPORT. FLUCTUATIONS IN GROUNDWATER LEVEL OCCUR DUE TO VARUATIONS IN TIDE. RAINFALL AND OTHER FACTORS.

4. APPROXIMATE GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION IS 10 MEAN LOW WATER.

JOB NO.

43301.10 FIGURE NO.

6 lo

X:\\MODEFILE\\PortStLucic\\reports\\FIGURE_I.dwg, Layout l, 11/3/2005 11:34:30 AM, mjg, Acrobat PDFWriter, 1:1

s 64

/NOTE&

1. BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM MAP PROVIDED BY PSL, PREPARED BY FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT. ENTITLED SITE DESCRIPTION MAP. AND DATED 9/9/04.

ORIGINAL SCALE WAS NOT RECORDED. DRAWING NO.

PSL-SD-MAP.

2. GROUNDWATER CONTOURS ARE BASED ON MODELED RESULTS AND AND MAY NOT REFLECT ACTUAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.

l-;0 -,,.

./

<mt Xi

LWElND 70 71 GROUNDWATER CONTOURS (0.5 FOOT INTERVAL)

PSL ISrSI I

"SUH4"REY.

NO.

I]MRIPTKON BY DATE HUTCHINSON ISLAND, FLORIDA SCALE DESIGNED BY.

APPROVED BY:

in AMBIENT MODELED REVISED Ii':

DATE: 10O.25.-05 P

GROUNDWATER CONTOURS V

LIAM.

GZ 41

==oEvronmnniul, Inc.

X:\\MODEFILE\\PortStLucie\\rcports\\figurc_2.dwg, Layoutt, 1 1/3/2005 1 1:34:08 AM, mjg, Acrobat PDFWfiter, 1:1I

64

//NOTES

1. BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM MAP PROVIDED BY PSL. PREPARED BY FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT. ENTITLED SITE DESCRIPTION MAP. AND DATED 9/9/04.

ORIGINAL SCALE WAS NOT RECORDED.

DRAWING NO.

,//-

PSL-SD-MAP.

2. GROUNDWATER CONTOURS ARE BASED ON MODELED RESULTS AND AND MAY NOT REFLECT ACTUAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.

/\\

.GROUNDWATER CONTOURS (0.5 FOOT A-INTERVAL)

IPSL ISrSI I

"SOUTH 40" RF~V.

NO, OESCRUIPK)N BY IDATE HUCINO ILND LOIAPROJ MAGRt DS DRAWN BY:

MJG 1-UCISNILN.FOIASCALE DESIGNED Ot APPRO'VED fff:

MODELED GROUNDWATER CONTOURS REVISED BY:

DATE:

10-25-05 NO SHEETING WITH DEWATERING 0

200FT.

=II I GZAM AND REMEDIATION WELLS Z,

GeoErviro~nmenal, Inc.

X:\\MODEFILE\\PortStLucic\\rcports\\figure_3.dwg, Layoutl, 11/3/2005 11:32:58AM, mjg, Acrobat PDFWriter, 1:1

MODELED DRAWDOWN I

P NO SHEETING I

WITH DEWATERING AND REMEDIATION WELLS X:\\MODEFILE\\PortStLucie\\reports\\figurec4.dwg, Layoutl, 11/3/2005 11:32:37 AM, mjg, Acrobat PDFWriter, 1:1

'64 /

NOT

1. EiASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM MAP PROVIDED BY PSL. PREPARED BY FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT. ENTITLED SITE DESCRIPTION MAP, AND DATED 9/9/04.

ORIGINAL SCALE WAS NOT RECORDED.

DRAWING NO.

PSL-SD-MAP.

2. GROUNDWATER CONTOURS ARE j,.

BASED ON MODLED RESULTS AND AND MAY NOT REFLECT ACTUAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.

/

r Y/

\\

.LEGEND GROUNDWATER CONTOURS (0.5 FOOT

. tINTERVAL)

PSL ISfSI "SOUTH 40" REV.

NO.

CISCRIPTION BY DATE HUTCHINSON ISLAND. FLORIDA M

MGR:

DS IRAWN BY:

MJo SCALE DE9GNE3) Y6 AFRDED BY:

MODELED GROUNDWATER CONTOURS REVISED By-:

DAE:

10-25-05 WITH SHEETING 0

200FT.

GZA smci WITH REMEDIATION WELL I GeoEnvironmenrial, Inc.

X:\\MODEFILE\\PortStLucie\\reports\\figure_5.dwg, Layoutl, 11/3/2005 11:32:18 AM, mjg, Acrobat PDFWriter, 1 :1

NOTES:

1. BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM MAP PROVIDED BY PSL. PREPARED BY 12 7

FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT, ENTITLED SITE DESCRIPTION MAP, AND DATED 9/9/04.

ORIGINAL SCALE WAS NOT RECORDED.

DRAWING NO.

\\PSL-SD-MAP.

2. GROUNDWATER CONTOURS ARE

\\lBASED ON MODELED RESULTS AND AND MAY NOT REFLECT ACTUAL

. \\SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.

/

4 ING

.LS LE8D)

GROUNDWATER CONTOURS (0.5 FOOT INTERVAL)

PSL _SrSI I

I "SOUTH 40" REV. NO.

.ESCRIPTON IBY DATE H-UTCHINSON ISLAND, FLORIDA PRDJ MGR: DS DRAWN BY~: MJG SCALE DESIGNED BY' APPROWO BY:

MODELED GROUNDWATER DRAWDOWN REVISED BY:

(WTE:

10G-25-05 WITH SHEETING 0

200FT.

=IZA MI 930mca"i WITH REMEDIATION WELL 0X I GeoEnvlroun~m~qniaI,4 lnc.

X:MODEFILE\\PortStLucie\\rcports\\figure_6.dwg, Layoutl, 11/3/2005 11:31:55 AM, mjg, Acrobat PDFWriter, 1:1

@20W -

GZA OcEio~nvmentwn, Inc.

PAPTULES EM.41A' NA

'A-I

-L~FJT_

NOTES

1. FLOW PATHS SHOWN REPRESENT PARTICLE MOVEMENT TRACKED BACKWARD 150 DAYS FROM INSIDE THE DEWATERING CELL FIr1 0vWATFI7 TAFI F 25: FEET

'ORTH DF SHEET PILIEE I

RA11N IEL PSL ISFSI "SOUTH 40" REV. NO. lSCRIPTON l

I DAT

_ c,,

HUTCHINSON ISLAND, fLORIDA C

c o

SCALE DESIGNED) BY.

APPROD B:

r MODELED GROUNDWATER FLOW PATH REVISED

_Y_

_JG DATE:

11-14-05 UNDER SHEETING-WITH REMEDIATION WELL 0

NOT TO SCALE 1

GZAsmL.

mm CROSS SECTION PERPENDICULAR TO BLDG 78 I GooEnvironmarilal, Inc.

X:\\MODEFILE\\PortStLucie\\reports\\figure_7.dwg, Layoutl, 11/14/20052:58:35 PM, mjg, Acrobat PDFWriter, 1:1

APPENDIX B Dewatering Effluent Characteristics (Form 2CS)

Attachment l.doc FPL St. Lucie ISFSI

Facility ID. Number:

FL0002208 Outfall No.

Temp Dewatering PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE ONLY: You may report some or all of this information on separate sheets instead of completing these pages. Use the same format.

SEE INSTRUCTIONS.

VII. INTAKE AND EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS PART A - You must provide the results of at least one analysis for every pollutant in this table. Comnlete one table for each outfall. See instructions for additional details.

2. Effluent

_I_

3. Units

4. Intake (optiona.)

Pollutant

a. Max. Dail Value

b. Max. 30-day Value

c. Annual Av z. Value

d. No. of

a. Concentration

b. Mass

a. Long Term

g. Value

b. No. of (I_) Conc.

(2) Mass (I) Conc.

(2) Mass (I) Conc.

(2) Mass Analyses (I) Conc.

(2) Mass Analyses aCAlutsmnu lauhi 31 3

mg/L Oxnnpm___rd____

b. Chemical Oxygen 1800 3

mg/L Demand (COD)

c. Total Organic 20 3

mg/l Carbon (TOC)

d. Total Suspended 1300 3

mg/L Solids (TSS)

e. Total Noen (as N) 3.3 3

mg/L f Torml lhixus (as P) 3 3

MAIL

g. Ammonia (as N) 3.6 3

mg/L

h. Flow - actual or Value 2.4 Value Value MOD Value projected

i. Flow - design Value 2.4 Value Value MGD Value

j. Specific Conirtivity Value 51000 Value Value 3

umhos/cm Value

k. Temperature (winter)

Value26 Value Value

,C Value

1. Temperature (sumrnmer)

Value Value VC Value

m.. pH Min. 6,83 l Max7.14 Min.

Max.

3 STANDARD UNITS PART B - Mark "X" in column 2a for each pollutant you know or have reason to believe is present. Mark "X" in column 2b for each pollutant you believe to be absent. If you mark column 2a for any pollutant which is limited either directly, or indirectly but expressly, in an effluent limitations guideline, you must provide the results of at least one analysis for that pollutant. For other pollutants for which you mark column 2a, you must provide quantitative data or an explanation of their presence in your discharge. Complete one table for each outfall. See the instructions for additonal details and requirements.

2. Mark "X"

3. Effluent l

4. Units

5. Intake (optionit

1. Pollutant and CAS

a. be-

b. be

a. Maximum Daily

b. Max. 30-day Value c, Long Term Avg.

d. No. of

a. Conc.

b. Mass

a. Long Term Avg.

b. No. of No. (if available) lieved lieved Value (if available)

Value (if available)

Analyses Value _

Analyses present absent (l)Conc.

(2) mass

(

I)

Conc.

(2)

Mass

)Conc.

(2)Mass

()Conc.

(2) Mass

a. Bromide 0

D 0.011U 3

mg/L (24949-67-9) l I. Chlorine, 0I 0

Total Residual l

c. Color 0

0 500 3

PCU

d. Fecal Coliform 0

e. Fluoride 0

1.3 3

mg/L (16984-48-8) l

f. Nitrate-Nitrite 0

0.029 3

mg/L (as N)_

VII-l DER Form 62-620.910(5)2CS, Effective November 29, 1994

Item VII-B Contd.

Facility ID. Number FL0002208 Outfall No.

Temp Dewatening

2. Mark WX"

3. Effuent

4. Units

5. Intake (optional)

I. Pollutant and CAS a.be-

b. be-

a. Maximum Daily Value

b. Max. 30-day Value

c. Long Term Avg. Value

d. No. of

a. Conc.

b. Mass

a. Long Term Avg. Value

b. No. of No. (if available) lieved Eeved (if available)

(if available)

Analyses Analyses present absent (1) Conc.

(2) Mass (1) Cone.

(2) Mass (1) Cone.

(2) Mass (1) Conc.

(2) Mass

g. Nitrogen, Total 0

E 1.6 3

mg/L Organic (as N)

h. Oil and grease 0

E 2

3 mglL i Phosphorus, Total 3

3 mg/L (as P) (7723-14-0)

(I) Alpha. Total 0

68 +/-9 3

pCi/L (2) Beta, Total 0

402 +/-27 3

pCi/L (3) Radium. Total 0

(4) Radium 226, Total E

0

k. Sulfate (as SO4 )

0 E

900 3

mg/I (14808-79-8)

1. Sulfde (as S) 0 E

29 3

mg/L

m. Sulfite (as S03)

O 28 3

mg/L (14265-45-3)

n. Surfactants 0

El 0.14 3

mg/L LAS

o. Aluminum. Total 12 3

mg/L (7429-90-5)

p. Barium. Total 0

0.11 3

mg/L (7440-39-3)

q. Boron. Total 0

E 4.7 3

mg/L (74-40 42-8)

r. Cobalt. Total 0

E 0.012 3

mg/L (74S0 48-4)

s. Iron. Total 0

45 3

mgtL (7439-89-6)

I

t. Maagnesium. Total 0

1300 3

mg/L (7439-954)

u. Molybdenum. Total 0

E 0.049 3

mg/L (7439-98-7)

v. Manganese, Total 0

0.51 3

mg/L (7439-96-5)

w. Tin. Total 0

0.032U 3

mg/L (7440-31-5)

x. Titanium. Total 0

E 0.2 3

mg/L (7440-32-6)

V11-2 DER Form 62-620.910(5)2CS, Effective November 29, 1994

Facility ID. Number:

FL0002208 Outfall No.

Temp Dewatering PART C - If you are a primary industry and this outfall contains process wastewater, refer to Table 2c-2 in the instructions to determine which of the GC/MS fractions you must test for. Mark X"W in column 2a for all GC/MS fractions that apply to your industry and for ALL toxic metals, cyanides, and total phenols. If you are not required to mark column 2a (secondary industries, non-process wastewater outfalls, and non-required GC/MS fractions), mark "X" in column 2b for each pollutant you know or have reason to believe is present. Mark "X" in column 2c for each pollutant you believe is absent. If you mark column 2a for any pollutant, you must provide the results of at least one analysis for that pollutant. If you mark column 2b for any pollutant, you must provide the results of at least one anlysis for that pollutnat if you know or have reason to believe it will be discharged in concentrations of 10 ppb or greater. If you mark column 2b for acrolein. acrylonitrile, 2,4.dinitrophenol, or 2-methyl-4,6 dinitrophenol, you must provide the results of at least one analysis for each of these pollutants which you know or have reason to believe that you discharge in concentrations of 100 ppb or greater. Otherwise, for pollutants for which you mark column2b, you must either submit at least one analysis or briefly describe the reasons the pollutant is expected to be discharged. Note that there are 7 pages to this part; please review each carefully. Complete one table (all 7 pages) for each outfall. See instructions for additional details and requirements.

2. Mark "XE f

3.

Effuent

4. Units

5. Intake (optional)

1. Pollutant and CAS

a.

b. be-

c. be-

a. Maximum Daily Value

b. Max. 30-day Value

c. Long Term Avg. Value

d. No. of

a. Conc.

b. Mass

a. Long Term Avg. Value

b. No. of No. (if available) testing e

lieved (if available)

(if available)

Analyses l

Analyses required present absent l l

I Cn.l( 2)Mass (1)Com.

(2)m (I)Conc.

(2)Mass (1)Cone.

(2)Mass MErALS. CYANIDEANDTOTAL PHENOLS -,,w X

5'.:,-....'-,'W4.',--

. -4

.r't..-

I M. Antimony, Total 0

0 0.0036U 3

mgnL (7440-36-0) 2M. Arsenic, Total 0

0 0.042 3

mg/L (7723-14-0) 3M. Beryllium. Total 0

0 0

0.0037U 3

mg/L (7440-41-7) 4M. Cadmium, Total 0

1 0

0.00077 3

mg/L (744043-9) 5M. Chromium. Total 0

0 l

0.19 3

mg/L (744047-3) 6M. Copper, Total 0

S 0

0.045 3

mg/L (7440-50-8) 7M. Lead, Total 0

0 El 0.012 3

mgIL (7439-92-1) 8M. Mercury, Total 0

0 0

0.000072U 3

mg/L (7439-97-6) 9M. Nickel, Total 0

0 EJ 0.041 3

mg/L (7440-02-0)

I0M. Selenium. Total 01 El 0.03U 3

mg/L (778249-2) 11 M. Silver, Total 0

0 E

0.0095U 3

mg/L (7440-224) 12M. Thallium, Total 0

01 0

0.033U 3

mg/L (7440-28-0) 13M. Zinc. Total 0

1 1

01 0.094 3

mg/L (7440-66-6) 1 4M. Cyanide, Total 131 a

0 3

nmg/L (57-12-5) 15M. Phenols, Total E

l O

E]

.035U 3

mg/L 2.3,7,8-Tetra-a chlorodibenzo-P-Dioxin (1764-01-6) rOCIMS FRACTIONW, OEATLECOMPO )

IV. Acrolein l

0 El 0l 3.8U ugtL (107-02-8) l l

l l

I l

l l

l l

2V. Acrylonitrile 0

0 1.21 j

l ug/L7 (107-13-1)

_ _ I VII-3 DER Form 62-620.910(5)2CS, Effective November 29, 1994

Facility ID. Number:

FL0002208 Outfall No.

Temp Dewatering

2. Mark WX

3. Effuent

4. Units

5. Intake (optional)

I. Pollutant and CAS a.

b. be-

c. be-

a. Maximum Daily Value

b. Max. 30-day Value

c. Long Term Avg. Value

d. No. of

a. Conc.

b. Mass

a. Long Term Avg. Value

b. No. of No. (if available) testing lieved tieved (if available)

(if available)

Analyses Analyses required present absent I

(I)Conc.

(2)Mass (I)Conc.

(2)Mass (I) Cone.

l(2)Mass l (I)Conc.

(2) Mass GCIMS FRACTION-V VOLATILE COMPOUNDS (contined)

I -

a A

r

.A.

3V. Benzene 0

O 0.27U 3

ugtL (71-43-2) 4V. Bis (Chloromethyl) Ether 0

0 0

0.86U 3

ugtL (542-88-1) 5V. Bromoform 0

El 0

0.58U 3

ug/L (75-25-2) 6V. Carbon Tetrachloride 0

El 0

0.42U 3

ug/L (56-23-5) 7V Chlorobenzene 0

O 0

0.63U 3

ugtL (108-90-7) 8V. Chlorodi-0 0

0 0.34U 3

ug/L bromonethane (124-8-1) 9V. Chloroethane 0

0 0

0.8U 3

ugQL (74-03)

IOV. 2-Chloro-ethylvinyl 0

0 0

0.98U 3

ug/L Ether (110-75-8) 11 V. Chloroform 0

0 0

0.9U 3

ug/L (67-86-3) 12V. Dichloro-0l 0

0 0.35U 3

ugtL bromorethane (75-24-4) 13V. Dichloro-0 0

0 0.4U 3

ugfL dicfluna xnte (75-71-8) 14V. I,l-Dichloroethane 0

0 0

0.52U 3

ug/L (75-34-3) 15V. 1,2-Dichloroethane El 0

0 0.57U 3

ugtL (107-06-2) 16V. I,l-DEkdioruethyiene 0D 0

0l 0.45U 3

ug/L (75-35-4) 17V. I,2.-Dichxompate 0.52U 3

ug/L (78-87-5) 18V. 1,3-Ddic ne 0w 0x 0.14U 3

ug/L (542-75-6) 19V. Ethylbenzene 0

l 0

0.44U 3

ug/L (100-414) 20V. Methyl Bromide 0

0 03 0.66U 3

ug/L (74-83-9) 21V. Methyl Chloride 0

0 0

0.64U 3

ugtL (74-87-3) 22V. Methylene Chloride 0

El l

4U 3

ugtL (74-98-2) 23V. 1,1,2,2-Tetra-0 0

0.14U 3

ugtL chloroethane (79-34-5) 24V. Tetrachloroethylene 0

0 O

0.34U 3

ugtL (127-184)

I V11-4 DER Form 62-620.910(5)2CS, Effective November 29, 1994

Facility ID. Number:

FL0002208 Outfall No.

Temp Dewatering

2. Mark 'X

3. Effuent

4. Units

5. Intake (optonal)

I. Pollutant and CAS a.

b. be-

c. be-

a. Maximum Daily Value

b. Max. 30-day Value

c. Long Term Avg. Value

d. No. of

a. Conc.

b. Mass

a. Long Term Avg. Value

b. No. of No. (if available) testing lieved bieved (if available)

(if available)

Analyses Analyses required present absent o

(I)Conc.

(2)Mass (I)Conc.

(2)Mass (I)Conc.

(2)Mass (I)Conc.

(2)Mass CC1S FRACTION ' VOLATILE CONPOUNDS*(contid T

w '

"t e~g---

t 25V. Toluene (108-88-3) 0 E

C]

0.51U 3

ugfL 26V. 1,2-Trans-0 E

0.44U 3

ug/L D ki yk( l~ 6.5 27V. 1,1,2-Tr Trohaw 0

O

]

0.47U 3

ug/L (71-55-6) 28V. l,l,2-TTd*nxtwe 0

0.47U 3

ug/L 29V. Trichloroethylene 0

0 0,28U 3

ugtL (79-01-6) 30V. Trichloro-0 E

0.98U 3

ug/L fluoromethane (75-694) 31 V. Vinyl Chloride

0.

0

.5U 3

ug/L (75-014)

IA. 2-Chlorophenol 1

E O

.24U 3

ug/L (95-57-8) 2A. 2,4-Dichlorophenol 0

E El 0.66U 3

ug/L (120-83-2) 3A. 2,4-Dimethylphenol

.2U 3

ugl (105-67-9) 4A. 4,6-Dinitro-O-Cresol 0

I.2U1l 3

ug/L (534-53-1) 5A. 2,4-Dinitrophenol 0

E El 1.5U 3

ug/L (51-28-5) 6A 2-Nitrophenol 0A O

E 1.4U 3

ugtL (88-75-5) 7A. 4-Nitrophenol 0

0 E

1.5U 3

ug/L (100-02-7) 8A P-Chloro-M-Cresol 0

0 0.33U 3

ug/L (59-50-7) 9A Pentachlorophenol 0

E 0.97U 3

ug/L (87-86-5) 1OA Phenol 0

E El 0.85U 3

ug(L (108-95-2)

I IA 2,4,5-Trichloro-0 E

El 0.35Ut 3

ug/L phenol (88-06-2) i CCfMS FRAVTIONIBAS1 NEUTRAI COMPO l B. Acenaphthene E]

C A3 (208-96-8) 3B. Anthracene 0

E El l

1.2U1l 3

ug/L (120-12-7) 4B. Benzidine 0

E l

12U 3

ug/L (92-87-5)

VII-5 DER Form 62-620.910(5)2CS, Effective November 29, 1994

Facility ID. Number:

FL0002208 Outfall No.

Temp Dewatening

2. Mark WX

3. Effuent

4. Units

5. Intake (opional)

I. Pollutant and CAS

a.

b. be-

c. be-

a. Maximum Daily Value

b. Max. 30-day Value

c. Long Term Avg. Value

d. No. of

a. Conc.

b. Mass

a. Long Term Avg. Value

b. No. of No. (if available) testing lieved lieved (if available)

(if available)

Analyses Analyses required present absent (I)Conc.

(2)Mass (I)Conc. (2)Mass (I)Conc.

(2)Mass (I)Conc.

(2)Mass 5B. Benzo (a) Anthracene (56-0 E

El 1.2U 3

ug/L 55-3) 6B. Benzo (a) Pyrene El O

1,4U 3

ugtL (50-32-8) 7B. 34-1Ber-ftmrakndfe 1.2U 3

ug/L (209-2) 8B. Benzo (ghi) Perylene El El I.3U 3

ugtL (191-24-2) 9B. Benzo (k)W nhde(237-0El

.7U 3

ug/L 09) 10B. Bis (2-Chonxtwsy) 0 El O

l 0.92U 3

ug/L Methane ( 111-91-I)

II B. Bis (2-chloroerhyl) 0 El El 0.86U 3

ugtL Ether (I1 1-44-4) 12B. Bis (

k po O 0iv El I I.3U 3ugtL Ether (102 1) 13B. Bis (2-Erhylhexyl) 0 E

3.6U 3

ugtL Phthalate (117-81-7) 14B. 4-Bromophenyl L.IU 3

ug/L Phenyl Ether (101.55-3) 15B Butyl Benzyl Phthalate 0A O

O 1.4U 3

ugtL (84-68-7) 16B. 2-CHabnmthnk, 0

E El 0.83U 3

ugtL (9 1-5-7) 171B. 4-Chlorophenyl El El 0.78U 3

ug/L Phenyl Ether (7005-72-3) 18B. Chrysene 0

El E

1,12U 3

ug/L (218-01-9) 19B. Dibenzo (ah) 0 El El 1.4U 3

ug/L Anthracene (53-70-3) 20B. 1,2-DiktIdbene 0

El E1 0.76U 3

ug/L (95-50

_1) 211B. 1,3-Dichlkrobermene 0

E 0.6U 3

ugtL (541-73-1) 22B. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.71U 3

ug/L (106-467) 231B.

33-Didhk enriine 0

E l

1.6U 3

ugtL 1) 24B. Diethyl Phthalate I.1U 3

ugtL (84-66-2) 25B. Dirnethyl Phthalate E

l 3

ugtL (131-11-3) 26B. Di-N-Butyl Phthalate 0

]

E I.U

.5 3

ugtL (84-74-2) 27B. 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0

E E l

.3U 3

ugtL (121-14-2) 28B. 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 0

E 0

IUl 3

ugtL (606-20-2)

I I

Vll-6 DER Form 62-620.910(5)2CS, Effective November 29, 1994

Facility ID. Number:

FL0002208 Outfall No.

Temp Dewatering

2. Mark "X"

3. ElTuent

4. Units

5. Intake (opdonal)

1. Pollutant and CAS

a.

b. be-

c. be-

a. Maximum Daily Value

b. Max. 30-day Value

c. Long Term Avg. Value

d. No. of

a. Conc.

b. Mass

a. Long Term Avg. Value

b. No. of No. (if available) testing lieved Eeved (if available)

(if available)

Analyses Analyses required present absent (I) Conc.

(2) Mass (I) Conc.

(2) Mass (I) Conc.

(2) Mass (I) Conc.

(2) Mass 29B. Di-N-Octyl Phthalate 0

0 0

1.7U 3

ug(L (117-84-0) 30B. I,2-Difrnylhydahne 0

0 O

3.6U 3

ugL (as Azahenzen) (I12266-7) 311B. Fluoranthene 0

0 1.5U 3

ug/L (206-44-0) 32B. Fluorene (86.73-7) 0 0

0.99U 3

ugtL 33B. Hexachlorobenzene 0

0 0.78U 3

ug/L (118-74-1) 34B. 1 bexachkrbutdiene 0

0 0.82U 3

ug/L (87-683) 35B. Hxdh1difd 0

0 LU 3

ugtL (7-47.4) 36B. Hexachloroethane 0

0 0.67U 3

ug/L (67-72-1) 37B. Indeno (/.2.3d d) 0 0

0 1.3U 3

ug/L Pyrene (193-39-5) 38B. Isophorone 0

0 O

0.81U 3

ug/L (78-59-1) 39B. Naphthalene 0

0 0

0.72U 3

ug/L (91-20-3) 40B. Nitrobenzene 0

0 E

0.83U 3

ug/L (98-95-9) 41B N--twJrti ein 0

1.5U 3

ugtL (62-75-9) 42B. N-Nitrosodi-N-0 0

0 0.92U 3

ugtL Propylamine (621-64.7) 43B. N-Nitro-sodiphenylamnine 0

0 1.2U 3

ug/L (86-7")

44B Phenanthrene 0

0 1.2U 3

ug/L (85-01-8)_

45B. Pyrene (129-0M) 0 0l 0

1.30 3

ug/L 46B. 1,2,4-TrTdnr 0

0 0

0.78U 3

ug/L I GCNMSFRACrnOQXPEsT1 i D

IP. Aldrin (3090(0-2)

El z

la 2P. -BHC (319-84-6) 01 0

0 3P BHC (319-85-7) 0 0

0 4P. -BHC (58-89-9) 0 0

=

SP. -BHC (319-86-8) 0 VII-7 DER Form 62-620.910(5)2CS, Effective November 29, 1994

Facility ID. Number:

FL0002208 Outfall No.

Temp Dewatering

2. Mark WX

3. Effuent

4. Units

5. Intake (optional)

1. Pollutant and CAS

a.

b. be-

c. be-

a. Maximum Daily Value

b. Max. 30-day Value

c. Long Term Avg. Value

d. No. of

a. Conc.

b. Mass

a. Long Term Avg. Value

b. No. of No. (if available) testing lieved lieved (if available)

(if available)

Analyses Analyses required present absent (I) Conc.

(2) Mass (I) Conc.

(2) Mass (1) Conc.

(2) Mass (I) Conc.

(2) Mass 6P. Chlordane (57-74-9) 0 0

0 7P. 4,4-DDT (50-29-3)

O 0

0 8P. 4,4:DDE (72-55-9) 0 0a 9P. 4,4-DDD (72-54-8)

O 0

I 0 IOP. Dieldrin (60-57-1)

O 0=

I IP. -Endosulfan 0

0 0

(115-29-7) 12P. -Endosulfan 0

0 0

(115-29-7) 13P. Endosulfan Sulfate 0

0O (1031-07-8) 14P. Endrin (72-20-8)

Q 0

ISP. Endrin Aldehyde 0

0 0

(7421-92-4) 16P. Heptachlor 0

0 0

(7644-8) 17P. Heptachlor Epoxide 0

0 0

(1024-57-3) 18P. PCB-1242 0

0 0

(53469-21-9) 19P. I'CB-1254 0

0 0

(11097-69-1) 20P. PCB-1221 0

0 0

(11104-28-2) 21P. PCB-1232 0

0 0

(11141-16-5) 22P. PCB-1248 (12672-29-6) 23P. PCB-1260 0

0 0

(11096-82-5) 24P. PCB-1016 0

0]

0 (12674-11-2) 25P. Toxaphene 0

0 0

(8001-35-2)

Vll-8 DER Form 62-620.910(5)2CS, Effective November 29, 1994

APPENDIX C Plume Control Effluent Characteristics (Form 2CS).doc FPL St. Lucie ISFSI

Facility ID. Number:

FL0002208 Outfall No.

1-008 PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE ONLY: You may report some or all of this information on separate sheets instead of completing these pages. Use the same format.

SEE INSTRUCTIONS.

VII. INTAKE AND EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS PART A -You mus provide the results of at least one analysis for every pollutant in this table. Complete one table for each outfall. See instructions for additional details.

1.

2. Effluent 3.. Units

4. Intake (optional)

Pollutant

a. Max. DaLi Value

b. Max. 30 day Value

c. Annual Avg. Value

d. No. of

a. Concentration

b. Mass

a. Long Term Avg. Value

b. No. of (i) Cone.

(2) Mass (I) Conc.

(2) Mass (I) Cone.

(2) Mass Analyses (I) Conc.

(2) Mass Analyses a

lstsbw 8udmii 31 2

mg/L

b. Chemical Oxygen 1800 2

mg/L Demand (COD)

c. Total Organic 20 2

mg/I Carbon (TOC)

d. Total Suspended 1300 2

mg/L Solds (TSS)

e. Total Noenm (as N) 3.3 2

mg/L f Todal tihstphus (as P) 3 2

-__L

g. Ammonia (as N) 3.6 2

mg/L

h. Flow - actual or Value 2.736 Value Value MGD Value projected

i. Flow - design Value 2.736 Value Value MGD Value

i. Specific Condutivity Value 50000 Value Value 2

umhos/cm Value

k. Temperature (winter)

Value26 Value Value

_C Value

1. Temperature (summer)

Value Vue Value C

Value m.pH Min. 6.89 Mx 7.14 Min.

Max.

N O2 STANDARD UNITS PART B - Mark "X" in column 2a for each pollutant you know or have reason to believe is present. Mark "X" in column 2b for each pollutant you believe to be absent. If you mark column 2a for any pollutant which is limited either directly, or indirectly but expressly, in an effluent limitations guideline, you must provide the results of at least one analysis for that pollutant. For other pollutants for which you mark column 2a, you must provide quantitative data or an explanation of their presence in your discharge. Complete one table for each outfall. See the instructions for additonal details and requirements.

2. Mark "X"

3. Effluent

4. Units

5. Intake (optional)

1. Pollutant and CAS

a. be-

b. be

a. Maximum Daily

b. Max. 30-day Value

c. Long Term Avg.

d. No. of

a. Conc.

b. Mass

a. Long Term Avg.

b. No. of No. (if available) lieved lieved Value (if available)

Value (if available)

Analyses Value Analyses present absent (l)Conc...

(2)Mass (l)Conc.

(2)Mass (l)Conc.

(2)Mass (l)Cone.

(2)Mass a.Bromide 0l 0

0 IU l

I l

2 mgfL (24949-67-9) l l

l

b. Chlorine, El 0

Total Residual lllll_

c. Color 0l 0

450 2

PCU

d. Fecal Coliform 0

0

e. Fluoride 0

0 1.3 2

mg/L (16984-48-8) l l

l l

l

f. Nitrate-Nitrite 0

0.024 2

mg/L1 (as N )

VII-l DER Form 62-620.910(5)2CS, Effective November 29, 1994

Item VII-B Contd.

Facility ID. Number FL0002208 Outfall No.

1-008

2. Mark X"

3. Effuent

4. Units

5. Intake (optional)

I. Pollutant and CAS a.be-

b. be-

a. Maximum Daily Value

b. Max. 30-day Value

c. Long Term Avg. Value

d. No. of

a. Cone.

b. Mass

a. Long Term Avg. Value

b. No. of No. (if available) lieved lieved (if available)

(if available)

Analyses Analyses present absent (I) Conc.

(2) Mass (I) Conc.

(2) Mass (I) Conc.

(2) Mass (I) Conc.

(2) Mass

g. Nitrogen, Total 0

1.6 2

mg/L Organic (as N)

h. Oil and grease 2

2 mg/L

i. Phosphorus, Total 3

2 mg/L (as P) (7723-14-0)

J., Radioactivityj<> g z V,-~-

-~

i4~?

~4

~

3tW~~-

>~>j~~:y\\

4~YdA (I) Alpha, Total El 54 +/7 2

pCi/L (2) Beta, Total 0

D 402 +/- 27 2

pCi/L=

(3) Radium, Total El 0

(4) Radium 226, Total 01 0

k. Sulfate (as S04) 0 0

900 2

mg/I (14808-79-8)

1. Sulfide (as S) 0 29 2

mg/L ma Sulfite (as SOS) 0 28 2

mg/L (14265-45-3)

n. Surfactants 0

0.08 2

mg/L LAS

o. Aluminum, Total 0II 2

mg/L (7429-90-5)

p. Barium, Total 0

0 0.1 2

mg/L (7440-39-3)

q. Boron, Total 0

l 4.7 2

mg/IL (7440-42-8)

r. Cobalt, Total 0

0.008 2

mg/L (7440-484)

a. Iron, Total 0

0 35 2

mg/L (7439-89-6)

t. Maagnesium, Total 0

1200 2

mg/L (7439-954)

u. Molybdenum, Total 0

0.025 2

mg/L (7439-98-7)

v. Manganese, Total 0

0.36 2

mg/L.

(7439-96-5)

w. Tin, Total 0

0.032U 2

mg/L (7440-31-5)

x. Titanium Total 0

0 0.11 2

mg/L (7440-32-6)

VII-2 DER Form 62-620.910(5)2CS, Effective November 29, 1994

Facility ID. Number:

FL0002208 Outfall No.

I-008 PART C - If you are a primary industry and this outfall contains process wastewater, refer to Table 2c-2 in the instructions to determine which of the GC/MS fractions you must test for. Mark "X" in column 2a for all GCIMS fractions that apply to your industry and for ALL toxic metals, cyanides, and total phenols. If you are not required to mark column 2a (secondary industries, non-process wastewater outfalls, and non-required GC/MS fractions), mark WX" in column 2b for each pollutant you know or have reason to believe is present. Mark "X" in column 2c for each pollutant you believe is absent. If you mark column 2a for any pollutant, you must provide the results of at least one analysis for that pollutant. If you mark column 2b for any pollutant, you must provide the results of at least one anlysis for that pollutnat if you know or have reason to believe it will be discharged in concentrations of 10 ppb or greater. If you mark column 2b for acrolein, acrylonitrile, 2,4,dinitrophenol, or 2-methyl-4,6 dinitrophenol, you must provide the results of at least one analysis for each of these pollutants which you know or have reason to believe that you discharge in concentrations of 100 ppb or greater. Otherwise, for pollutants for which you mark column2b, you must either submit at least one analysis or briefly describe the reasons the pollutant is expected to be discharged. Note that there are 7 pages to this part; please review each carefully. Complete one table (all 7 pages) for each outfall. See instructions for additional details and requirements.

2. Mark WX

3. Effuent

4. Units

5. Intake (optional)

1. Pollutant and CAS a.

b. be-

c. be.

a. Maximum Daily Value

b. Max, 30-day Value

c. Long Term Avg. Value

d. No. of

a. Conc.

b. Mass

a. Long Term Avg. Value

b. No. of No. (if available) testing lieved lieved (if available)

(if available)

Analyses Analyses required present absent l (2)Mass (I)Conc.

(2)Mass

)nc.

l (1) Conc.

(2) Mass M ETA LS, CYAN IDE,AND T)TA L -PHElNO L S+.r,,¢-7

____________X

___________; 25i4.^-.

IM. Antimony, Total C]

El 0.0036 2

mgtL (7440-36-0) 2M. Arsenic, Total 0

a 0.042 2

mg/L (7723-14-0) 3M, Beryllium, Total 0

0 0

0.0037U 2

mg/L (7440-41-7) 4M. Cadmium, Total 0

0 0

0.00077 2

mgtL (7440-43-9) 5M. Chromium Total 0

0 0

0.12 2

mg/L (7440-47-3) 6M. Copper, Total 0

0 02 0.026 2

mg/L (7440-50-8) 7M. Lead, Total 0 012 0.012 2

mg/L (7439-92-1) 8M. Mercury, Total 0

0l El 0.000072U 2

mgtL (7439-97-6) 9M. Nickel, Total 0

0 0

0.034 2

mtgL (7440-02-0)

IOM. Selenium, Total 0

0l 0.03U 2

mgtL (7782-49-2) 11 M. Silver, Total 0

0 0

0.0095U 2

mg/L (7440-22-4) 12M. Thallium, Total 0

l 0

0.033U 2

mg/I.

(7440-28-0) 13M. Zinc, Total 0

0 0

0.078 2

mg/L (7440-66-6) 14M. Cyanide, Total 0

a 0

0.005U 2

1gt1 (57-12-5) 15M. Phenols, Total 0

0 0

0.035U 2

mgtL 2,3.7,8-Tetra-Q l

chlorodibenzo-P-Dioxin 0

(1764-0l-6)

I l_____

llll_

kijC/MSM FRATINDS-I AT JR_

IV. Acrolein 0l0 0l 3.8U 12 ugL (107-02-8)ll l

llllllllllll 2V. Acrylonitrile 2

ugtL (107-13-1) l l

l l

l l

l l

l l

l lll_

l VII-3 DER Form 62-620.910(5)2CS, Effective November 29, 1994

Facility ID. Number:

FL0002208 Outfall No.

1-008

2. Mark X

3. Effuent

4. Units

5. Intake (optional)

1. Pollutant and CAS

a.

b. be-

c. be-

a. Maximum Daily Value

b. Max. 30-day Value

c. Long Term Avg. Value

d. No. of

a. Conc.

b. Mass

a. Long Term Avg. Value

b. No. of No. (if available) testing lieved lieved (if available)

(if available)

Analyses 1

Analyses required present absent

(

()oc l(2Mass (l) Conc.

l(2) Mass (I) Conc.

l(2)

Mass (I) Conc.

l(2)

Mass GCI1SFRACTION-'VOLATILECOMtPOUNDS((c nti n__

3V. Benzene 0

n027U 2

ug/L (71-43-2) 4V, Bis (Chloromethyl) Ether 0

0 0

0.86U 2

ug/L (542-88-1) 5V. Bromoform 0

l El 0.58U 2

ug/L (75-25-2) 6V. Carbon Tetrachloride 0

0 0

0.42U 2

ug/L (56-23-5) 7V Chlorohenzene 0

0 0.63U 2

ug/L (108-90-7) 8V. Chlorodi.

0 0

0.34U ug/L bromomethane (124-8-1) 2.u_

9V. Chloroethane 0

0 0.8U 2

ug/L (74-00-3)

IOV. 2-Chloro-ethylvinyl 0

0 0

0.98U 2

ug/L Ether (110-75-8)

I I V. Chloroform El 0.9U.

2 ug/L (67-86-3) 2 ugf.

12V. Dichloro-0 0

I 0.35U 2

ug/L bromomethane (75-24-4) 13V. Dichloro-0 0 OA 0.4U 2

ug/L dfhinrror (75-71.8) 14V. 1,1-Dichloroethane 0

0 0.52U 2

ug/L (75-34-3)

ISV. I,2-Dichloroethane 0

0 0.57U 2

ug/L (107-06-2) 16V. I, 1 -Dichdmedoylne 0

0 0.45U 2

ug/L (75-35-4) 17V. 1,2,-Dichbmet 0

0 0

0.52U 2

ugIL (78-87-5) 18V. 1,3-Dihkwpm~y 0

E]

0 0.14U 2

ugtL (542-75-6) 19V. Ethylbenzene 0

0

,.44U 2

ug/L (100-41-4) 2 ug/_

20V. Methyl Bromide 0

El 0.66U 2

ug/L (74-83-9) 21 V. Methyl Chloride 0

IJ 0

0.64U 2

ug/L (74-87-3) 22V. Methylene Chloride 0

0 4U 2

ugpL (74-98-2) 23V. 1,1,2,2-Tetra.

0 E

0.14U 2

ug/L chloroethane (79-34-5) 2 ug__

24V. Tetrachloroethylene 0

0 0

0.34U 2

ug/L (127-184)

VII-4 DER Form 62-620.910(5)2CS, Effective November 29, 1994

Facility ID. Number:

FL0002208 Outfall No.

1-008

2. Mark "X_

3. Effuent

4. Units

5. Intake (optional)

I. Pollutant and CAS a.

b. be-

c. be.

a. Maximum Daily Value

b. Max. 30-day Value

c. Long Term Avg. Value

d. No. of

a. Conc.

b. Mass

a. Long Term Avg. Value

b. No. of No. (if available) testing lieved lieved (if availabavailablevailable)

Analyes Analyses required present absent (I)Conc.

l(2)Mass (I)Conc.

l (2)Mass (I)Conc.

l (2)Mass (I)Conc.

(2)Mass CC/MS FRACTION -VOLATILE COMPOUNDS (continued)V r,

,6 j,

-a S

i.';'

4 25V. Toluene (108-88-3) 0 E

O 0.51U 2

ug/L 26V. 1,2-Trans-0 0.44U 2

ug/L Dickoryke (].%-W 27V. 1,12-Trhs eod 0m E]

O.

047U 2

ug/L (71-55-6) 28V. 1,1,2-TWi*ethane l

O 0

0.47U 2

ug/L (1)

.5 29V. Trichloroethylene 0.28U 2

ug/L (79-01-6) 30V. Trichloro-0 El 0.98U 2

ug(L fluoromethane (75-694) 31 V. Vinyl Chloride 0

0.5U 2

ug/L (75-014)

IA. 2-Chlorophenol 0.24U 2

ugL (95-57-8) 2A. 2,4-Dichlorophenol 0

l El 0.66U 2

ugtL (120-83-2) 3A. 2,4.Dimethylphenol 0

El l

1.2U 2

ugtL (105-67-9) 4A. 4,6-Dinitro-O-Cresol 0

l LI 1.2U 2

ug/L (534-53-1) 5A. 2,4-Dinitrophenol 0

l L

1.5U 2

ugtL (51-28-5) 6A. 2-Nitrophenol 0

E l

Ul 2

ugtL (88-75-5) 7A. 4-Nitrophenol 0

E 0

1.5U 2

ug/L (100-02-7) 8A P-Chloro-M-Cresol O

E El 0.33U 2

ug/L (59-50-7) 9A Pentachlorophenol 0

E l

0.97Ut 2

ugtL (87-86-5) 1OA Phenol 0

0 E

0.85U 2

ug/L (108-95-2)

I IA 2,4,5-Trichloro-0 0

El 0.35U 2

ug/L phenol (88-06-2)

.l llll_

(

-MS RiClONB t

EUTACOMPO_

I B. Acenaphthene T.u 2

ugtL (6 3 -3 2 -9 )

2B. Acenaphtylene l

0 1

1 0.59U 2

ug/L (208-96-8) 3B. Anthracene l

El 1,2U 2

ug/L (120-12-7) 4B. Benzidine 2

ug/L (92-87-5) 12U u__L VII-5 DER Form 62-620.910(5)2CS, Effective November 29, 1994

Facility ID. Number:

FL0002208 Outfall No.

1-008

2. Mark "X"

3. Effuent

4. Units

5. Intake (optional)

1. Pollutant and CAS

a.

b. be-

c. be-

a. Maxinmum Daily Value

b. Max. 30-day Value

c. Long Term Avg. Value

d. No. of

a. Conc.

b. Mass

a. Long Term Avg. Value

b. No. of No. (if available) testing lieved lieved (if available)

(if available)

Analyses Analyses required present absent (I)Conc.

(2) Mass (I)Conc.

(2) Mass (1)Conc.

(2) Mass (1) Conc.

(2) Mass 5B. Benzo (a) Anthracene (56-0 O

0,2U 2

ug/L 55.3)

I

61. lenzo (a) Pyrene

.4U 2

ugtL (50-32-8) 7B. 3,4.Ben-ftnarifiaew 0

0 0 O.2U 2

ugtL O2) 8B. Benzo (ghi) Perylene 0

O 1.3U 2

ug/L (191-24-2) 9B. Benzo (k) F-kcrarthene 0

l I.7U 2

ugIL 08-9)_

IOR. Bis (2-Chlone-ho) 0 0

0 0.92U 2

ugL Methane ( 111-91-1) 11. Bis (2-chloroethyl) 0 0

0 0.86U 2

ugtL Ether (11144-4) 12B. Bis (2.Oilw&M0 0

0 1

.3U 2

ug/L Ether (102 1) 13B. Bis (2-Erhylhexyl) 0 0

O 3.6U 2

ug/L Phthalate (117-81.7) 141B, 4-Bromophenyl 0

0 O

J.

2 ug/L Phenyl Ether (101-55-3) 15B Butyl Benzyl Phthalate 0

0 1.4U 2

ugtL (84-68.7) 16B. 2-Chborrstlene 0

l 0

0.83U 2

ug/L (9 1 W&)___

17B. 4-Chlorophenyl 0

0

.78U 2

ug/L Phenyl Ether (7005-72-3) 18B. Chrysene 0

0 0

I.2U 2

ugtL (218-01-9) 19B. Dibenzo (a,h) 0 0

0 1.4U 2

ugtL Anthracene (53-70-3) 20B. 1,2-DiDfirnmne 0

E0 0

0.76U 2

ug/L (95-50-1) 21 B. 3-Dichlorbenzene l

0 0.6U 2

ug/L (541-73-1) 22B. I,4-DihkMberee 0

0 0

0.71U 2

ug/L (IS46-7)6 23 B. 3.3

'-DiDctihbnde 0

0 0

.6U 2

ug/L (92-94-1) 24B. Diethyl Phthalate 0

l 0

I.IU 2

ug/L (84-66-2) 25B. Dinethyl Phthalate 0

0 1 U 2

ugtL (131-11-3) 26B. Di-N-Butyl Phthalate 0

0 0

1.5U 2

ugtL (84-74-2) 27B. 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0

0 0

1.3U 2

ugL (121.14-2) 28B. 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 0

I 2

ugtL (606-20-2) 2 ug_ _

VII-6 DER Form 62-620.910(5)2CS, Effective November 29, 1994

Facility ID. Number:

FL0002208 Outfall No.

1-008

2. Mark "X_

3. Effuent

4. Units

5. Intake (opt onal)

I. Pollutant and CAS

a.

b. be-

c. be-

a. Maximum Daily Value

b. Max. 30-day Value

c. Long Term Avg. Value

d. No. of

a. Conc.

b. Mass

a. Long Term Avg. Value

b. No. of No. (if available) testing lieved lieved (if available)

(if available)

Analyses Analyses required present absent (I) Conc.

(2) Mass (I) Conc.

(2) Mass (I) Conc.

(2) Mass (I) Conc.

(2) Mass 29B. Di-N-Octyl Phthalate 0

1 1.7U 2

ug/L (117-84-0) 30B. 12-Diphenytlrazie 3.6U 2

ug/L (av Az3onzene)(122-667) 31B. Fluoranthene 0

I E

1.5U 2

ug/L (206-44-0)

I 32B. Fluorene (86-73-7) 0 0

0.99U 2

ug/L 33B. Hexachlotobenzene 0

O 0.78U 2ug/L (118-74-1) 34B. Hexad lc utadie0 0

0.82U 2

ug/L (87--3) 35RB. 1Ilty+/-CulXbe 0

]

0 IU 2

ug/L (77474) 36B. Hexachlotoethane 0

0 0

0.67U 2

ug/L (67-72-1) 37B. Indeno (1,2.3-cd) 0 0

1.3U 2

ug/L Pyrene (193-39-5) 38B. Isophorone 0

0.81U 2

ug/L (78-59-1) 39B. Naphthalene 0

LI O

0.72U 2

ug/L (91-20-3) 40B. Nitrobenzene 0

Q E

0.83U 2

ug/L (98-95-9) 41 BN-Ntwdirrc#*ire l

El l5 2

ug/L (62-75-9)

O O

__I.U

_2 u/L 42B. N-Nitrosodi-N-O 0.92U 2

ug/L Propylarnine (621-64-7) 43B. N-Nitro-sodiphenylamine 0

0 I.2U 2

ug/L (86-306) 44B Phenanthrene 0

0 1.2U 2

ug. L (85-01.8) 45B. Pyrene (129-0M) 0 El E

1.3U 2

ugtL 46B.,2,4-Trif Is 0

0 0

0.78U 2

ug/L (120-82-).

GOMSFRAGT7ION ri CES1iCI I

L I P. Aldrin (309-00-2)

L L

2P. -BHC (319-84-6) 0 0

0 3P-BHC (319-85-7) 0 El 0

4P..BHC (58-89-9) 0 El 5P. -BHC (319-86-8)

El E1 l

I

==

VI-7 DER Form 62-620.910(5)2CS, Effective November 29, 1994

Facility ID. Number:

FL0002208 Outfall No.

1-008

2. Mark 'X

3. Efrlent

4. Units

5. Intake (optional)

I. Pollutant and CAS

a.

b. be-

c. be-

a. Maximum Daily Value

b. Max. 30-day Value

c. Long Term Avg. Value

d. No. of

a. Conc.

b. Mass

a. Long Term Avg. Value

b. No. of No. (if available) testing lieved lieved (if available)

(if available)

Analyses Analyses required present absent (I) Conc.

(2) Mass (I) Conc.

(2) Mass (I) Conc.

(2) Mass (I) Conc.

(2) Mass 6P. Chlordane (57-74-9)

El El 7P, 4,4-DDT (50-29-3)

O E

8P. 4,4-DDE (72-55-9)

O El 9P. 4,4:-DDD (72-54-8) l 1l 0D IOP. Dieldrin (60-57-1) 0 E

l IP. -Endosulfan E

(115-29-7) 12P. -Endosulfan O

E (115-29-7) 13P, Endosulfan Sulfate E

O 0

(1031-07-8) 14P. Endrin (72-20-8)

E O

15P. Endrin Aldehyde (7421-92-4) 16P. Heptachlor El E

0 (76-44-8) 17P. Heptachlor Epoxide El El E

(1024-57-3) 18P. PCII-1242 E

0 (53469-21-9) 19P. PCB-1254 El 1

(11097-69.1) 20P. PCB-1221 E]

O 0D (11104-28-2) 21P. PCB-1232 El I

ED (11141-16-5) 22P. PCB-1248 E

E 0

(12672.29-6) 23P. PCB-1260 E

E 3

(11096-82-5) 24P. PCB-1016 I

E (12674-11-2) 25P. Toxaphene (8001-35-2)

VII-8 DER Form 62-620.910(5)2CS, Effective November 29, 1994

APPENDIX D Calculation of Dewatering Effluent Impacts to Outfall D-001 POD.doc FPL St. Lucie ISFSI

Tetra Tech EC, Inc.

MICROSOFT EXCEL CALCULATION SHEET

Subject:

Water Quality Impacts at the Canal POD - Flow / Volume Calculations Client:

Florida Power & Light (FPL)

Project:

St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Project

Description:

NPDES Permit Modification for excavation dewatering associated with the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) Area Prepared By:

C. St.Cin DATE:

11/22/05 Appendix: B Checked By:

II. Barone DATE:

11129105 Calculation No.: I Approved By:

C. St.Cin DATE:

11129/05 Purpose of Calculation This calculation estimates the water quality at the Point of Discharge (POD) (Outfall D-00 I) resulting from temporary additional discharges into the Intake Canal. Its purpose is to demonstrate reasonable assurance that Water Quality Criteria (Chapter 62-302.530, F.A.C.) will be met at the POD.

Reference:

NPDES Permit No.

FL0002208.

Background

At the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant (Plant), FPL is planning construction of the ISFSI area on a 5-acre parcel that is adjacent to and geohydrologically downgradient of the Mixed Plume (plume) area Extensive dewatering over a 3 to 6 month period will be performed for construction of the new project. A groundwater (gw) Pump & Treat (P&T) system will be installed to provide hydraulic control of the plume. GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. (GZA) is performing groundwater modeling to support the design of the construction excavation dewatering system, and specification of the hydraulic plume control (PC) requirements. The P&T system is described in an Interim Remedial Action Plan (IRAP) submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Southeast District, on November 21, 2005.

There are two construction dewatering design cases that describe the range of dewatering flow rates. These cases are based on the inclusion and exclusion, respectively, of the use of sheet pile to assist with hydraulic control of the excavation and the plume. The higher of these two estimates for flow rates reflects steady-state operation of the construction dewatering pumps, without the installation of extensive sheet pile, at approximately 1,500 gpm, with a corresponding discharge from the P&T system of approximately 200 gpm to the Evaporation / Percolation (EP) Basins. The maximum initial/startup flow rate for the dewatering system is 4,500 gpm to the Intake Canal.

The intermittent pumping rate from the EP Basins to the Intake Canal at Outfall 1-008 is 1,900 gpm. These two flow rates are used in this calculation of 'worse case' impacts to criteria constituent concentrations at the NPDES POD.

Approach This calculation uses a 2-part mass balance approach to estimate the incremental changes to the water quality at the Intake Canal, and hence at the Discharge Canal POD D-001. Two streams are added to the Intake Canal, and the mass contribution from each stream is added to the mass contribution from the Atlantic Ocean, which is used by the FPL Plant at large flow rates for once-through condenser cooling water. The first part of the calculation estimates the flow component of each new stream and of the Intake Canal. The second part of the calculation uses laboratory data to characterize the quality and mass contribution of the 2 new streams to the intake canal. A sample calculation is provided to show how the temporary concentrations are estimated for the Discharge Canal POD.

Narrative Assumptions:

1. Flow contributions to and from the dewatering well pumps and the PC well pumps are a combination of local native gw, Intake Canal water as gw, and the EP Basin system water as gw. Per GZA modeling report, dewatering withdrawal of gw from the nearby Intake Canal is estimated to be at least 70% of the total dewatering withdrawal. For purposes of this analysis, the amount and constituent concentrations of dewatering effluent pumped to the Intake Canal that Is assumed to be from Intake Canal seepage is not included as 'new input' to the Intake Canal. Stated another way, this simplifying assumption says that Intake Canal water Is drawn from the Canal into the dewatering wells and then returned to the Canal as dewatering pump effluent, without attenuation of the Intake Canal constituent concentrations. This Is a conservative assumption that allows for a simplified analysis of potential impact to the Discharge Canal.

2. The concentrations of the compounds of interest ascribed to the dewatering system effluent and the plume control system effluent are taken from those detected during the 3-level geoprobe sampling of the ISFSI area. This sampling was performed on November 1, 2005 at the approximate center of the planned construction dewatering area, at depths of 25 ft, 50 ft and 75 ft bls.

The highest detected concentration Irom the three intervals is used to characterize native gw quality for purposes of assessing the potential construction dewatering impacts. The highest detected concentration Irom the top two intervals Is used to characterize native gw quality for purposes of assessing the potential PC Impacts. This use of maximum concentrations from the recent sampling event is a conservative approach.

3. Since the general quality of the local native gw down to 75 ft bls Is lower than that of the EP Basins surface water, native gw quality data Is used for chatacterizing the portion of construction dewatering effluent that Is coming from native gw and the EP Basins seepage. Further, the highest (not the average) of the gw concentrations detected during the November 1, 2005 sampling event from the depths of 25 f. 50 ft and 75 ft bIs is used for the calculation of the dewatering effluent quality. This Is a conservative approach.

. The EP Basins water quality is assumed to approach that of native gw in the upper 50 ft as a result of continuous discharge from the plume control system. At 200 gpm input from the PC P&T system, the EP Basins water quality will approach the quality of the P&T system effluent within 2 to 3 months from dewatering start.

Therefore, the gw contribution from the EP Basins to the construction dewatering wells and to the plume control wells Is assumed to be predominantly from pumped native local gw. This is a conservative assumption that allows for a simplified analysis of Impact to the Discharge Canal.

As a conservative basis for this analysis, it Is assumed also that the P&T system will not treat or attenuate constituents in the native gw, even though volatile organic constituents are actually removed by the air stripper. Although the P&T effluent to the EP Basins Is expected to be a maximum of 200 gpm. the EP Basins discharge via Outfall 1-008 Intermittently to the Intake Canal at a pumping rate of 1,900 gpm. For conservatism, this calculation uses this 1900 gpm as an 'instantaneous' Input to the Intake Canal, and hence the Outfall D-00t POD.

Calculation continued on Page 2 of 2 Filename: ISFSI NPDES Calc (Rev. Olls Page I of 2 Tetra Tech

Tetra Tech EC, Inc.

MICROSOFT EXCEL CALCULATION SHEET

Subject:

Wiater Quality Impacts at the Canal POD - Flow t Volume Calculations Client:

Florida Power & Light (FPL)

Project:

St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Project

Description:

NPDES Permit Ailodification for excavation dewatering associated with the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) Area Prepared By:

C. SaCin DATE:

l1122/05 Appendix: B Checked By:

il. Barone DATE:

11129105 Calculation No.: I Approved By:

C. St.Cin DATE:

11/29/05 System Flow Assumptions:

Intake Canal Cooling water flow from Ocean 1.362 mgd FPL NPDES Permit, average annual flow with 2 Units operating (using 2003 data)

Cooling waterflow fram Ocean 472,917 gpm Net annual average cooling water flow required based on 1 Generating Unit operaton EP Basins Plume Control System Influent 200 gpm Based on the maximum average pumping rate for the PC wells. (GZA Report)

Discharge to Intake Canal 1.900 gpm Instantaneous pumping of EP Basin water to Intake Canal at Oudfall 1-008. (FPL NPDES)

Dewatering System Discharge Flow Transient 4.500 9pm Based on Initial dewatering pumping rates to Intake Canal tor the 'no sheet pile' case. (GZA)

Discharge Flow Steady-state 1.500 gpm Based on steady-state dewatering pumping rates to the Intake canal for the 'no sheet pile' case. (GZA)

Flow Network Assumptions:

Fraction of Intake Canal water In dewatering pump discharge (GZA 70%

Fraction ot Intake Canal water In plume control system discharge 0%

Fraction of native groundwater In dewaterIng pump discharge 291A Fraction ot native gw In plume control system discharge 1

C0%

100%

100%

Contributing Intake Canal Flows:

From Ocean to Intake Canal 472,917 gpm 99.317%

From Dewatering Effluent as native gw 1.350 9pm 0.284%

From PC wells via EP Basins 1,900 9pm 0.399%

Total 476.167 gpm 100.000%

EP Basin Capacities (million gal)

Operatinq Capacity (Ialtunit time)

Total Avail Cap pe Volume Factor I Capacity Per Month I Per day Per Minute Southeast & South Basins 11.2 5.6 East Basin 4.6 50%

2.3 West Basin 11.1 5 55 Total 26.9 13.45 14,000.000 466,667 324 Plume Control P&T system effluent 200 spm 8,640.000 gail/ month Plug Flow (Displacement) Factor 50%

4,320.000 adjusted gal l month EP Basin Turnover Rate 3.2 Months/tumover Sample Calculation tor Max Concentrations at the Point of Discharge

1. Determine Constituent Mass (M) and Flows (F) trom Dewatering Effluent plus Plume Control Effluent, and add to the background constituent mass and flow as measured at the POD

2. Determine Combined Concentration (Ccomb) at POD based on combined mass and tow.

Given for Arsenic:

Cgw 42 pg/L Max of values detected in gw at 25'. 50' & 75 bis Cpod 2.30 pg/L From POD anatysis reported In FPL NPDES permit application Dewatering Effluent fow rate Fdw 1.350 gpm Based on native gw flow at 30% of total flow developed, during transient state Plume Control flow rate Fpc 1.900 spm Based on native gw flow at I 00% of average flow developed Discharge Canal flow rate Fpod 472,917 gpm From POD average flow reported In FPL NPDES permit application Dewatering mass contribution Mdw 0.21463 grams/min Where:

Mdw = (Cgw'Fdw3.785 Ugal)/1000000 Plume Control mass contribution Mpc 0.30208 grams/min Mpc = (Cgw'Fpc3.785 Ugat,)1000000 Background seawater mass Mpod 028734 grams/min Mpod = (Cpod-Fpod-3.785 Ugal)/t000000 contribution Combined Concentration at POD Ccomb =

6.39 pg/L Where:

Ccomb=(Mdw+Mpc+Mpod) (tO0000003.785 Ugal)/(Fdw+Fpc+Fpod)

,Class III WO Marine Criterion Ccrit =

50 pg/L Comparison concludes Criterion In not exceeded.

References:

FPL NPDES - FPL St Lucie Ptant NPDES Permit No. FL0002208. Application Dated June 15, 2004 IRAP - Teara Tech EC, Inc. Interim Remedial Action Plan (lRAP), November 18,2005 GZA - GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Groundwater Modeling Report, Nov. 14, 2005 Conversion Factors:

I day.

1440 minutes I day.

24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> I month -

30 days. nominal 1 gal.

3.785412 Iters Flename: iSFSI NPDES Calc (Rev. 0)xIs Page 2 of 2 Tetra Tech

APPENDIX E Redux 380 Scale Control Product Information Attachment I.doc FPL St. Lucie ISFSI

h:T:

Redux-380 Deposit Control Agent PRODUCT APPLICATION:

Redux-380 is a concentrated blend of sequestering agents and polymers specifically designed to prevent the precipitation and deposition of calcium and other hardness salts and limited metal oxide concentrations in groundwater recovery and treatment systems. By maintaining clean treatment system surfaces, use of the product helps to increase mass transfer rates, improve circulation and, perhaps most importantly, reduce instances of highly destructive underdeposit corrosion.

When used on a continuous basis, or as part of a coordinated clean-up program, Redux-380 can also help to remove existing deposits from the system.

Redux-380 is easy to use in that the product is environmentally safe, does not promote microbiological contamination, is active over a broad pH range and is compatible with all other water treatment compounds. The product is also chlorine-stable and does not contribute to foaming problems.

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION:

Appearance:

Clear, pale yellow liquid Specific Gravity: 1.0 - 1.1 @ 25 degrees C Density:

8.91 pounds per gallon pH:

Less than 5.0 Freeze Point:

Less than 32 degrees F As product feed rates are highly dependent upon makeup water characteristics and system operating conditions, your sales representative should be consulted for specific dosage recommendations. Typically, however, Redux-380 is dosed to the system at a rate of 25 - 200 ppm (as product). The recommended feed method is continuously feed into the treatment system influent line.

PRODUCT SAFETY:

As with any industrial chemical, Redux-380 should be handled with appropriate care. Therefore, please have all supervisory personnel and operating employees review the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) to obtain recommended application, storage and disposal procedures before using the product in your facility.

PRODUCT PACKAGING:

Redux-380 is available in 55 and 30 gallon drums, 15 gallon containers, 6 gallon pails and bulk containers of various sizes.

PRODUCT DOSAGE:

550 Vermont Rte.30, P.O. Box 331, Newfane, Vermont 05345 Phone: 802-365-7200 Fax: 802-365-4652 remedeproducts.com

Material Safety Data Sheet Product Name: Redux 380 MSDS #: 22 Effective date: 12/1512004 Page 1 of 6 ISECTION 1 -- CHEMICAL PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION D

C IDENTIFICATION Product Name Chemical Name Chemical Family Formula Synonym Redux 380 Aqueous Blended Deposit Control Agent COMPANY IDENTIFICATION Redux Technology 550 VT Rte. 30, P.O. Box 331 Newfane, VT 05345 Phone: 802-365-7200 Fax: 802-365-4652 Email: info~reduxtech.com EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day: CHEMTREC 1-800-424-9300.

Number for non-emergency questions concerning MSDS: (802) 365-7200 ISECTION 2 -

COMPOSITION I INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS I

Component CAS # :-

Amount (%W0WW)

Water Polymaleic Acid Residual Monomers 2 phosphono-1,2,4-butanetricarboxylic acid 7732-.18-5 26099-09-2 37971-36-1

-60.%

-16.0%

<0.01%

-24.0%

ReduxTechnolow Material Safety Data Sheet Product Name: Redux 380 MSDS #: 22 Effective date: 2110/2004 Page 2 of 6 ISECTION 3 3 a HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION

I EMERGENCY Eye and skin irritant. Material may cause burns on exposed tissues. Eye contact OVERVIEW may cause corneal Injury, which may result in permanent Impairment of vision, or even blindness. Prolonged or repeated skin may cause Irritation or even a burn.

POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS INGESTION...............

Corrosive and causes severe and permanent damages to mouth throat and stomach. May be fatal if swallowed.

INHALATION.............

Damages airways and lungs, depending upon amount and duration of exposure. Effects can vary from irritation to bronchitis or pneumonia.

EYE CONTACT............

Severely corrosive to the eyes, and may cause permanent damage, including blindness.

SKIN CONTACT..........

Corrosive; causes severe skin burns. Harmful contact may not cause Immediate pain.

SECTION 4 -

FIRST AID MEASURES INGESTION If swallowed, DO NOT induce vomiting. Immediately drink a large quantity of water.

If available, give large quantities of milk. Never give anything by mouth to an unconscious person. Get medical attention immediately. If vomiting occurs spontaneously, keep airway clear.

INHALATION Get person out of contaminated area to fresh air. If breathing has stopped, resuscitate and administer oxygen if readily available. Get medical attention immediately.

EYE CONTACT Immediately flush eye with plenty of cool, running water. Remove contact lenses if applicable and continue flushing for at least 15 minutes, holding eyelids apart to ensure thorough rinsing of the entire eye. Get medical attention immediately.

SKIN CONTACT Immediately flush skin with plenty of cool running water for at least 15 minutes. Wash with soap and water. If irritation develops or persists, get medical attention.

Remove contaminated clothing and shoes; wash before reuse.

NOTE TO Information pertaining to ingestion toxicology, therapy, symptomatology and treatment PHYSICIAN can be found in Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, authored by Gosselin, Smith and Hodge and published by Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, Maryland.

Bedux Technology Material Safety Data Sheet Product Name: Redux 380 MSDS #: 22 Effective date: 2/10/2004 Page 3 of 6 ISECTION 5 -- FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES I

FLASH POINT/METHOD None/N.A.

lFLAMMABLE LIMITS INot flammable or FLASH____POINT/____METHOD__

Nn

.Acombustible EXTINGUISHING MEDIA Use extinguishing media appropriate for surrounding fire.

SPECIAL FIRE FIGHTING Pressure demand self-contained respiratory protection and protective PROCEDURES clothing should be worn by fire fighters.

FIRE AND EXPLOSION Not a fire or explosion hazard HAZARDS BISECTION 6 ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES

RESPONSE

Absorb with inert material such as vermiculite, shovel into closeable container for TO SPILLS disposal. Thoroughly flush residual with water.

SECTION 7 -HANDLING AND STORAGE HANDLING Wear proper safety equipment. Mix only with water. Follow appropriate tank entry PRECAUTIONS procedures (ANSI Z117) and OSHA Confined Space Regulations.

STORAGE Store In a cool, dry and well-ventilated place. Keep from freezing.

PRECAUTIONS Keep container tightly closed when not In use.

SECTION 8 EXPOSURE CONTROLS I PERSONAL PROTECTION HYGIENIC PRACTICES Observe label precautions; use personal protective equipment.

Avoid breathing mists or vapors of this product.

ENGINEERING CONTROLS Facilities using this product must be equipped with an eyewash station.

Local Exhaust: None

Redux Technology Material Safety Data Sheet Product Name: Redux 380 MSDS #: 22 Effective date: 2/1012004 Page 4 of 6 PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT X

RESPIRATOR NIOSH/MSHA approved respirator where mists or sprays may be generated.

X GOGGLES / FACE Chemical splash goggles required; also use face shield if exposure is SHIELD severe X

APRON Required; PVC, Neoprene or Vinyl acceptable X

GLOVES Required; use PVC, Neoprene or Nitrile with long gauntlet or protective cuff X

BOOTS Rubber SECTION 9 -- PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES APPEARANCE Clear pale yellow liquid BOILING POINT

> 212° F ODOR Slight Odor FREEZING POINT

< 320 F pH Approx. 2.5 VAPOR PRESSURE Similar to water SPECIFIC GRAVITY 1.1 VAPOR DENSITY Similar to water SOLUBILITY IN WATER Complete EVAPORATION RATE Similar to water SECTION 10.- STABILITY AND REACTIVITY CHEMICAL STABILITY I STABLE I X I

I UNSTABLE I

l CONDITIONS TO AVOID Do not mix with anything but water.

INCOMPATIBILITY Do not mix with quaternay amines, acids, sulfides and strong oxidizers.

HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS Carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.

OF DECOMPOSITION POLYMERIZATION l WILL NOT I OCCUR lX MA CONDITIONS~ TO AVOID Not applicable I

CONDITIONS TO AVOID Not aDDlicable

RodM Technology Material Safety Data Sheet Product Name: Redux 380 MSDS #: 22 Effective date: 2/1012004 Page 5 of 6 SECTION 11 -

TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION Oral:

Eye Irritation:

Skin irritation Rat LD50 = >6,500 mg/kg Corrosive Mild Irritant CARCINOGENICITY THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS A KNOWN OR SUSPECTED CARCINOGEN lX THIS PRODUCT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY KNOWN OR ANTICIPATED CARCINOGENS ACCORDING TO THE CRITERIA OF THE NTP ANNUAL REPORT ON CARCINOGENS AND OSHA 29 CFR 1910, Z OTHER EFFECTS ACUTE May be corrosive to all body tissues which it comes in contact.

CHRONIC The chronic local effect may consist of multiple areas of superficial destruction of the skin or of primary irritant dermatitis. Similarly, inhalation of dust, spray, or mist may result in varying degrees of irritation or damage to the respiratory tract tissues and an increased susceptibility to respiratory illness.

ISECTION 12 -

ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION BIODEGRADABILITY

- CONSIDERED lX I I NOT BIODEGRADABLE I BIODEGRADABLE l

l l

BOD I COD VALUE Not established ECOTOXICITY Ceriodaphnia: 48 hr LD50 = 2900 mg/I NOAEL = 2000 mg/I Fathead Minnow: 96 hr LD50 = 5700 mg/I NOAEL = 2000 mg/l

Redux Technology Material Safety Data Sheet Product Name: Redux 380 MSDS #: 22 Effective date: 2/10/2004 Page 6 of 6 ISECTION 13 -

DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS WASTE DISPOSAL Product that cannot be used according to the label must be disposed of as a hazardous waste at an approved hazardous waste management facility. Empty containers may be triple rinsed, METHOD then offered for recycling or reconditioning; or puncture and dispose of in a sanitary landfill.

RCRA CLASSIFICATION Hazardous, corrosive D002 RECYCLE CONTAINER I YES I X CODE 1 2 - HDPE NO ISECTION 14 -

TRANSPORT INFORMATION i.1 DOT CLASSIFICATION l HAZARDOUS IX I

I NOT DESCRPTO CrHAZARDOUSr DESCRIPTION Corrosive I

I ISECTION 15 REGULATORY INFORMATION REGULATORY STATUS EPA REGISTERED (UNDER FIFRA)

FDA REGULATED KOSHER SARA TITLE III MATERIAL USDA AUTHORIZED NSF APPROVAL ISECTION 16 -OTHER INFORMATION NFPA CLASSIFICATION 2

BLUE HEALTH HAZARD 0

RED:

FLAMMABILITY 1

YELLOW REACTIVITY C

WHITE SPECIAL HAZARD

R~dUX~ Tehnology Summary of Bioassay Toxicity Testing Redux 380 Redux Technology contracts with independent laboratories to perform standard bioassay toxicity testing. Testing for Redux 380 was completed in April 2004. Testing protocols were taken from EPA standards defined in recent editions of Short-Term Methods for Estimating Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms (EPA 600/4-90/027F). Testing was completed on vertebrate (fat head minnow) and invertebrate (ceriodaphnia) species, for a test duration of 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> and 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> respectively. This testing involved an initial rangefinder test to determine appropriate concentration for detailed testing, with subsequent determination of LD50 and NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Effect Level).

Summary of test results for Redux 380 are given below. All concentration values are given as parts per million, as product:

Product LD50 NOAEL Redux 380 ceriodaphnia fathead minnow 2,900 ppm 5,700 ppm 2,000 ppm 2,000 ppm Test reports, methodology and raw data are available upon request.

550 Vermont Route 30, P.O. Box 331, Newfane, Vermont 05345 Phone: 802-365-7200 Fax: 802-365-4652 www.reduxtech.com

APPENDIX F Redux B-15 Microbiocide Product Information Attachment l.doc FPL St. Lucie ISFSI

O DX echnology Redux B-15 MICROBIOCIDE PRODUCT APPLICATION:

B-15 is a concentrated liquid microbiocide that provides broad-spectrum control of bacteria in groundwater recovery and treatment systems. The product is particularly effective in controlling the growth of slime-forming, sulfate-reducing, and iron related bacteria, microorganisms that can initiate a wide variety of operating problems, including reduced mass transfer rates, restricted water flows and highly destructive pitting-type corrosion. Unlike many alternative treatments, B-15 is not an oxidizing agent, so it will not cause deposition of inorganic water constituents, or corrosion of system components. The product also displays some dispersing capabilities, so continued use will enhance system cleanliness.

PRODUCT BENEFITS:

- Will not oxidize inorganic compounds

- Broad-spectrum microbiological activity

- Effective against both algae and bacteria

- Functions independently of pH levels

- Environmentally and hygienically-safe PRODUCT DESCRIPTION:

Appearance:

Clear, water-white liquid Specific Gravity: 1.04 - 1.06 @ 25 degrees C Density:

8.8 pounds per gallon pH:

Less than 5.0 Freeze Point:

Less than 32 degrees F EPA Reg. No.:

10352-23n3810 PRODUCT DOSAGE:

As product feed rates are highly dependent upon the degree of microbiological activity and other system operating conditions, your sales representative should be consulted for specific dosage recommendations.

Typically, however, B-15 is fed to the system at a rate of 17 - 40 fluid ounces of product per 1,000 gallons of water every seven days, or sooner should growth appear. For best results, heavily fouled systems should be mechanically cleaned before initiating the treatment.

The recommended feed method is by slug addition, but continuous feed is acceptable if necessary. To eliminate handling problems, the feed equipment should preferably be of stainless steel or plastic construction.

PRODUCT SAFETY:

As with any industrial chemical, B-15 should be handled with appropriate care. Therefore, please have employees review the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) to obtain recommended application, storage and disposal procedures before using the product in your facility.

PRODUCT PACKAGING:

B-15 is available in 55 and 30 gallon drums, 15 gallon containers and 6 gallon pails.

550 Vermont Route 30, P.O. Box 331, Newfane, Vermont 05345 Phone: 802-365-7200 Fax: 802-365-4652 www.reduxtech.com

Material Safety Data Sheet Product Name: B - 15 Microbiocide MSDS #: 20 Effective date: 1/25/2004 Page 1 of 13 II. CHEMICAL PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION I

1.1 IDENTIFICATION Product Name Chemical Name Chemical Family Formula Synonym B-15 Aqueous Glutaraldehyde Solution Aldehydes OHCC3H6CHO Glutaral, glutaric dialdehyde 1.2 COMPANY IDENTIFICATION Redux Technology 550 VT Rte. 30, P.O. Box 331 Newfane, VT 05345 Phone: 802-365-7200 Fax: 802-365-4652 Email: infoXreduxtech.com 1.3 EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day: CHEMTREC 1-800-424-9300.

Number for non-emergency questions concerning MSDS: (802) 365-7200

2. COMPOSITION INFORMATION Component CAS #

Amount (0/oWI)

Water Glutaraldehyde Methanol 7732-18-5 111-30-8 67-56-1

<= 85%

15 %

<= 0.1 5%

Hedux Technology Material Safety Data Sheet Product Name: B - 15 Microbiocide MSDS #: 20 Effective date: 1/25/2005 Page 2 of 13

13. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION

-1 3.1 EMERGENCY OVERVIEW Appearance Physical State Odor Transparent colorless Liquid Sharp, Fruity, Medicinal Hazards of product DANGER!

CAUSES IRREVERSIBLE EYE DAMAGE.

CAUSES SKIN IRRITATION.

HARMFUL IF INHALED.

HARMFUL IF SWALLOWED.

PROLONGED OR FREQUENTLY REPEATED SKIN CONTACT MAY CAUSE ALLERGIC REACTIONS IN SOME INDIVIDUALS.

CAUSES ASTHMATIC SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS IN HYPER-REACTIVE INDIVIDUALS.

ASPIRATION MAY CAUSE LUNG DAMAGE.

3.2 POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS Effects of Single Acute Overexposure Inhalation Vapor is irritating to the respiratory tract, causing stinging sensations in the nose and throat, discharge from the nose, possibly bleeding from the nose, coughing, chest discomfort and tightness, difficulty with breathing, and headache. Heating the solution may result in more severe irritant effects.

Eye Contact Liquid will cause a severe and persistent conjunctivitis, seen as excess redness and marked swelling of the conjunctiva with profuse discharge. Severe corneal injury may develop, which could permanently impair vision if prompt first-aid and medical treatment are not obtained. Vapor will cause stinging sensations in the eye with excess tear production, blinking, and possibly a slight excess redness of the conjunctiva.

Skin Contact Brief contact may cause moderate irritation with itching, local redness and possible slight swelling. Contact with solutions of glutaraldehyde may cause a harmless yellow or brownish discoloration of the skin.

Skin Absorption No evidence of harmful effects from available information.

Swallowing Moderately toxic. May cause moderate to marked irritation and possibly chemical burns of the mouth, throat, esophagus, and stomach. There will be discomfort or pain in the chest and abdomen, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dizziness, faintness, drowsiness, thirst, weakness, circulatory shock, collapse and coma. Aspiration into the lungs may occur during ingestion or vomiting, resulting in lung injury.

Redux Technology Material Safety Data Sheet Product Name: B - 15 Microbiocide Effective date: 1/25/2005 MSDS #: 20 Page 3 of 13 Chronic, Prolonged or Repeated Overexposure Effects of Repeated Overexposure Repeated skin contact may cause a cumulative dermatitis.

Other Effects of Overexposure May cause skin sensitization in a small portion of individuals and present as an allergic contact dermatitis. This usually results from contact with the liquid, but occasionally there may be a reaction to glutaraldehyde vapor. May cause asthma, particularly in those with an increased tendency to develop allergic reactions to common environmental allergens (i.e., atopic individuals).

Medical Conditions Aggravated by Exposure Skin contact may aggravate an existing dermatitis. Inhalation may aggravate asthma and inflammatory or fibrotic pulmonary disease.

3.3 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS See Section 12 for Ecological Information.

4. FIRST AID PROCEDURES 4.1 INHALATION Remove to fresh air. Give artificial respiration if not breathing. If breathing is difficult, oxygen may be given by qualified personnel. Obtain medical attention.

4.2 EYE CONTACT Immediately flush eyes with water and continue washing for at least 15 minutes. DO NOT remove contact lenses, if worn. Obtain medical attention without delay, preferably from an ophthalmologist.

4.3 SKIN CONTACT Immediately remove contaminated clothing and shoes. Wash skin with soap and water. Obtain medical attention. Wash clothing before reuse. Discard contaminated leather articles such as shoes and belt.

4.4 SWALLOWING DO NOT INDUCE VOMITING. Do not give anything to drink. Obtain medical attention without delay.

4.5 NOTES TO PHYSICIAN The hazards of this material are due mainly to its severely irritant properties on skin and mucosal surfaces.

Moderately toxic by swallowing.

Redux Technology Material Safety Data Sheet Product Name: B - 15 Microbiocide Effective date: 1/25/2005 MSDS #: 20 Page 4 of 13 Due to the severely irritating or corrosive nature of the material, swallowing may lead to ulceration and inflammation of the upper alimentary tract with hemorrhage and fluid loss. Also, perforation of the esophagus or stomach may occur, leading to mediastinitis or peritonitis and the resultant complications. Any material aspirated during vomiting may cause lung injury.

Therefore, emesis should not be induced mechanically or pharmacologically. If it is considered necessary to evacuate the stomach contents, this should be done by means least likely to cause aspiration (e.g., gastric lavage after endotracheal intubation).

5. FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES 5.1 FLAMMABLE PROPERTIES Flash Point - Closed Cup: Tag Closed Cup ASTM D 56 None.

Flash Point - Open Cup: Tag Open Cup ASTM D 1310 None.

Autoignition Temperature:

Not currently available.

Flammable Limits In Air:

Lower Not Determined, Aqueous System Upper Not Determined, Aqueous System 5.2 EXTINGUISHING MEDIA Non-flammable (aqueous solution): After water evaporates, remaining material will burn. Use alcohol-type or all-purpose-type foam, applied by manufacturer's recommended techniques for large fires. Use carbon dioxide or dry chemical media for small fires.

5.3 EXTINGUISHING MEDIA TO AVOID No information currently available.

5.4 SPECIAL FIRE FIGHTING PROCEDURES No information currently available.

5.5 SPECIAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT FOR FIREFIGHTERS Use self-contained breathing apparatus and protective clothing.

5.6 UNUSUAL FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS None known.

5.7 HAZARDOUS COMBUSTION PRODUCTS Burning can produce the following products: Carbon monoxide and/or carbon dioxide. Carbon monoxide is highly toxic if inhaled. Carbon dioxide in sufficient concentrations can act as an asphyxiant.

fledux Technology Material Safety Data Sheet Product Name: B -15 Microbiocide Effective date: 1/25/2005 MSDS #: 20 Page 5 of 13

16. ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES Steps to be Taken if Material is Released or Spilled:

Very low concentrations (5 ppm or less of glutaraldehyde) can be degraded in a biological wastewater treatment system. Thus, small spills can be flushed with large quantities of water.

Large quantities or 'slugs' can be harmful to the treatment system. Thus, large spills should be collected for disposal. It may also be possible to decontaminate spilled material by careful application of aqueous sodium hydroxide or sodium bisulfite. Depending on conditions, considerable heat and fumes can be liberated by the decontamination reaction.

Personal Precautions: Wear suitable protective equipment. See Section 8.2 - Personal Protection.

Environmental Precautions: Toxic to fish; avoid discharge to natural waters.

17. HANDLING AND STORAGE 7.1 HANDLING General Handling Do not get in eyes, on skin, on clothing.

Avoid breathing vapor.

Do not swallow.

Wear goggles, protective clothing and gloves.

Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling.

Remove contaminated clothing and wash before reuse.

FOR INDUSTRY USE ONLY.

Ventilation General (mechanical) room ventilation is expected to be satisfactory if this material is kept in covered equipment or if the solution is highly diluted. However, if vapors are strong enough to be irritating to the nose (or eyes), the TLV is probably being exceeded and special ventilation and/or respiratory protection may be required.

Other Precautions This product in its undiluted form must not be used in a spray or aerosol application. If dilutions or mixtures of this product are used in a spray application, full personal protective equipment is strongly recommended to prevent exposure. CAUTIONI PLASTIC CONTAINER, IF PRESENT, MAY CAUSE STATIC IGNITION HAZARD. Do not handle or empty container in the presence of flammable vapors.

Redux Technology Material Safety Data Sheet Product Name: B -15 Microbiocide MSDS #: 20 Effective date: 1/25/2005 Page 6 of 13 7.2 STORAGE Please refer to Remede Products Technical Guidance Document 20-1, GLUTARALDEHYDE.

Safe Handling and Storage Guide.

18. EXPOSURE CONTROLS AND PERSONAL PROTECTION I

8.1 EXPOSURE LIMITS Comnonent Exposure Limits Skin Form Glutaraldehyde Methanol Methanol 0.05 ppm CEILING ACGIH 0.2 ppm CEILING OSHA-Vacated 0.8 mg/m3 CEILING OSHA-Vacated 0.1 ppm CEILING UCC 200 ppm TWA8 ACGIH 262 mg/m3 TWA8 ACGIH 250 ppm STEL ACGIH 328 mg/m3 STEL ACGIH 200 ppm TWA8 OSHA-Vacated 260 mg/m3 TWA8 OSHA-Vacated 250 ppm STEL OSHA-Vacated 325 mg/m3 STEL OSHA-Vacated 200 ppm TWA8 OSHA 260 mg/m3 TWA8 OSHA activated and unactivated Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes In the Exposure Limits Chart above, if there is no specific qualifier (i.e., Aerosol) listed in the Form Column for a particular limit, the listed limit includes all airborne forms of the substance that can be inhaled.

A 'Yes" in the Skin Column indicates a potential significant contribution to overall exposure by the cutaneous (skin) route, including mucous membranes and the eyes, either by contact with vapors or by direct skin contact with the substance. A 'Blank" in the Skin Column indicates that exposure by the cutaneous (skin) route is not a potential significant contributor to overall exposure.

8.2 PERSONAL PROTECTION Respiratory Protection:

Use self-contained breathing apparatus in high vapor concentrations.

If self-contained breathing apparatus is not available, a MSHA/NIOSH approved air purifying respirator equipped with an organic vapor cartridge should be used.

Redux Technology Material Safety Data Sheet Product Name: B - 15 Microbiocide Effective date: 1/25/2005 MSDS #: 20 Page 7 of 13 Ventilation:

General (mechanical) room ventilation is expected to be satisfactory if this material is kept in covered equipment or if the solution is highly diluted. However, if vapors are strong enough to be irritating to the nose (or eyes), the TLV is probably being exceeded and special ventilation and/or respiratory protection may be required.

Eye Protection:

Splash proof monogoggles or safety glasses with side shields in conjunction with a face shield.

Protective Gloves:

Nitrile (NBR)

Butyl Other Protective Equipment:

Chemical apron Eye Bath, Safety Shower Rubber boots 8.3 ENGINEERING CONTROLS Use good housekeeping and acceptable industrial engineering practices.

l9. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES Physical State:

Liquid Appearance:

Transparent colorless pH:

3.1 -4.5 Solubility in Water (by weight):

20 OC 100 %

Odor:

Sharp, Fruity, Medicinal Molecular Weight:

100.11 glmol Boiling Point (760 mmHg):

- 100.5 OC

- 213 OF As product.

Freezing Point:

-7 'C 20 OF Specific Gravity (H20 = 1):

1.042 20 0C/20 0C Vapor Pressure at 20'C:

0.2 mmHg Based on glutaraldehyde Vapor Density (air = 1):

0.7 Evaporation Rate (Butyl Acetate = 1):

0.8 Melting Point: Not applicable.

Redux Technology Material Safety Data Sheet Product Name: B - 15 Microbiocide Effective date: 1/25/2005 MSDS #: 20 Page 8 of 13 110. STABILITY AND REACTIVITY 10.1 STABILITY/INSTABILITY Stable Conditions to Avoid: Avoid high temperature and evaporation of water.

Incompatible Materials: Strong alkalies and acids catalyze an aldol-type condensation (exothermic, but not expected to be violent).

10.2 HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION Will Not Occur.

Conditions to Avoid : Temperatures above 1000C. Although polymerization may occur, it is not hazardous.

10.3 INHIBITORS/STABILIZERS Not applicable.

11. TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION ACUTE TOXICITY Percutaneous Rabbit; male = 16 ; 24 h occluded.

Mortality: 0/5 Major Signs: necrosis with subsequent desquamation at application site Gross Pathology: lungs discolored Percutaneous Rabbit; female = 16 ; 24 h occluded.

Mortality: 1/5 Major Signs: necrosis with subsequent desquamation at application site Gross Pathology: lungs discolored SENSITIZATION (ANIMAL AND HUMAN STUDIES)

Guinea Pig Maximization Test: intradermal injection of a 0.1% glutaraldehyde solution and topical administration of a 5% solution. Evidence of delayed contact hypersensitivity in 68% of test animals upon challenge.

SIGNIFICANT DATA WITH POSSIBLE RELEVANCE TO HUMANS Studies in humans have shown that glutaraldehyde is neither phototoxic nor a photosensitizer.

Subchronic drinking water studies in rats, mice and dogs using concentrations up to 1000 ppm showed no evidence for any target organ toxicity. In vitro studies for genetic toxicology using a variety of assays [bacterial mutagenicity, forward gene mutation (HGPRT and TK loci), sister chromatid exchanges, chromosome abberrations UDS, and DNA repair] have given variable results, ranging from negative to weak positive. In vivo genetic toxicology studies have

Redux Technology Material Safety Data Sheet Product Name: B - 15 Microbiocide Effective date: 1/25/2005 MSDS #: 20 Page 9 of 13 generally shown no activity (micronucleus, some chromosome aberration tests, dominant lethal, and Drosophila), although one mouse bone marrow study showed increased chromosomal aberrations following intraperitoneal dosing, but this was not seen in the rat after oral dosing.

Several developmental toxicity studies have demonstrated that at maternally nontoxic doses, glutaraldehyde does not produce fetotoxic, embryotoxic or teratogenic effects. In a two-generation reproduction study involving continuous exposure of CD rats to glutaraldehyde up to 1000 ppm, in drinking water there were effects on parental body weight and food consumption at 1000 ppm (due to an aversion to the taste), but no adverse effects on repro-ductive performance. In a chronic (2-year) continuous drinking water combined chronic toxicity-oncogenicity study using Fischer 344 rats, there was no evidence for non-oncogenic target organ toxicity. The only possible oncogenicity-related finding was an increase in the incidence of large granular cell does not represent direct chemical carcinogenic activity but, rather, a modifying influence on the expression of this spontaneous and commonly occurring neooplasm in the Fischer 344 rat. Repeated applications of aqueous solutions of glutaraldehyde to the rat skin for 20 dosages over a 28-day period at 50, 100 or 150 mg/kg/day produced mild local inflammatory effects, but no evidence for target organ or tissue systemic toxicity. Under the auspices of the National Toxicology Program a chronic study with glutaraldehyde vapor was conducted in rats (0,250,500 and 750 ppb) and mice (0,62.5,125 and 250 ppb). Animals were exposed for 6 hr/day, 5 days/week for 104 weeks. Under these conditions there were no significant increases in any tumor types, and glutaraldehyde was not carcinogenic.

An extensive clinical survey has been conducted on nursing staff in 59 endoscopy units (340 currently employed workers and 18 former employees); investigational procedures included detailed questionnaire, sensitization to common allergens, blood for IgE measurements, lung function tests, peak flow diaries, and measurement of workplace glutaraldehyde vapor concentrations. About two-thirds of current employees had ocular, nasal, or lower respiratory tract symptoms, but these were more prevalent for non-work conditions. The only effect correlated with glutaraldehyde exposure was nasal irritation. There was a slight, but no statistically or biologically significant, decrease in FEV1 for those with lower respiratory tract symptoms. There were no indications of asthma and no objective evidence for respiratory sensitization.

112. ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION 12.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FATE Please refer to Remede Products Technical Guidance Document: Summary of Environmental Fate Data on Glutaraldehyde.

12.2 ECOTOXICITY Please refer to Remede Products Technical Guidance Document: Summary of Fish and Wildlife Toxicological Studies on Glutaraldehyde.

12.3 FURTHER INFORMATION None.

Redux Technology Material Safety Data Sheet Product Name: B - 15 Microbiocide Effective date: 1/25/2005 MSDS #: 20 Page 10 of 13

13. DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS 13.1 WASTE DISPOSAL METHOD Atomize into a very hot incinerator fire or mix with a suitable flammable solvent, and incinerate where permitted under appropriate Federal, State, and local regulations. High water content may dampen flame. Dispose in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local environmental regulations. Empty containers should be recycled or disposed of through an approved waste management facility.

13.2 DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS See Section 13.1 Disposal methods identified are for the product as sold. For proper disposal of used material, an assessment must be completed to determine the proper and permissible waste management options permissible under applicable rules, regulations and/or laws governing your location.

114. TRANSPORT INFORMATION 14.1 U.S. D.O.T.

NON-BULK Proper Shipping Name: NOT REGULATED BULK Proper Shipping Name: NOT REGULATED This information is not intended to convey all specific regulatory or operational requirements/information relating to this product. Additional transportation system information can be obtained through an authorized sales or customer service representative. It is the responsibility of the transporting organization to follow all applicable laws, regulations and rules relating to the transportation of the material.

l15. REGULATORY INFORMATION 15.1 FEDERAUNATIONAL COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT OF 1980 SECTION 103 (CERCLA)

Redux Technology Material Safety Data Sheet Product Name: B - 15 Microbiocide Effective date: 1/25/2005 MSDS #: 20 Page 11 of 13 The following components of this product are specifically listed as hazardous substances in 40 CFR 302.4 (unlisted hazardous substances are not identified) and are present at levels which could require reporting:

None.

SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1986 TITLE III (EPCRA) SECTIONs 302 AND 304 The following components of this product are listed as extremely hazardous substances in 40 CFR Part 355 and are present at levels which could require reporting and emergency planning:

None.

SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1986 TITLE III (EPCRA) SECTION 313 The following components of this product are listed as toxic chemicals in 40 CFR 372.65 and are present at levels which could require reporting and customer notification under Section 313 and '40 CFR Part 372:

- This product does not contain toxic chemicals at levels which require reporting under the statute.

SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1986 TITLE IlIl (EPCRA) SECTIONS 311 AND 312 Delayed (Chronic) Health Hazard: Yes Fire Hazard: No Immediate (Acute) Health Hazard: Yes Reactive Hazard: No Sudden Release of Pressure Hazard: No Toxic SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT (TSCA)

All components of this product are on the TSCA Inventory or are exempt from TSCA Inventory requirements.

EUROPEAN INVENTORY OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES (EINECS)

The components of this product are on the EINECS inventory or are exempt from EINECS inventory requirements.

CEPA - DOMESTIC SUBSTANCES LIST (DSL)

The components of this product are on the DSL or are exempt from reporting under the New Substances Notification Regulations.

Redux Technology Material Safety Data Sheet Product Name: B -15 Microbiocide Effective date: 1/2512005 MSDS #: 20 Page 12 of 13 15.2 STATE/LOCAL PENNSYLVANIA (WORKER AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-To-KNOW ACT)

This product is subject to the Worker and Community Right-to-Know Act. The following components of this product are at levels which could require identification in the MSDS:

Component CAS #

Amount Glutaraldehyde 111-30-8

<= 15.0000%

MASSACHUSETTS (HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES DISCLOSURE BY EMPLOYERS)

The following components of this product appear on the Massachusetts Substance List and are present at levels which could require identification in the MSDS:

Component CAS #

Amount Glutaraldehyde 111-30-8

<= 15.0000%

CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 65 (SAFE DRINKING WATER AND TOXIC ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1986)

This product contains no listed substances known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm, at levels which would require a warning under the statute.

CALIFORNIA SCAQMD RULE 443.1 (SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT RULE 443.1, LABELING OF MATERIALS CONTAINING ORGANIC SOLVENTS)

VOC:

Not applicable.

This section provides selected regulatory information on this product including its components.

This is not intended to include all regulations. It is the responsibility of the user to know and comply with all applicable rules, regulations and laws relating to the product being used.

116. OTHER INFORMATION, 16.1 AVAILABLE LITERATURE AND BROCHURES ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: There may be additional product safety information on this product, which may be obtained by calling your Remede products or your Customer Service Contact.

Redux Technologw Material Safety Data Sheet Product Name: B - 15 Microbiocide MSDS #: 20 Effective date: 1/25/2005 Page 13 of 13 16.2 SPECIFIC HAZARD RATING SYSTEM IIHMIS ratings for this product are: H - 3 lINFPA ratings for this product are: H - 3 F-1 F-1 R -O R -O These ratings are part of specific hazard communications program(s) and should be disregarded where individuals are not trained in the use of these hazard rating systems. You should be familiar with the hazard communication applicable to your workplace.

16.3 RECOMMENDED USES AND RESTRICTIONS This product in its undiluted form must not be used in a spray or aerosol application. If dilutions or mixtures of this product are used in a spray application, full personal protective equipment is strongly recommended to prevent exposure.

FOR INDUSTRY USE ONLY.

16.4 REVISION Version: 4.

Revision: 03/19/2001 Most recent revision(s) are noted by the bold, double bars in left-hand margin throughout this document.

16.5 LEGEND A

Bacterial/NA F

H HMIS N/A NFPA 0

P R

TS VOLNOL W

WIW Asphyxiant Non Acclimated Bacteria Fire Health Hazardous Materials Information System Not available National Fire Protection Association Oxidizer Peroxide Former Reactivity Trade Secret VolumeNolume Water Reactive Weight/Weight The opinions expressed herein are those of qualified experts. We believe that the information contained herein is current as of the date of this Material Safety Data Sheet. Since the use of this information and the conditions of the use of the product are not under the control of Redux Technology, it is the user's obligation to determine conditions of safe use of the product.

I 11/21/05 MON 16:07 FAX m0 002 jTu SUAMRY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FATE STUDIES

- Stable-to sunlight

- Aqueous ydrolysis yields simple dime, which is nonbioddal and relatively non-toxic to aquatic organisms

- Aerobic soil metabolism causes rapid degradatio on GA luife < 24 bours), mainly to carbon dioxide Ariaerobik soil metabolisn causes rapid degradation of GA (half-life < 24 haurg), mainly to 1,5-pentandiol-550 Vermont Route 30, P.O. Box 331, Newfane, Vermont 05345 Phone: 802-365-7200 Fax: 802-365.4652 www.reduxtech.corn II:IZ SOOZ/GZ/11 JAN 23 1996 13:11 PAGE. 02

11/21/05 MON 16:08 FAX 003 jj un-To TBoL TABU I Air M r,

Fibo" plant FRbM plant Fiben PlanI SmithEast South FM South Ast.

80 ppm 90 ppm I~~Ii 4 hrs 10 hrs P~hCnica1 omcer cocmpley r~c=

e officc aorriplci.

Mcxicb Wet North~

JIf~dyl Ccmncentratipni" 100 ppm 90 ppm

.75 ppm

.81 ppm 6 bs 8 his 6 hbs 8 hmi ThcpIinthemsystemsrangcsfiom6.8to7.8. Iftheksytem pHwus8.5 or greater, the half-life would be ruduc4l, wiTh ai incrcix~ pH le=U#S to a shorter lhalf-lfr.

fers to actvecceauvion of gnutaruldede 550 Verrrmont Route 30. P.O. Box 331, Newfane, Vermont 05345 Phone: 802.365-7200 Fax: 802.36a-4652 www.reduxtech.oom EG 329d IAN 29 1996 13:12 ZS9ts9cZ0B 11G:1 5036/0Z/i PAGE. 03

11/21/05 MON 16:09 FAX 42 UU i SUMARY OF FISH AND WILDLIFE STUDIES B-IS Water Treatment Microlbiocides bave beeni eaensively examined in sevreral fish and wildlife toxicology studies, as shown in the table below. Results from these studies demonsrate the relatively safe nature of glutaraldehyde-based biocides in water ultment.

Speces Itainbow Trut BhzIe Gil Sun6A Grcn Crib3 G&ss Shdmp Daphiza (Wa+/-r Flca)

Activ%,

25 so 50 o-E~ffect Level, mg/i 32.0 18.0 10.0 10.0 48-Hr LC uId 56.2 32.6 47.3 23.7 96-Hr LC maZ 42.1 23.7 37.6 22.4 25 -

25 2-1 1100.0 400.00 465.0 41.0 25 50 5.0 5.0 16.9 1 1.5 Species Acliv=i, %

S-DAy DiotaryLC ppmi, Atut Oral LD maglkg Bobwhlite QWi Malard Durk 25 50 10,000 10,000 25 50 10,000 10,000 1,631 933.

550 Vernont Route 30, P.O. Box 331, Newfane, Vermont 05345 Phone: e02-365-7200 Fax: 802-365-4652 www.reduxtech.com tea 39vd tSSV8SEZO8 ITT :Z 50ez/0ZZII PAGE. 04 JAN 28 :996 13:13 I1

11/21/05 MON 16:10 FAX wi ULJ5 jER "e c h In~ noog Glutaraldehyde-Based B-15 Water Treatment Microbiocides Environmental Fate Studies Studies were undertaken to determine the eavironmental fate of glutaraudehyd; the active ingredics In B-15 Water Treaeat Microbiocidcs.

The purpose of these studies was to determine the products fotmed when glutaraldehyde is allowed to degrade in the presec of nver and scdimet. Buth a=obic and amobir conlitions were employed in determining the fate of glutaraldehyde.

Glutzaidehyde Mdabolbies Completwy in Aerobic and Arta=mbk Systems Actobik System G2iuIauzdeudc Iva a Ia^f4k of approodmately 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />. -Dhi tiis pt the gh ialdohyde was uwtabaL 1i=st to glubtic add and then to cas*,n doide. Sdiae 1). No tbacs of eM"

&IuTzjde-byde or 8lutarc add wi fa d'afrw 48 houxu Scheme I 0

0 CIoxtrildehyde 0

0

'HOAS--OH Glutaric Acid C2 Carbon Dioxide Ax=Cwobic Syabem The g~uhm~dehyde coticb2fi= alo dameased rapidly in the water And was npetdy-=eubo-lired m t The winxiY5 te m

-dad in the first 24 homTe inawlite melaBolfte in the anaeobic study was Shyd ypentanzuL ihid& was further nwietAbolir within seven days to,5-pen-b ue4Uol (SdLce 2). ris cwaunud has nio app-dableb locidpl pap Schexrel 0

0 tHh GhItazadehyde a

ti&-ydrOx OH 5-Hydroxypentanal 1,5 Pentanedial Conclusion Glutzraddehyde is not pstent under aerobic or anazrbic conditions of au tiecl smetibolrz 550 VOrmoRikoUti 30.

b..Box i33, Newfane, Vernont OS345 Phone: 802-366-720O Fax: 802-365-4.652 www.reduxtech.com SZ 395d JAN 28 1996 13:15 Z99VS9EZ08 Itl:IZ SG8Z/i0t/T PAGE. 05

11-/121105 MON 16:11 FAX0 1S5 006 I

F:
 :- '.

-i-. -

S¶tor e.StabiliW Under proper conditions, aqueous glutaroldhyde solutions may be stored for extended periods of time without adverse effects. The rate of loss of activity will be determined principally by the following conditions of storage:

• Temperature

• pki

• Product contamination The most important factor affecting the useful storage lifetimne of glutaraldlhyde solutions is temperature.

The material should be stored at or below room tem-perature whenever possible In order to minimize decomposition. Glutaraldehyde solutions show no change in concentration after one year of storage at 2SC and 37x:. howevdr storage at elevated tcmperu-tures for extended periods will shorten the shelf life.

freezing will normally have no impact on the activity of glutaraldehyde-based solutions. Even repeated cycles of freezing and thawing wall not cause any sig-nificant degradation of the material. However, when

,lutaraltdlyde solutions art frozen rclatively slowly, as might occur in large containers or at temperatures only slightly below the free2ing point, stratification may be observed. The resulting solutlon wllI be more concentrated at the bottom of the container than at the top. This effect is mort pronounced with solutions containing lower concentrations of glutaraldehyde (15 percent), but does not seem to grow worse with repeated freeze-thaw cycles. When possible, freezing should be prevented. If freezing aules u.cui, drums should be slowly thawed (avoiding localized hot spots) and rnlxed until homogeneous. Bulk storage tanks should likewise be thawed slowly and then recirculated tn rmunteract stratification.

The pli Of glutarakldlyde-bascd solutions winl also have a major impact upon their useful lifetimes. The active material is most stable at a pH arowrnd 4.f and is shipped In this condition Concentrated solutions tend to become more acidic upon storage, particularly at devuted temperatures. This pH decrease will not have any significant effect on the stability of the solu-tions. Addition of alkcline materials to concentrated solutions should be avoided, since the lifetime of the materiai Is decreased at an elevated pH.

Contamination of concentrated solutions of gluraral-dehyde with substantial quantities of other materials may adversely affect product stability. In particular, ammonia, amines, or products containing those substances should bc carefully avoided, since they will react readily with glutaraldehyde. As with al1 chemicals, storage containers of glutaraldehyde should be fl~httln rcised and protected from other materials when not In use.

In alitlui, LIace levels of iron will advcrsely imnpct the storage stability of glutaraldchyde. Therefore, all product transfers should avnid even transient contact with mild steel.

Witeit lctptL under optimal condItions, glutaraldehyde-based solutions may be stored in sealed containers for over two years Under more adverse eonnditinns encountered in the field, storage lives of over one year arc commonly observed. However, to minimize or prevent polymer buildup, we recommend a storage time of no longer than 6-12 months.

90 39vd JRN 29 1996 13:17 29S99e2s TT:TZ GOOZ/GZ/11 PAGE. 86

11/21/05 MON 16:14 FAX LO uuI When being emptied, drums sho'ul be in a well-ventilated location. Special caution should be taken when removing thc downpipc, since the greatest potential for exposure occurs during downpipe removal. Respiratory equipment, eye bath, and safety shower should be located in the area.

Disposal 1nims iired tn store cnnoentrated solutions of glutaral-dehyde may be (a) resealed and offered toz recondi-tioning, or (b) triplerinsed (or equivalent) and offered for recycling, recondiflonlng, or puncture and disposal In a sanitay landfill, or other procedures approved by national or local authorities.

Drum FXIiI-X-In drum-filling operations, the primary concern Is adequate personnel ptotection. Operators should be wearing protective gloves; splashpzoof monogoggles, or borh safey Slus~e wiLh side shields and a wrap-Wound fhil-face shield, and protective dothing. A drum lance or pipe that fills from the drunm hottnm should be used. Filling should be done in a well-vend-lated auea. Vapors should be drawn away from openat-ing personneL Respirators, safety showers, and eye baths should be located In the area.

All filling lines and equipment should be constructed of materials listed in the sections on Materials of Construction and Gasket Materials under Storage Design.

LO 39Vd

,Z59bSEZ68 TI:IZ 500z20Z/TT JAN 28 1996 13:18 PAGE.07