ML19206B306
| ML19206B306 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1979 |
| From: | Metropolitan Edison Co |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19206B305 | List: |
| References | |
| EMR-781231, NUDOCS 7905080526 | |
| Download: ML19206B306 (18) | |
Text
-.u
= _ _,,.
1 43 METROPOLITA:i EDISCII CCMPAliY T15EE MILE ISLA:lD :iUCLEAR STATICII
_=
1978
_)
AIi?!UAL EIVIRCliMEITAL CPERATIIiG REPORT 4
4
?
U
=
i
=
2
=
7 9 0 5 0 8 0 <""af h
2 23 055 April 1979
l I4 l
l V
Tnis document and the referenced reports were prepared by th 'taff of Metropolitan Edison Conpany and their consultants to fulfill the requirenents for an Annual Envirennental Operating Report as described in the Three Mile !sland Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Environmental Tech-nical Specificat. cas, dated hebruary 3,1978.
I I
I I
g n 056 l
TABLE OF CCITTE'ITS Section g
3.1.1.a.(1)
Serral Characteristics of Cooling Water Discharge 1
3.1.1.a.(2) pH 3
3.1.1.a.(3)
Biocide h
3.1.1.a.(h)
Water Quality Analysis 3.1.1.a.(5)
Chemical Release Inventory 5
3.1. 2. a Biotic - Aquatic 3.1.2.b Biotic - Terrestrial h.1 Residual Chlorine Study Progran 6
h.2 Thermal Plu=e Mapping h.3 Hydraulic Erfeets h.h Erosion Control Inspection 7
h.5 Herbicide Applications 8
h.6.1 Unusual or I portant Environmental Events 9
4.6.2 Exceeding Limits of other Relevant Permits 10 5.5.1 Environ = ental Program Description recument 11 5.5.h.c Changes in Procedures, Station Design, or Operation 13 5.7.1 Changes in Environ = ental Technical Specifications lh 5 7.2 Changes in Permits and Certifications 15 "An Ecological Study of the Susquehanna River in the Vicinity of the Three Mile Island Iluelear Station - Annual Report for 1978", Ichthyological Associates, Inc., April 1979
1978 Mcnitoring of Cooling Tower Operational Effects on Vegetation in the Vicinity of the Three Mile Island !iuclear Station", :iUS Corporation, December 1978.
"Fydraulic Survey, Three Mile Island Tuclear Station, June 1978", Gilbert Associates, Inc., August 1978.
23 057 11
3.1.1.a.(1)
THERMAL CHARACTERISTICS OF C00LIIIG WATER DISCHARGE In 1978, during nor a1 operation of Three Mile Island Tuclear Station, the te=perature of the ambient intake water, the temperature of the discharge water at outfall 001, and the flow rate of the discharge water were continuously
=cnitored.
The date, ti=e, te...perature, and flow rate were recorded at the station. The mini =u=, average, and maximum of these temperatures and flow rates are sur nrized and reported below:
Terrerature (CF) of Intake Water Month Min.
Ave.
Max.
Month Min.
Ave.
Max.
Jan.
31.2 3h.1 h2.5 July 63 5 77.2 87.7 Feb.
32.0 33 0 37.h Aug.
71.5 77.0 82.9 March 32 5 36.2 h2.9 sept.
63.1 70.8 78.7 April bl.h h8.2 59.1 Oct.
51.2 56.7 63 5 May 52.0 60.5 76.1
- Tov.
26.5 h7.5 52.3 June 56.9 Th.2 82.0 Dec.
31.8 36.1 4h.h Terrerature (OF) of Discharce Water Month Min.
Ave.
Max.
Month Min.
Ave.
Max.
Jan.
32.1 36.0 hk.6 July 6h.8 78.1 89.1 Feb.
32 7 35 7 h2.9 Aug.
71.5 78.1 8k.5 March 32.6 38.5 h6.h Sept.
59.3 71.5 80 9 April h5.8 50.3 60 7 Oct.
48.8 57.7 68.8 May 52.0 62.5 79.0
- Tov.
37.h h9.9 62.1 June L9.6 75 2 83.2 Dec.
33.4 39.9 58.h 23 058 1
Flow Rate (Millions of Gallons Per Day) of Discharge '4ater Mouth Min.
Ave.
Max.
Month Min.
Ave.
Max.
- Jan, 41.5 52.7 61.9 July 5h.5 66.h 75.9 Feb.
kl.h 52.7 81.7 Aug.
44.1 53.9 72.9 March 46.3 65.5 96.3 sept.
27.3 51.7 68.2 April 60.h 70.7 83.9 Oct.
hh.3 58.1 75.5 May 52.2 63.3 79.3
- Iov.
hh.1 72.1 92.2 June Ch.1 70.1 96.0 Dec.
h7 9 67.2 95.1 An analysis of the thermal data showed that with the exception of one previously reported noncompliance, all of the values (except two) were within the required limits.
Two (2) discharge water maximum temperature values appeared to be noncompliances that were not repo rte d.
The maximum effluent temperature was 88.00F ( AT = + 2.k) on July 21 and 89 F ( AT =
- 1.h )
on July 23.
The tain discharge temperature is not to exceed 870F except when the ambient river tecperature exceeds 87 F in which case the ambient 0
river temperature cannot be exceeded.
In 1978, the date of temperature instrument calibration and the accuracy and sensitivity of the temperature sensors were recorded.
There were no occurrences recorded when the sensor system was not functioning or out of calibration.
23 059 2
3.1.1.a.(2) pH During 197d, prior to each release cr discharge of the contents of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Neutralizer Tank, a sample was taken to the chemistry laboratory where the pH vas determined according to an accepted nethod as described in Standard Nethods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water.
The date, time, mad pH of all samples were recorded on Waste Neutralizing Tank Release Permits.
The minimum, average, and ma:d=um of these pH values plus the frequency (number of discharges per conth) are sr--arized wad reported below:
Month Min.
Ave.
Max.
Freq.
Menth Min.
Ave.
Max.
Freq.
Jan.
7.47 8.02 8.53 7
July No Releases Entire Month Feb.
6 78 7.66 8.31 11 Aug.
7 11 7.82 8.33 5
March 7.kl 8.06 8.h9 27 Sept.
6.81 7.85 8.kl 13 Apr.
6.95 7.82 8.h6 21 Cet.
7 18 7.99 8.h8 17 May 6.75 JT. 59 8.18 9
Nov.
6.89 7.8h 8.50 lh June 7.h7 7.60 7 90 3
Dec.
6.93 7 72 8.29 13 An analysis of the data presented shoved that all ILO pH values were within the specification range of 6.0 to 9.0.
23 060 3
3.1.1.a.(3)
BICCIDE During 1978, when chlorination was being practiced at Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, a grab sa=ple was taken of the station discharge from outfall 001 at a time during the chlorination when the maximum residual chlorine concentration was expected to be present. The sample was taken to the chemistry laboratory where the total residual chlorine concentration in =g/l was determined utilizing an accepted method of the a= pero =etric titration technique as described in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water.
The date, time,
and cotal residual chlorine concentration were recorded in the chemistry laboratory log book.
Tc.e =ini=u=, average, and maximum of these total residual chlorine reasurecents in =g/1, plus the frequency (number of measurements per
=cnth), are s"mrized and reported below:
Month Min.
Ave.
Max.
Frea.
Month Min.
Ave.
Max.
Frea.
Jan.
No Chlorinations Entire Month July 0.00 0.00 0.00 5
Feb.
27o Chlorinations Entire Month Aug.
0.00 0.00 0.00 9
March
- io Chlorinations Entire Month Sept.
0.00 0.00 0.00 L5 Apr.
- Io Chlorinations Entire Month Oct.
0.00 0.00 0.00 90 May No Chlorinationc Entire Month iov.
0.00 0.0015 0.02 SL June No Chlorinations Entire Month Dec.
No Chlorinations Entire Month An analysis of the data presented showed that all of the 203 total residual chlorine ceasurements resulted in values that were below the limit of 0.2 =g/1.
23 061
3.1.1.a.(5)
CHEMICAL RELEASE INVENTCRY During 1978, the chemicals used at Three Mile : ' land Nuclear Station, Unit 2, and discharged to the Susquehanna River aquatic environment, excluding chemicals used in laboratories, were tabulated from station inventory and operating records.
The chemical name, the system from which the chemical was released, and the amount of chemical used during the year are s"-,rized and reported below:
Chemical Name System Released From Amount Used Sulfuric Acid Coagulator Building Acid Storage h2h,949 Pounds (95% by '4eight)
Tank, W-T-T Sulfuric Acid Circulating ' dater Chlorination House 127,0h7 Pounds (95% by '4eight)
Chemical Treatment Acid Storage Tank, CL-T-1 Sodium Hydroxide Coagulator Building Caustic Storage 203,826 Pounds (50% by '4eight)
Tank, W-T-8 Chlorine Circulating '4ater Chlorina.ica House 6,000 Pounds Chemical Treatment Chlorine Containers,
CL-T-1A through J and CL-T-2A through J.
The amounts of the chemicals used and discharged vere less than those addressed in the Final Supplement to the Final Environ = ental Statement related to operation of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2, dated December 1976, Docket No.
50-320, U. 3. Nuclear Regulatory Co==ission.
o 062 LJ 5
h.1 RESIDUAL CHLORINE STUDY PROGRAM During 1978, the Three Mile Island nuclear station (TMIns) did not chlorinate above a discharge concentration of 0.2 =g/l total residual chlorine. A residual chlorine study program was not required or perforned.
23 063 e
h.4 EROSION CONTROL INSPECTION on April 18,1978, May 2,1978, and May 8,1978, foot patrol inspections were performed on the transnission line corridors assaciated with the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station (TMINS).
Thase corridors run from TMINS to the Middletown and Hosensack Substations. No evidence of erosion conditions, associated with transmission line maintenance activities, was found.
23 064 7
1.5 HERBICIDE APPLICATIONS 4
During 1978, herbicides were not used in the trans=ission line corridors associated with the Tnree Mile Island nuclear Station.
/f 23 065 8
4.o.1 UIIUSUAL CR IMPCRTRIT E:IVIRCIiME' ITAL IVEIITS All appropriate station and consultant personnel vere instructed to notify designated ne=bers of the Generation Engineering staff if any unusual or important environmental events were observed.
During 1978, no events resulting frc= the operation of the Three Mile Island IIuclear Station vere reported.
23 066 9
e i
Section h.6.2 EXCEEDING LDiITS CF CTHER RELEVANT PEPMITS
^
During 1978, 26 norco=pliance raports were submitted as required by Three Mile Island NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Eli=iration System) Per=it No. 009920.
In order to co= ply with the requirementc of Section h.6.2 of the LII-2 Environ-1 cental Technical Specifications, copies of all the nonco=pliance reports, nu=-
bered 78-01 through 78-26: vere sent to the NRC.
The IWS (Industrial '4aste Filter System), NPDES discharge 104, had 13 noncom-pliances. Five of these noncompliances (78-01, 78-03, 78-10, 78-12, and 78-14) occurred prior to the June 1,1978 start-up of the IWS.
Despito the fact that interin treatment measures were being employed, the lack of an operational treat-
=ent system accounted for these noncompliances.
Subsequent to the start-up of the IWS, an additional eight nonec=pliances (78-17, 78-18, 78-19, 78-21, 78-22, 78-23, 78-25, and 78-26) occurred.
Noncompliance incident nunbers 78-21 and 78-22 occurred as a result of operator error.
The necessary procedural / super-visory steps have been taken to preclude future occurrences of this nature. The remaining IWS noncompliances all occurred as a direct result of the inordinate amount of problens encountered with the various components of the IWS. Met-Ed i
has been, and still is, making every effort to resolve all operational problems with the IWS vendor.
It should be noted that since the June 1,1978 IWS start-up, numerous modifications to the system have been made, and vill continue to be made, until all problems are overco=e.
The I'4TS (Industrial '4aste Treatment System), NPDES discharge 107 had eleven
+
noncompliances (78-02,78-0h, 78-05, 78-06, 78-07, 78-08, 78-09, 78-11, 78-13, 78-15, and 78-16).
'41th the exception of noncompliances 78-02 and 78-0h, the I'4TS noncompliances resulted from problems with the air floatation system ana the pressure sand filters.
These proble=s have been corrected by performing 1
the necessary syste= codifications.
Nencompliance 78-02 was caused by the inadvertent running of a temporary pu=p.
As a corrective action, the tempo.ary
^
pu=p was removed.
Noncompliance 78-04 was believed to have been caused by a 3
rusty pipe. To preclude further such incidents, fire hosing, which does not rust, is being used instead of the pipe in question.
i
~]
2e Unit 1 Neutralizer Tank, NPDES discharge number 105, had one noncompliance vhich was numbered 78-20.
This nonco=pliance occurred as a result of inadequate pro cedural control.
The neutralizer tank operating procedure has since been todified accordingly.
The main plant discharge, NPDES discharge 001, exceeded ther n1 limits once,
]
as reported in notification 78-24.
This incident was caused by unusual atmos-pheric conditions rather than a deficiency with the Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers.
"'his incident required no follow-up corrective actions.
This occur-3 rence was also reported separately to the NRC through the submittal of License
}
Event Report 78-31/hT.
=
_w i
23 067 10 T
--mmmmmmme e
ii m
5.5.1 EiVIRC:IME:TAL PROGRM4 DESCRIPTICII DOCUME'IT The Environ = ental Program Description Document (EPDD) consists of portions of a series of procedures covering the progra=s required by Sections 3.1
=
and 4 of the Three Mile Island Station Unit 2 Environ = ental Technical Specifications.
These proceduree were developed in 1977 and first utilized in conducting the 1978 environmental =enitoring program.
After initial i=plementation, it c.s determined that some changes were necessary to clarify, edit, or i= prove these procedures.
The following table lists these procedures and indicates which ones have been revised.
The =ajority of the EPDD changes that were approved in 1978 vere editorial in nature.
The remaining changes were made to clarify or i= prove the pro-cedures.
Each change, prior to i=plementation, was nviewed to ensure that an unreviewed environmental question was not involved, the objectives of the present ETS vere not changed, and progra: consistency with initially approved procedures was maintained.
The revisions were also reviewed to ensure that sampling frequency and sample location, gear, and replication were not crenged.
.m
-.m m
a 97 ]h8 LJ s
11
ENVIRONMEIITAL PROGRAM DESCRIPTION DOCUMENT Environnental Technical Procedure Procedure Current Revision Specification Section Title Number Number 3.1.1.a (1-3) & (5)
Temperature, pH, Biocide, and GP 1448 0
Chemical Release Inventory 3.1.1.a (4)
Water Quality Analysis GP 1449 1
3.1.2.a (1) (a)
Benthic Macroinvertebrates GP 1450 1
3.1.2.a (1) (b)
Ichthyoplankton GP 1451 1
3.1.2.a (1) (c)
Fish GP 1452 1
M
- 3. 3. 2. a (1) (c) (inpart)
Creel Survey GP 1476 1
3.1.2.a (2)
Impingement or Organisms GP 1453 1
3.1.2.a (3)
Entrainment of Ichthyoplankton GP 1h54 1
3.1.2.b (1)
Aerial Hemote Sensing GP 1h56 1
4.1 Residual Chlorine Study Program GP 1448 (page 6) 0 4.2 Thermal Plume Mapping GP 1h58 1
4.3 Hydraulic Effects GP 1h59 1
N h.h Erosion Control Inspection GP 1460 0
L-a 4.5 Herbicide Applications GP 1h61 0
g 4.6.1 Unusual or Important Events GP 1473 0
h.6.2 NRC Honroutine Reports GP 0004 0
Special Condition Comparison of Ichthyoplankton GP 1474 0
Sampling Gear
5-5.k CHAIIGES IN PRCCEDURES, STATION DESIGN, OR OPERATICN During 1978, all r ised changes in procedures, station design, or operation were
.eved for potential environ = ental impact under the directica. of the Manager-Generation Quality Assurance.
The reviews ensured that no changes, which could involve an adverse environnental icpact, or which could change the findings of the FSFES, were implenented.
23 070 13
5.7.1 CHA iGES MADE TO E'iVIRO:NE' ITAL TECH 71 CAL SPECIFICATIC iS During 1978, only oae change was =#.de to the 24I-2 Environnental Technical Specifications (ETS). Cn May 19, 1978, Technical Specification Change Request (TSCR)Iio. 006 was forwarded to the :Tuclear Regulatory Co==ission (IIRC ).
Part A of TSCR #006 dealt with a change to page 2-3 of the TMI-2 ETS.
The requested change involved the deletion of a co==ent which had bcen made during the time when the Dil-2 ETS were being developed.
This co==ent had inadvertently been included in the body of the TMI-2 ETS.
TSCR
- 006 indicated that the deletion of this co==ent would not change any effluent limitation, limiting condition for operation or operational pro-cedure.
Cn Septe=ber 5,1978, the liRC issued A=end ent :io. 7 to the 31I-2 Operating License.
This A=endnent effected the change requested in TSCR #006A.
Ih 23 071
5.7 2 CHXIGF.S I:! PEPl4ITS AIID CERTIFICATI0:IS During 1978, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resou::ces (PaDER) 3dustrial '4aste Permit :!o. 2277206 was issued.
In addition, an application to amend :iPDES Permit IIo. 009920 was sent to the Environmental Protection A ency.
6 The PaDER permit was issued in order that the thermal component of the
'4echanical Draft Cooling Towers discharge would meet Pennsylvania ' dater Quality Criteria.
It is our estination that because this permit was issued by the proper regulatory authority, after the appropriate review, that the requirenents of this per=it will insure minical environmental impact.
The application to amend the iPDES permit requests authorization to discharge vastewater from the construction runoff collection system.
'Ihe application for this amendment is still pending final review. The fact that virtually no ecnstruction runoff has been discharged from this outfall indicates that there is little or no environmental impact. Also, issuance of a permit limitation will insure minical impact to the environment.
Copies of both the permit and permit application were sent to the TnC.
23 072 is