ML20073D238

Annual Environ Operating Rept for 1990

ML20073D238
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	12/31/1990
From:	Burski R ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
W3E3-91-0031, W3E3-91-31, NUDOCS 9104260235
Download: ML20073D238 (9)

Text

_

l

==~ ENTERGY PA"a ""*"*"'""*

Mina t A 700%

Tet 504 73M,774 R. F. Eturski w,,

IhtW Edeh u,vo n W3E3-91-0031 3-A1.01.04

)

A4.05 QA April 23, 1991 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555

Subject:

Waterford Steam Electric Station - Unit Number 3 Docket Number 50-382 Operating License NPF-38 Annual Environmental Operating Report - 1990 Dear Gentlemen Attached is the 1990 Annual Environmental Operating Report for the subject facility.

This report is submitted pursuant to Section 5.4.1 of the Environmental Protection Plan (Appendix B to the Operating License).

Should you have any questions regarding thie report, please contact M. L. Layton at (504) 739-6236.

Very truly yours.

L. f

e. 1 RFB/ARR/ddd Attachments cc:

D. L. Wigginton R.'D. Martin H. O. Knudson, EPA M. O'Neill, LDEQ_

E L. Blake R. B.-McGehee M. S..Reynolds NRC Resident Inspectora Office t

(

jh

,_9204260235 910423 PDR ADOCK 05000382_

-R POR

l W3E3-91-0031 Annual Environmental Operating Report - 1990 Page 2 April 23, 1991 cc Address:

M. O'Neill, Assistant Secretary Office of Water Resources Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Bor. 44066 Baton Rouge, LA 70804-4091 bec:

(w/ Attachment)

M. L. Layton F. W. Manhart D. E. Baker A. R. Roberts J. R. McGaha S. S. DiJohn D. Milliner Waterford 3 Records Center Licensing Library bcci (w/o Attachment)

R. P. Burkhurst R. E. Allen L. W. Laughlin

1 1990 ANNt%L ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT This report describes implementation of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) for the calendar year 1990, and provides the information required by 4

the EPP.

s A.

Summaries and analyses of the results of the environmental protection activities required by EPP Subsection 4.2:

This section of the EPP provides protection of the two cultural af fected either the Plantation Overseer's llouse siite or the Plantation resource areau on the Waterford 3 site.

There were no activities which Quarter's site, both eligible of the National Register of Historic j

Places, during this reporting period.

E.

EPP noncompliances and the corrective actions taken to remedy themt Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality issued compliance order No. We-C-90-0234 to Entergy Operations, Inc. on November 8, 1990, for failure to meet the effluent limitations specified by LWDpS P1410.

Failure to meet the specified limitations occurred on seven dif ferent discharges between the period 7/87 - 3/90.

Corrective actions taken to remedy the noncompliances includet 1.

Adding bacteria to the treatment facility during periods of under utiltration.

2.

Discontinu 3 the use of floor cleaners and wax stripping I

agents at the Energy Education Center.

3.

A weekly maintensuce and surveillance program for the sewage i

treatment facility.

[

4.

The organization of all environmental' responsibilities under j

1 one department.-

No noncompliances have occurred since the implementation of the corrective action.

C.

A discussion of changes in station. design or operation, tests, o r_

experiments made in accordance with EPP Subsection 3.1 which involved a i

potentially significant unreviewed environmental questiont There were no changes in. station design,

tests, or experiments conducted that are reportable under this section during this reporting i

period.

However, a change -in the operational responsibilitica did occur during this' reporting period._

This : change included. the consolidation.of - responeibilitics - f or ' environmental af f airs. under the.

Radiochemistry / Environmental Manager who.' reports' directly. to' the Director, Operations Support -and Assessments,; whofin turn 1 reports. to the Vice President, Operations.

A copy of thei reporting ' chart is '_

+

provided as Attachment.l.:

D.

Nonroutine reports submitted in accordance witti Subsection 5.4.2 -

One nonroutinei report was submitted. in accordance L withi Subsection 5.4.2.

This report was_ in' response.to thel noncompliance order described in section LB above.

A' copy of Othe ' report -is ; included as

m

.-+6 4

4 e-ATTACIMENT 1 g

, i 1}<

r_

i i

f lIII !

g s

s O

W E. _

11 1

1 I s l !

I f

gj gj a

g 8

E b 1

1 i

l g

l5 I.

i g g c

3 il w

ia n

g g

Ii l j l };!i E l li !

h u i I ! :i l

8 5

14

m i

$[

ATTACitMENT 2 i

1 Ent r

sai.e., o-u~, ia.

va s s opw ons 9 so.n ?mn i

December 7, 1990 s

Ms. Cheryl Easley Water Pollution Control Division Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 44091, Capitol Station Baton Rouge, La 70804-4091

Subject:

Response to DEQ Compliance Order No._WE-C-90-0234

Dear Ms. Easley:

Attached please find our response to DEQ Compliance Order No. WE-C-90-0234.

issued to Entergy Operations as a result of violations of-the Environmental Quality Act that occurred-at our sewerage treatment facility located on Highway 3127 in Taft, Louisiana.

Should you have any questions or comments, please _ contact Mr. Michael L.

Layton of our Radiochemistry / Environmental Section at ($04) 739-6236.-

Yours very truly,

_j

.M da,4-D. E. Baker, P.E.

Director Operations Support and Assessments DEB /MLL/dda Attachment cci Mr. H.O. Knudson - EPA Region VI

-Water Pollution Control Division - SE Regional Office Mr. J.L. Blount

.Hr. R. LaBauve Mr. T. Killeen - Office of Water Resources-t J

i

[

Response to DEQ Compliance Order No. WE-C-90-0234 Circumstances / Corrective Actions Pursuant to your order the following is a description of the circumstances of the cited violations and the corrective actions taken Cited Violation Datet 7/87 - 9/87.

Parameter Reported Valus Permit Limit

~

BOD (Avg) 40 mg/l 30 mg/l BOD (Max) 67 mg/l 45 mg/l TSS (Avg) 43 mg/l 30 ag/l TSS-(Max) 62 mg/l 45 mg/l FC (Avg) 64,000/100 ml 200/100 ml1 FC- (Max) 99,000/100 ml 400/100 mi Description of Circumstances:

The facility, a small package extended aeration unit, was underutilized in that the average daily flow was less than 1000 gallons per day with the units capacity being 10,000 gallons per day.

1 Corrective Actions Takent Bacteria was added to compensate for the lack of l

flow and additional attention to f acility operation _ and maintenance was undertaken.

These exceedences of WP 1410 were noted on a sample taken July 8, 1987. We i

became aware of - them when telephoned by our. laboratory on July 14, 1987.

Corrective actions were taken and we notified your office by letter on July 17, 1987.

We anticipated compliance at this time and verified this with a sample taken August-8,-1987.

Cited Violation Dates

• 1/88 - 3/88.

Parameter-

-Reported Value Permit Limit BOD (Avg) 85 mg/l

_-30 mg/l j

BOD (Max) 169 as/1 45 mg/l

. l FC (Avg) 39.011/100 al 200/100 31-FC (Max)'

112,600/100 ml 400/100 ml Description of-Circumstances::

We attribute: these' exceedences to 'the discharge of' floor cleaner to the sanitary, waste ~ system. The floor cleaner removed f rom the treatment _ system ' the bacteria necessary for activated sludge treatment.

The discharge of floor cleaner into.the system occurred-shortly af ter - a change in janitorial personnel ' at the Energy Education Ce nt er.-

Corrective Actions Taken The new - janitorial 1 staf f was1 informed ofl the-l consequences. of their action and instructed as' to thel proper handlingLof; l

all ~ cleaning materials so as to' prevent future recurrences of this j

incident.

Additional organic material-was added to maintain the aerobic-o digestion process and the chlorine dose was increased. to ~ reduce the fecal-coliform level in'the effluent.

l I

g,,,

gg-

i. i a..

-i i.-

o ii

._,.m,,

m i.

We became aware of these exceedences on January 27, 1988 and notified your office by letter on January 29, 1988.

This was followed by a progress report to you on February 26, 1988.

Our compliance with WP 1410 was verified by a sample taken March 23, 1988.

Cited Violation Date:

7/88 - 9/88.

Parameter Reported Value Permit Limit FC (Avg) 1204/100 ml 200/100 ml FC (Max) 2400/100 ml 400/100 ml Description of Circumetancess Due to a reduction in system flow.

maintenance personnel had made a corresponding reduction in chlorine treatment.

Corrective Action Taken:

As a result of this exceedence, the chlorine dosage was increased to the previous level to insure adequate treatment.

This exceedence was noted on sample taken on July 27, 1988.

We became aware of it when telephoned by our labotatory on August 2,

1988.

We notified your office by letter on August 8, 1988.

Our compliance with WP 1410 was verified by a sample taken on August 6, 1988.

Cited Violation Date:

10/88 - 12/88.

Parameter Reported Value Permit Limit

~

TSS (Avg) 59 mg/l 30 mg/l TSS (Max) 86 mg/l 45 mg/l Description of Circumstances Due to 'recent - suspected operational perturbations, the routine addition of non+ sewage organic matter to augment the aerobic process was discontinued.

Corrective Action Taken The addition of organic matter to augment the aerobic digestion process on a routine basis was reinstituted.

We became aware of this exceedence when our laboratory telephoned us on November 2, 1988.

We notified your office by letter on November 7, 1988.

This was followed by a progress report on November 14, 1988.

Cited Violation Date:

1/89 - 3/89.

Parameter Reported Va).ue Permit Limit TSS (Avg) 39 mg/l 30 mg/l TSS (Max) 61 mg/l 45 mg/l Description of Circumstances:

It appeared that there was inadequate solids settling time due to continuous aeration.

4 Corrective Action Taken The aerators were placed on a timed cyclic operation and a flocculating agent was added.

We became aware of this exceedence on February 8,1989.

We notified your office by letter on February 13, 1989.

Our compliance with WP 1410 was verified by a sample taktn on February 21, 1989.

Cited Violation Date: 4/89 - 6/89.

Parameter Reported Value

_ Permit Limit FC (Avg) 10,000/100 ml 200/100 ml FC (Max) 20,000/100 ml 400/100 al BOD (Avg) 36 mg/l 30 mg/l BOD (Max) 52 mg/l 45 mg/l Description of Circumstances:

We attribute these exceedences to a temporary hydraulic overload caused by construction activities effecting the tie-in of additional service to the sewage treatment facility.

Prior to sampling, the tie-in was completed.

This activity included flushing the lines and testing the lift station pumps and sanitary facilities which utilized a large volume of water.

Corrective Action Taken We felt that this was an upset condition and the samples collected were not representative of the usual condition of the effluent.

We became aware of these conditions on Apri1~ 24, 1989, and notified your office on April 28, 1989.

sample taken on May 2, 1989. Our compliance with WP 1410 was verified by a Cited Violation Date:

1/90 - 3/90.

Parameter Reported Value Permit Limit TSS (Avg) 44 mg/l 30 mg/l Description of Circumstences:

This was due to a system perturbation on January 23, 1990.

The t.sultant TSS was below the daily maximum limit of 45 mg/1.

Corrective Action Taken:

We felt that this was an upset condition and was not representative of the usual condition of the effluent.

Additional samples on March 10 (24 mg/1), March 17 (19 mg/1) and March 21 (24 mg/1) verified compliance with WP 1410.

We have made'a continuous effort to maintain compliance with WP 1410 and will continue to do so.

In addition, we have promptly informed your office of any exceedence and any corrective actions that we have taken.

It is anticipated that we will continue to do so in the future.

Compliance Maintenance Our latest samples taken indicate the f acility is presently in compliance with the t e rns and conditions of WP 1410.

To further ensure this compliance wr. nave placed the supervision of this unit under the cognizance of our newly f ormed Radiochemistry / Environmental Section.

This will enable vs to more ceasely monitor and control this unit and reduce our reliance on contract personnel in operation of the unit.

We are reasonably confident that trat enhanced monitoring program will be successful in eliminating furtns; no. 1mpliances.

If this cannot be done in a cost effective manner other engi.eered solutions will be evaluated to ensure that this effluent is disposec of in an acceptable manner.

I 1

-i i

l I

(

l

'