ML20101B085
| ML20101B085 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1991 |
| From: | Stewart W VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| 92-280, NUDOCS 9205050302 | |
| Download: ML20101B085 (17) | |
Text
r
- s YlitulNIA }$1,1TTHIC ANil POWI:14 COMi%NY
. H ICalMONIA, Vil4HINI A UllM(il April 29, 1992 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Serial No.92-280 Attention: Document Control Desk NAPS /JHL
-Washington, D. C. 20555 Docket Nos. 50-338 50 339 License Nos. NPF 4 NPF 7 Gentlemen:
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY tiQRTH ANNA POWER STATION UNIT NOS.1 AND 2 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Pursuant to Section 5.4.1 of the Appendix B Technical Specifications, Environmental Protection Plan, enclosed is the Annual Environmental Operating Report for North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2 for 1991.
If you have any questions or require additionalinformation, please contact us.
~
I Very tru!y yours, c..$L C0k ldL-jfsofd
/
W. L. Stewart n Senior Vice President - Nuclear Enclosure cc: U ' S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region 11 1
101 Marietta Street, N. W.
Suite 2900
- Atlanta,: Georgia 30323 Mr. M. S. Lesser NRC Senior Resident inspector North Anna Power Station l' /
b[50!y[' / )
/]I'\
92C5050302 911231 ,
D 19 E PDR ADOCK 0500o338
{j l: R- PDR / "
1; ,
. ~ . - . . . _ . _ . . - . . - - . . . _ _ . . - .
i ,
?
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY NORTil ANNA POWER STATION '
UNITS 1 AND 2 APPENDIX B J
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN 1991 ANNUAL REPORT DOCKET NOS. 50-338 AND 50-339 h
is a--m -
- 7. , me w.n.. wr,w y. ..c --*e. f u--re--2~,- -
~*: wiw-e..w-,.*e ...wy-. w $-w..-r e-w-, ., , g.g a-w wome- p-- ,---pr .--
- a. I INTRODUCTION "ais 1991 Environmental Operating Report for the North Anna Power Statior is submitted .;y Virginia Electric and Power Company as required un F' r Section "
. of Appendix B, Environmental Protection Plan (EPP).
Tne chjectives of tae EPP are tc verify that the power station is operated in m environretally acceptable manner, to coordinate NRC requirements, ru alm a - with other federal, state and local rege rements, and cc .< n med of the environmen.tal effects of facility cor etion uh ation. During 1991., no significant adverse c 7virotuncatal i occurred as a resule of the operation of North In.aa Power Station, U:at 1 and 2. Aquatie issues are addressed in the wersee's NPDE^ permit number VA 0052451 issued by the Virginia State Wai r Control 3oard and the NRC relies on this agency for regulation of matters involving water quality and aquatic biota. Listed below are the sur.maries and reports as required under Section 5.4.1 of the EPP.
PLANT DESIGN AND _Qf 3RATIOh _gryTION 3.1)
There were no ananges in station design or operation prok.moed in 1991 that involved a potentially significant unreviewed environmental issue.
TPANSMISSION LINE RIGHT OF WAY HERBICIDE MANAGEMENT g,is"2i ON 4 . 2 .1 )
The herbicide, Spike SG, was used for brush control around tower foundationc. on the Nortn Anna - Midlethian 500 KV lines during 1991.
No herbicides were used for brush control on he North Anna - Morrisville or North Anna - Ladysntith 500 KV lines or the North Anna - Gordonsville 230 LV lines during 1991.
(1) f l
8 ~-
- l. ,
pTRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT OF- WAY EROSION CONTROL INSPECTION (SECTION 4.2.2)
Erosion inspections of rights of way wero conducted for the North T.nna - Midlothian, North Anna - Morrisville, and North Anna -
Ladysmith 500 KV lines and on the North Anna -
Gordonsville 230 KV on August 2, 1991. Locationc were recorded of eroded areas on the North Anna Gordonsville, North Anna - Midlothian, North Anna - Morrisville and the North Anna - Ladysmith lines. Most of these eroded areas were caused 1-by vehicle travel along the right of way. All areas were disced, fertilized, seeded, at d mulched and additional straw bales were installed to prevent erosion.
STATION SITE EROSION CONTROL (SECTION 4.2.2)
An on-site erosion control inspection was perftrmed at North Anna-Porer Sta,.on by the Civil / Design Engineering Department beginning "ctober 23, 1991 and ending on November 70, 1991, according to Periodic Test
.ricedures 1-PT-9.3, Erosion Control Inspection - Station Site. Although erusion was minor or non-existent in most areas, several sites were found where slight erosion problems needed to be addressed. Two areas of erosion were found on the flood wall west of the station: erosion at i
the interface of soil and rip rap at the south abutment, and a small eroFion gully at the crest of the slope. Erosion was also notri in the vicinity of the Service Water valve House and under the New Je sey barrier south of the protected area. Repairs have been initiated for these areas.
l NONCOMPLIANCE (SECTION 5.4.1) l There were no Environmental Protet . ion Plan occurrences of l noncompliance during 1991.
i l
(2)
v -
jNONhbOTINE REPORTS (SECTION 5.4.2)
Enc.losed are copies of letters detailing the occurrence of two
- unusual '_ discharges (pages 4 - 7), three oil spills (pages 9 - 13), and one possible violation of NPDES special conditions (pages 14 -
16).
None of the reported events resulted in a significant environmental impact causally related to station operation.
On- June -10, 1991, station personnel, unaware of ths protection afforded by the Migratory Bird Act, removed several barnswallow rests which had been established on critical station facilities. Some of the
- nests contained eggs and/or nestlings. Upun discovery of this action by the Station's Environmental Compliance Coordinator, the incident was reported to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and company employees were notified of the protected status of many species of birds, and their nests,- under the federal law. Virginia Power is working with federal authorities to determine appropriate mitigation 'or lhe violations of i
l the Act. To safeguard station facilities in the future, measures to l
render these facilities unsuitable for nesting will be employe. rather l-
.than destruction of nests or interference with bird species protected t
I
! by the Act, p
L 0
(3)
i ,
_ l r {.; .
,y ENV 43 Certified M Q Return Receiot Recuested February-21, 1991 Mr. William L.~Kregloe Virginia Water Control Board Valley Regional Office 116-North Main Street P.O. Box'268 Bridgewater,:VA 22812 RE t ' UNUSUAL DISCHARGE - NORTH ANNA POWER STATION
Dear . Mr. ' Kregloe:
"On February 17, 1991 at 3:50 p.m. the Virginia Office of Emergency Services was notified of an unusual discharge at our North Anna-
- Power Station. The Water Board prep officer called G. R. Knauer of, my staff latec sunday afternoon to verify the report. This letter-
-confirms aur notification and provides- additional inf ormation~-
-regarding the incident.
Around 4 a.m. on Sunday, February 17, station perscnnel discovered that the. product level in a chemical storage tank was significantly ~
reduced.' The les al -i!.dication' system had f ailed _ allowing for l siphoning Lof - the . stored. _ water : treatment chemical to_a turbins building sump. This l sump discharges through Outfall .004 into the _
. discharge-canal. The' water treatment chemical is a Calgon product' PCL-713, whicn-is a combination of organic and ' inorganic phosphates-along_ with a dispersant for silt and-other inorganic deposits.' This ,
product; is used for corrosion control in the bearing cooling system._Approximately~: 300 gallons-of product were discharged, as
= determined by comparison of the residual product to the immediately-previous-level reading'. ,
- There was no apparent adverse _ impact on aquatic life-or the natura environment 'as,a result of: this discharge. Visual inspectio_n of _ the -
' discharge- canal was conducted but no analytical data: 'were collected.
After evaluation of thefincident, station personnel have concluded-that ' a- future -incident can be avoided by valving out the level
- indicator-- tube when it-is not in use. . This change - in operating procedures is being implemented.
(4)
,y ....
.Mr.- William L. Kregloe February 21,--1991 Page 2
-If you have any questions regarding this incident,-please call'Ms.
Gleness Knauer of ny craff at 273-2996. i Sincerely, y,p&/ -
B. M.. Marshall, P.E. >
Manager- -
/
Water Quality cc: U.S. NRC.
Docket No. 50-338/50-339 101 Marietta St., NW Suite 2900 Atlant , GA 30323 U. S . NRC ATTN: Docket Control Desk Docket No. 50-338/SO-339
. Washington, D.C. 20555
-NRC Senior Resident Inspector Docket No. 50-338/50-339
' North Anna-Power Station bc: E. W. Harrell' R.-F. Saunders G. E._Kane K. N.;Kappates - '.
R. O. Enfingertd h M e 4cd
'3. .
R. Hayes JLVd p ce a
W. A. Thornton -M A. H. Stafford d h' yA A. C. Cooke r j' --
4tik P. A. Kemp.
- M..F. Fadlubowski G. R. Knauerjf/f FILE ENV 43 (5)
i
- \
North Anna COR 14/ Violations December 16, 1991 William L. Aregloe Valley Regional Office Virginia Water Control Board 116 North Main Street Bridgewater, VA 22812 RE: NORTH ANNA POWER STATION - S2 WAGE PUMP FAILURE 1
Dear Mr. Kregloe:
This is to confirm the December 11, 1991, telephone notification made to you by Mr. Daniel James regarding failure of a sewage lift station at the North Anna Power Station. At about 9:30 a.m. that-day, an electrical nalfunction of the Turbine Building sewage lift l station caused an overflow of approximately 5 to 10 gallons of raw sewage into the building's sump, i
At the time of the sewage overflow, the Turbine Building sump was full and was discharging through an oil / water separator via outfall 004. Therefore, it is possible that the discharge contained a small amount of the untreated sewage. However, since the sump discharge rate is typically about 0.5 MGD, the entire 5 to 10 gallons of sewage, if discharged, would have constituted a very minute portion of that flow.
The sewage flow was immediately stopped and repairs made to the lift station. The unit was back into operation by 11:00 p.m. on December 11. No evidence of any unusual discharge was found in the outfall canal and no detrimental environmental impact would be expected from this event. . No additional samples wara taken; the large volume of the sump discharge (estimated at 10,000 gal.) would make the small volume of sewage undetectable.
Should you need additional information or have any questions about this matter, please contact Daniel James at 273-2996.
Sincerely,
)
B. M Marshall, P.E.
Manager Water Quality (6)
c 4
William L. Kregloe December 16, 1991 Fage 2 cc: U.S. NRC Docket No. 50-338/50-339 101 Marietta Street, N.W.
Suite 2900 Atlanta, GA 30323 U.S. NRC Attn: Docket Control Desk Docket No. 50-338/50-339 Washington, DC 20555 NRC Resident Insp' actor Dockat No. 50-33E/50-339 North Anna Power Station bc: E. W. Harrell-IN 2E R. F. Saunders-IN 2E G. E. Kane-NA A. H. Sta:'*o7;d-NA D. I. Price-NA P. A. Kemp-NA A. C. Cooke-NA W. A. Thornton-IN 2E M. F.
Kadlubowski)'
D. L. James 6 .
(7)
North Anna ENV 43-011 Spills January 18, 1991 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEPT REOUESTED Mr. William L. Kregloe Virginia Water Control Board valley Regional Office 116 North Main Street P. O. Box 268 Bridgewater, Virginja 22812 Ret Oil Spill at North Anna Power Station
Dear Mr. Kregloe:
This letter confirms our report by telephone of an oil spill that occurred on January 16, 1991 at North Anna Power Station. Mr.-John Hart in the Valley Regional Office was notified of the spill at 1615 hour0.0187 days <br />0.449 hours <br />0.00267 weeks <br />6.145075e-4 months <br />s-on the 16th.
Station personnel were moving drums of waste diesel fuel from within station security to a remote collection area. The closed drums had been loaded on a flatbed truck for transport when heavy rains began to fall. The rains appeared to wcsh some oil off the outsides- of the drums and into a nearby storm drain which discharges to- the discharge canal via Outf all 004. A total of much less than one-gallon of oil reached the canal.
Upon discovery, absorbant_ pads were placed around the truck and in the-path of the runoff to the stormdrain. .The light sheen of oil on the water's surf ace was contained by a permanent boom around Outfall 004 and oil within the boom was removed by absorbant materials. Personnel verified that no oil escaped the boom or the discharge canal.
Awareness of how such an incident can cause a discharge of oil is the best source for prevention of reoccurrence. Personnel were admonished to take greater care not to leave oil on the outside of containers and to tcke note of the proximity of their activities to stormdrains.
No apparent environmental damage was caused by the oil spilled.
No oil was deposited on the shoreline ntr were fish or (8)
-- . . . ~ - .
> . j l'
Mr. William L. Kregloe-Page 2--
January 18, 1991 vildlife affected._ If you have any ' questions regarding this incident,_ please contact this office.
Sincerely, 4
B. M. Marshall, P.E.
- Manager Water Quality z cc: U. S. NRC '
Docket No.:50-338/50-339 g~ 101 Marietta St., NW Suite 2900 Atlanta, GA 30323 U. [S. NRC Attn:- . Docket Control Desk Docket'No. 50-338/50-339-Washington, DC 20555 NRC SeniorfResident Inspector Docket.No. 53-338/50-339 North Anna. Power Station bc: E. ' W. Harrell R. F./Saunders - -
G.-E. Kane
- K. N. Kappatos .
J. R. Hayes--
W. A. Thornton-3 A. H. Stafford-
, A. C. Cooke.
P. A. Kemp _
M. F. Kadlubow _
i G. R.-Knauer -
File ENV 43/011' Spills 4
(9)
, ENV 43/011 Spills March 8, 1991 Certified Mail
, Return ReceiDt Recuesteq Mr. William L. Kregloe Virginia Water Control Board Valley Regional Office 116 North Main Street P.O. Box 268 Bridgewater, VA 22812 RE OIL SPILL 3/4/91 - NORTH ANNA POWER STATION
Dear Mr.-Kregloe:
A discharge of oil occurred at North Anna Power Station on March '
4, 1991. This letter confirms our report of the incident to Mr.
John Hart in the Valley Regional Office at 0950 on the 4th.
At approximately 0830, station personnel observed a sheen on the sur' ace of the discharge canal immediately below the outfall from the oil / water separator, outfall 004. The sheen was primarily contained within the moom permanently deployed around that outfall but a small amount wee noted immediately outside the boom. Cleanup efforts were initiated immediatcly and no oil escaped the discharge canal or reachtti Lake Anna.
M1 investigation into the cause of tne discharge was initiated.
It was found that the oil / water separator had experienced relatively high-voluantric flow'in the early morning of Merch 4.
Unit 2 turbine buildit:7 sump contributed greator than normal flow because a switch stuck allowing a long term pumpdown. A small oil spill to the sump the previous day contributed to conditions for the discharge.
As normal practice, tve of three turbine building sumps are centrolled in manual mode to limit volumetric flow. It is apparent that operation of the sumps and the separator must be monitored even more closely to p-revent oil discharge. Additional monitoring will be instituted.
(10)
4 .
Mr. William L. Kregloe Page 2 March 8, 1991 No environmental damage was observed as a result of the oil spilled. No oil was deposited on tne shoreline ror were fish or wildlife affected. If you have any questions regarding this incident, please contact this office.
Sincerely, j AA B. M. Marshall, P.E.
Manager Water Quality cc: U.S. NRC Docket No. 50-338/50-339 101'Marietta Street, NW Suite 2900 Atlanta, GA 30323 U.S. NRC Attn: Docket Control Desk Docket No. 50-338/50-339 Washington, D.C. 20555 bc: E. W. Harrell R. T. Saunders G. E. Kane K. N. Kappatos J. R. Hayes W. A. Thornton A. H. Stafford A. C. Cooke P. A. Kemp 0 3,8 M. F. Kadlubowski 411 G. R. Knauer FILE ENV 43/011 Spills
! 2
- j. (11) t l
I
.s 1 North Anna ENV 4J/ Oil Spill Reports !
, CERTIFIED MAIL RE WRN RECEIPT REOUESTEQ August 23, 1991 Mr. William L. Kreglos Virginia Water 0,ntrol Board Valley Regional :ffice 116 North Main Street P.O. Box 268 Bridgewater, VA 22812 RE: OIL 8 PILL 7/4/9J. - NORTH ANNA POWER STATION
Dear Mr. Kregloe:
An oil spill occurred at North Anna i?ower Station on July 4, 1991.
This letter confirms our report of he incident to Mr. Si*.seath at the Department of Emergency Se:rtices at 1415 on the 4th.
As Mr. Daniel James discursus with you by telephone on August 22, due to changes in personnel ant. misunderstanding of reporting duties, this follow-up letter regarding the oil sr1.11 event haa been delayed.
At upproximately 1330 on July 4, stati:n ;arsonon1 observed an oil sheo, on standing water at the site during on unusually heavy rainfa 1 event. Upon investigation, it was decermire that fuel oil from the fuel oil truck unloading eroa spill basin had been carried into a storm drain, north of the spill basin. Due to the larga tuantity of water, the oil sepiu ator weir at the discharge canal did not contain the oil. Oil soak pads were placed at the fuel oil truck unloading area spill basin, the storm drain area, the oil separator weir at the discharge canal, the oil boom at the discharge canal and nil booms at the end of the discharge canal.
Oil was noted at the east side of the booms at the end of the discharge canal and was contained by these booms. The total amount of oil spilled was estimated at two ga)lons. The oil booms-and absorbent pads appeared to have been successful in containing and capturing the spilled oil. No evidence of oil contamination was found outside the discharge canal and no environmental damage was detected.
Although hydraulic overload was the causative factor in this event, the spill basin is being evaluated to determine if any design modifications could help preclude future oil vashout. Otherwise, the established procedurec and equipment were found to be effective in preventing a discharge to waters outside of the canal.
(le)
e .
Mr. William L. Kregloe August 23, 1991 Page 2 If you have any further questions or need additional infermation, please contact Daniel James at (304) 273-2996.
Sincerely,.
l' B. M. Marshall, P.E.
Manager Water Quality cc: U.S. NRC Docket No. 50-338/50-339 101 Marietta Street, NW Suite 2900 Atlanta, GA 30323 U.S. NRC Attn: Docket Control Desk Docket No. 50-338/50-339 Washington,-D.C. 20555 NRC Senior Resident Inspector Docket No. 50-338/50-339 North Anna Power Station bc: E. W. Harrell-IN 2E R. F. Saunders-IN 2E G. E. Kane-hA K. N. Kappatos-ODEC J. A. Stall-NA A. H. Stafford-NA A. C. Cooke-NA-W. A. Thornton-IN 2E P. A. Kamp-NA D. I. Price-NA -
M. F.
Kadlubowski)5$M D. L. James) ~
(13)
a North Anna ENV 40/ Surf ace Water Flows Novemoer 13, 1991 Mr. William L. Kreglos Valley Regional Office Virginia Water Control Board 116 North Main Street Bridgewater, VA 22812 RE: NORTH ANNA POWER STATION - DAM RELEASE LATE
Dear Mr. Kregloc:
As you are aware, the provisional stream flow data for the North Anna River below Lake Anna, provided to us by your agency, contains measuremonta which indicate that stream flow at the gaging station has occasionally been less than 40 cfs. We have compared the gaging station data with information on the operations of the Virginia Power facilities at the dam to determine if releases from the dam have been in compliance with the 40 cfs requirement contained in our VPDES permit as Special Condition 5. While we have no direct measurement of the flow rate of releases from the dam, our research has identified one period during which facility operations may have. impacted the low flow release rate.
From September 3 to September 5, 1991, both of the normal flow control measures, the 5A hydro unit and the #2 skimmer gate, happened to'be out of service for maintenance and repairs at the same time. During this period, the releases were made through the SB hydro unit operated in a " free spin" mode in order to maintain the required minimum rate of 40 cfs. Review of the data now available reveals that release fMwn during that period did drop below the 40 cfs minimum; the SWCB/USGS data show a low of 31 cfs on September 5, 1991 at the gaging station. Apparently the free spinning 5B uni't did not provide the expected flow rate.
The dam facilities were designed to maintain the required minimum flow of releases to the river and have in the past been shown to l' do so. No changes in design or company operational procedures have
! been made which would account for an actual decrease in the release rate from the dam facilitis9. Except for the 9-3 through 9-5 pericd, our records do not indicate that the lake levels or gate operations were abnornal or that any conditions were experienced which would result in flow dacreases below design parametero.
(14)
Mr. William L. Kregloe November 13, 1991 Page 2 With the present design and operational procedures of the facilities, drops in flow below 40 cfs would occur only sporadically and would be of short duration. This would happen when only the smaller SA hydro unit is in operation, with all flow going through it, and an electrical disturbance causes the unit to trip out (an external factor outside our control) . In these cases, the operator opens the $2 skimmer gate on the other end of the dam to maintain the release flow until the SA hydro unit is back on line. Such momentary breaks in the relea se would be equalized by the downstream pool and would not likely show up at the gaging station.
The data which r.ppear to indicate violations of the 40 cfs minimum limit are generated from readings at a SWCB/USGS gaging station about 2 km downstream. USGS publications which report these data characterize this station's accuracy as " good". The accuracy attributed to " good" records by the USGS publication is defined as meaning that "about 95 percent of the daily discharges are within... 10 percent" of their true values. Purther, in discussions with SWCB staff it was indicated that readings at this particular station are also influenced by a downstream barrier which tends to accumulate debris, which alters the reference pool elevations. Therefore, with the exception of the September 3-5, 1991 period, since the low flow figures and the 40 cfs minimum fall j within the accuracy range of the method of measurement, the data l provided should not be construed as conclusive indication that the dam releases have been below the required rata.
Since the SWOB/USGS stream flow data is not immediately available to Virginia Power personnel, it is apparent that a capability to make our own flow measurements would be useful. ar necessary, to back up the facility design and operational pre sdures in ensuring that the minimum release rate is maintained. Sorth Anna station management has begun the process of hav:.rg the necessary evaluations made to determine and install appropriate flow measurement equ'ipment.
In addition to installation of flow measure.nent facilities which will allow dam operations to more e f f ect'//c ly control low flow rates to comply with the permit's requireme ,ts, we plan to evaluate our facilities for possible operational and/or equipment changes to more reliably maintain compliance with the 40 cfs minimum and to enable swifter response to conditions which may drop the release rates below acceptable levels. You will be notified of any changes determined to be needed.
l (15)
- . - _ . - .-~ - . _ _ -
J' ~ q,
.Mr.-William L.--Kregloe
. November 13, 1991 Page 3 Should you need- additional information or have any questions about this matter, please contact Daniel-James at (804) 273-2996.
' Sincerely, ,
B.!M. Marsh'all, P.E. ,
Manager.
Water Quality cc: U.S. NRC +
Docket No. 50-338/50-339 101 Marietta St., N.W.
Suite 2900 Atlanta, GA 30323 U.S. NRC -
Attn: Dock.at Control Desk Docket No. 50-338/50-339-Washington, DC 20555 NRC Resident Inspector Docket No. 50-338/50-339 North Anna Power. Station bc: E. W. Harrell-IN 2E R. F. Saunders-IN 2E ,
-t G. E. Kane-NA A. H. Stafford-NA D. I. Price-NA
-P._A. Kamp-NA A. C. Cooke-NA N ""A' W. A. Thornton-IN 2E il8O M. F. Kadlubowski)
- D. L. Jame's)- .
l
'16)
_ _ , _ . -