NRC-92-0052, 1991 Annual Nonradiological Environ Operating Rept for Fermi-2

1991 Annual Nonradiological Environ Operating Rept for Fermi-2

ML20095J992
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	12/31/1991
From:	Orser W DETROIT EDISON CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
CON-NRC-92-0052, CON-NRC-92-52 NUDOCS 9205040249
Download: ML20095J992 (17)

Text

- -- . ...

• e f lRLOL o, ..

v.y i

Detroit . - -

IU -

Ed son a~/il6MlNfirYL NucIeat om"-

April 30, 1992 NRC-92-0052 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control-Desk n Washington, D. C. 20555

Reference:

Fermi 2 NRC Docket No. 50-341 NRC License No. NPF-43

Subject:

Annual Non-Radiological Environmental Operating Report Pursuant to section 5.4.1 of the Environmental Protection Plan, please find attached the 1991 Annual Non-Radiological Environmental Operating Report for Fermi 2.

Should you have any questions or tomments regarding this report, please contact Barbara Siemasz, Compilance Engineer, aL (313) 586-1683 Sincerely, N

Enclosure cc: T. C. Colburn A. B. Davis H.:P. Phillips S. Stasek Region III e

1

~Od01I7 ~

9205040249 911231 ' I i

-PDR ADOCK 05000341 R PDR i

~. - _ - _ . _

-~

1991 Annual Nonradiological Environmental Operating Report for Fermi 2 (In accordance with Appendix B to Facility Operating 1.icense No. NPF-43)

P

Table of Contents Section i Report section ll Appendices Appendix 1 Environmental Evaluation Records Appendix 2 Zebra Musset Monitoring and Treatment Program Reports

- _-_-.--_.-______-,_____-__-a.______-_u___--___--____ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _

ce l.

\

'a --

E s

9-9 4, ,

e I

d 1

1

'y-1 i

6 L' >

i f

l, Section l E

)

I Report

L, s

}

r i 1

s t

i I

J Y

k i

_ .i

'}

c'  ;

.9 1

I i

t

', E e -  :--, .c.._;..... .,_.._.._.._._.-.a,,....._.. . . . _ _ . . . _ . , . . . . . _ = __ . . - - , . . , . . . . - . . . , _ , . . - , , , , , , _ - . . , . ,

I; i.

Rsport -

In 1991, Fermi 2 Generated power for over 248 effective full power days and had an overall capacity f actor of 66.7 percent. -)

The Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) provides for protection of environmental values during any additional construction and the operation of Farmi 2. The principal objectives of the EPP are as follows:

1, Verify that Fermi 2 is operated uvironmentally acceptablo manner, as established by the Final Envirori, si Statement (FES) and environmental impact assessmento,

[-

2. Coordinate NRC requirements and maintain consistency with other Federal, State and local requirements for environmental protection.

3. Keep the NRC informed of the' environmental effects of facility construction and operation and of actions taken to control those effacts.

Environmental concerns identifled in the FES which relate to water quality matters are regulated by way of Formi's Nananal Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

' permit. As such, water quality issues are not required to be addressed in this report.

The components of the EPP are:

--1. A terrestrial munitoring proDram to detect long-term or sudden changes in vegetation due to operation of Fermi 2.

2. A program to establish the controlled use of herbicides on transmission rights-of-way.

3. A program to ensure that changes to Fermi's desl0n or operation and potential tests or experiments are adequately reviewed prior to implementation to avoid adverse environmental impacts not previously evaluated. Changes in plant design, operation or the performance of tests or experiments which do not effect the environment or which are required to achieve compilance.with other

' Federal, State or local environmental regulations, are not subject to the requirements of this EPP.

4. Routine monitoring for evidance of unusual or important environmental events. [

1-Following startup of the Fermi 2 facility, a terrestrial monitoring program was conducted-per the EPP to measure key terrestrial parameters for comparison with corresponding measurements obtained prior to startup. This study focuses lon effects due to the operation of the cooling towers at Formi 2 The EPP also requires aerial remote sensing during the first July-September period after the station has been in operation for one l year. Because this type of study focuses on effects caused by the operation of the cooling towers at the Fermi 2 site, Detroit Edison's first post-operational survey was performed during.the July-September 1987 period. Two of four required followup surveys were-performed in 1988 and 1990.- Additional followup surveys are required to be performed in 1992 and 1994. As such, aerist remote sensing was not required to be performed in 1991 l

and therefore was not conducted;

! +

=

L i

. l Pege 2 r ,

1

• l

~ l

' The use of herbicides at Fermi 2 must conform to the approved use of selected herbicides '

as registered by the Environmental Protection Agency, approved by State authorities, and applied in accordance with State requirements. Records are maintained at tha site concerning herolcide use. These records include the following information: commercial and chemical names of material used, concentration of active material in formulations diluted for field use; diluting substances other than water; rates of application; method and frequency of application; location; and the date of application.

Before engaging in additional construction or operational activitias which might affect the environment, Fermi 2 would prepare and record an environmental evaluation of such activity, if the evr,luation should indicate that the proposed activity would involve an unreviewed environmental question, Detroit Edison would provide a written evaluation of tha activity and obtain prior approval from the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

' Regulation. Activities are excluded from this requirement if all measurable, non-radiological ellects are confined to the on-site areas previously disturbed durinD site preparation and plant construction, During the period covered by this report, there was one change to station design which was evaluated to determine if an unreviewed environmental issue or question would have been created by the change.- A third Circulating Water Decant Pump (10,000 opm) was installed in July,'1991, to enhance circulating water reservoir water level control. An Environmental Evaluation was performed to determine if an unreviewed envisor, mental issue existed (see Environmental Evaluation Record, Appendix 1). This issue was addressed ni Ferm!'s NPDES Permit Application for Reissuance (see Annual Non-Radiological Environmental Monitoring Report,1989, pieviously submitted). Fermi's NPDES Permit No.

M10037028 was reissued by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)'

effective July 19,1990 (see NRC-90-0137, previously submitted). The reissued permit contains the flow provisions required to allow operation of a third decant pump (flovu limitation for outfall.001.was increased from 30 million gallons per day to 45 million

. gallons per day). Appendix B to Facility Operating 1.icense No. NPF-43, Section 2.1 states that: "The NRC will rely on the MDNR for the protection of the aquatic environment from non-radiological operational impacts via the NPDES permit.* Since operation of a third decant pump was previously reviewed and approved via Fermi's current NPDES Permit, no unreviewed environmental issue exists.

Any unusual occurrence or important event which indicates, or could result in, significant environmental impact causally related to plant operation is reported to the the NRC within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> followed by a written report. The following are considered examples of unusual or important environmental events: excessive bird impaction events, onsite plant or animal disease outbreaks, mortality or unusual occurrence of any species protected by the Endangered Species Act, fish kills, and an increase in nuisance organisms or conditions.

1 L

L i L l

\ i

P3ge 3 1 No unusual or important environmental events occurred during the reporting period.  ;

Accordingly, no non-routine reports were submitted.

Fouling of raw water cooling systems by Zebra mussels continues to be an important

. industry concern. Monitoring and treatment of raw water cooling systems for Corbicula (Asiatic clams) and Zebra mussels continued in 1991. Though not required by the EPP, a summary of Fermi's Zebra mussel monitoring and control activities conducted during 1991 is included below:

Zebra mussels were first discovered in 1989, colonizing the General Service Water (GSW) intake structure and GSW cooled heat exchangers. Since that time, Zebra mussel populations at fermi have steadily increased. Insucction of

'the GSW intake trash bars on October 14,1991 revealed 5% coverage by Zebra mussels (west intake bay) and 5% coverage down to approximatnly 5 to 6 feet off floor where trash bars were 80 - 90% occluded (east intake bay). See Technical and Engineering Services Report 91C36-8, Appendix 3 for more information. These results coupled with results of the May,1992 inspection will letermine if mechanical cleaning of the GSW intake structure is warranted.

Chemical treatment of the GSW and Fire Protection systems using a non-oxidizing molluscicide continued in 1991. Betz Clam-Trol CT-1 was applied-to these systems on July 28,1991. Zebra mussel mortality due to treatment was estimated at 93%.

The Fermi 1 Potable Water Plant was inspected by Technical and Engineering Services (T&ES) divers on April 24,1991. Video probe inspection of the 8 inch supply line revealed approximately 24% coverage of pipe walls with zebra musselr~ T&ES recommended mechanical cleaning of intake piping (see T&ES report 91C36-4, Appendix 3b Mechanical cleaning of the potable water supply line occurred on October 1, 1991 (see T&ES Report 91036-9, Appendix 3). Mechanical _" pigging" (a process -

where a compressible plug-is forced through a line to remove unwanted deposits) was the cleaning method utilized. It is estimated that the potable water line may require subsequent cleanings as often as every two years.

Until recently, Fermi's Zebra mussel control program involved periodic

.nolluscicide treatments at sufficient frequencies to prevent attached mussels from growing to lengths in which heat exchanger fouling would occur when shcIls release (shells of one half inch or greater).

?

l-i i

l l

Page 4 i

Evaluation of this treatment methodology indicates that shell debris, if oresent within the Fire Protection system, could cause fouiina of deluge system spray nozzlen. To eliminate the potential for this type of foul;ng, Zebra mussel S settling and attachment must be prevented. Fermi has therefore decided to install a new blocide injection syste n to tiodt the OSW and Fire Protection systems. This system will continuously add oxidizing blocide to GSW during the

- months that Zebra mussel larvae are present in the source water. Conthuous biccide injection will klI the larvae as they enter the system thereby preventing settling and attach.aent.

Due to NPDES restrictions, the GSW intake structure and P able water intake

[.4 a will require periodic mechanical removal of attached 2'ta mussels. lhe v ), 1 Tse proxinetty of these comi onents to the lake prohibits bie use of biocides.

' % Nd of chemical molluscicides on these components would create ri high

, "(T

. otential for release of water treatment chemicals to the lake in excess of P- NPDES affluent limitations.

i

y y e 7 7 ,--.3 c. ..___ _._,_ ___ __ _ _ _ _ _ , . _ .--_ _ _ _ _ .  :----

, _g g.g yy , ,

f, . . , . - :Je ..

o. 4- ,g- , y

.y

+-*;

b$ q y

1 f I, t p

?^

d :'

t

. t

['.'l. 5 f_m._}m.

l-

~ - .;

p

- ,I

.g

- Section 11 i

(  :

b,  !

. . j Appendices .j i

C L,

l "

F G

.I f

, s e

b

,-.1 t

-a

( j

. '{,

h I

7

.:f. &

i 5

k (i . - .!

t.-:

5 1

e

~ .e .

.. l r .a

'= ,I p'..

. 1 l

I

-E

e: y.

i ~

.A ,

ti'.

.,,s, T-J' _

ti

-Appendix 1 Appendix.1.. consists of an Environmental Evaluation Record written to

-address the operation of a third Circulating Water Decant Pump.

4-, ;3r t

L Tb I

l

'[

((ii

! --l l

l ^:

s t ,- >

U. l:li

,s 4.- _.

i) 1-5 i

, -~ _ _

Detdit EnvironmentalEvaluation

-Edison- Record

- - w. .t. ope,s.g utense ,s,.i,.s t for en e**nai consminion or o,e,aoonai saivNie, *h ma ewee ni.ve . tio.

,,itaant a, verse e~i,onmemaiimoen .ooa ~ e~;,onment. iwensee shaii,,e,.,e and ,eco,d an envi,onmentaieenivation of s.,h activky For assistance in fillmg outthis record or in assesting environmentalimpacts. contact Environmental Programa Coordinator - Chemnatry.

Port 1:

Responsible Department Reveew Date CHEWsrtN 7-l'1 *ii Hggewer m J.4-234.00[ 7 D*noflPtic . of accidty,

_ l- T el. t xt.

6ssy' Admm. Unit i cv ,

Location azeas Ef A LVA t'e 64 c18: I"FFET.TS nej E *J Vi fo>J M GhTT" f ESOL.T~1 AIG:, #8 Mbe.4 bPEKAT16h) bF" ~1"Al Rb C.0fC Lll.hTisl G GMT*GR D G CA M"T~~ Pt.)k P b) l_L kreass tsaca ar e n u3as w m a /M m'u.,6 ur... /n.y 6arla etoe A.s#

Part 2 : -

i l

1. Is there a potential for significant adverse environmental empact associated with this activity? (For assistance m defming sign.fstant please contact Environmentaitngitieer huclearingineering.316 NOC. ext 4286.)

O No c see Noie n.1) Eves ico to No.2 )

2 Willthis activrty evolve an environmental Question no_t_ reviewed m the Final Environmental $tatement or will thrs activity result in a significarit mcrease m any adverse environmental ernpact previously evaluated m the 8ES?

No LSee Note he.1) @ves(Go To No.3) 3 Willthis activity result m erther en off-site environmentalimpact or an on.ute impact on areas not previously oisturbed' O rio c see Noce no.1) E vei <co ro No.4 )

a Willthe environmentalimpaa mvolve activities outude of those currently covered by existreg site permits?

E No(see Note ho.1) Oves (coTo No.s>

5. Is thrs attivrty outude of that recuired to achieve compliance with other federal. state of local environmental regulations?

t C No(5ee Note No.1) Cves(sf yes)thisactivity requires either a A change in the EPP.or b An Environmental Assessment and NRC approvat before met'ation of activity *

• Addissonal Comments: ,,

EVFacteVE 3\A.4 89.tM O s ERe.4i s NPeas Pred r do. M o0 21c21 tAS fee's_ WEB un/ THW Mb4R. "Tkt reb

' BEAM $T caeFeblS, Flow PRenNS e4S Rg40igtsb at o At.Let.O erarqrseg! 0F A'TWIRT) did ho 4tT"f%AP ht.od uueT7 asse.fEAhr h tream M uf.t> *f o 8JS eaGt>\ A S SfNTED '14 "TME. EW$Eo4ME4 tat PeoTEct*[64 PL.Ard f'PEMZ$X E

• r'o 1%CsLrrY cPERAf%M Lf CEMst) Secre o*J 2 ' q f")tf MRC dLL RnY c4 TME MIM4R 5%C 'I'Ht! F5Ea' Note 1: no further auin is required. please send this form to the . Ironmental Programs Coordinator - Chemletry

• Please send this form immediately to the Errvironmental Programs Coordinator - Chemist 7 .

-bg ase Tit 5 40WTTiC. E49i ff.64 m81L4"T- p*o M Wr4- KADIOL *C,' CAL-- OPER ATIC'4/ll lH PHf.-Ts vl A "T etE HPDE pgggy, ,,star g 3g bac.srensso 'MED-p ee.caat vs.wna pag.coggi h PEseWTED

s. Man 4*EarAL vi A Rs.iss4Eo a

Met >es PEdmi-r Mic.os roz$,

n> eranm. nee %no w posv.4 A h.k = sss.umcor S

7-19-93 mat. *sn'id ogc. APPROVP

• 1 .

Appendix 2 Appendix 2 contains monitoring and treatment reports associated with the Zebra mussel control program at I-ermi. Specific documents ccntained herein are as follows:

1. . Technic-l and Engineering Services (T&ES) Report 91C36 , 'ondition

, of Fermi 2 General Service Water Screenhouse Midbays

2. T&ES Report 91C36-4, inspection of the Fermi 2 Potable Water intake Structure for Zebra Mussels

3. T&ES Report 91C36-9, Control of Zebra Mussel Fouling of the Formi Potable Water Plant intake o

~ .

y -

l p- . my , .-

EdLson -

b .

- Date: October 15,1991

. _ To: -

Fritz I.chmann Fermi 2 -

From: . G.D.Ian R. D. Smi -

Technical and Engineering Services

Subject:

Condition of Fenni 2 General Service Water Screenhouse Midbays Technical & EneineerInr Services Recort 91C3f-j The Technical and Engineering Services Dive Team performed an underwater j- inspection of the trash bars and ficor areas betweca the trash bars and the outer stop log chn-1 of the Fermi 2 general service water pumphouse on October 14,1991..

Visual inspection of the east and west bays was impo: sib' occause diver visibility was zero. Herefore, percent coverage by zebra mussels was estimated by touch.

A video tecord was not attempted at this time.

De west bay trash ban had approximately 5% coverage by zebra masels and one foot or so of gelatinous muck deposited on the floor area betweea the trash bars and the traveling screen.

. He east bay trash bars were about 5% covered with mussels down to approximately 5-6 feet offthe floor where it was 80 to 90% occluded by mussels. The floor was covered with 15 to 20 inches of gelatinous muck along with branches and miscellaneous debris.

Zebra mussels on the trash bars can be removed by high-pressure ur.derwater sprays (3000 psi) by contract divers. One such dive contractor is presently at Mc.voc Power Plant removing mussels from all four unit trash Lars. =If desired, the operation could be observed by your people. The muck build-up on the floor could be removed by underwater vacuuming also provided by contract divers.

Lek Smithee of Technical and Engineering Services has assisted Monroe Power Plant in establishing zebra mussel cleaning protoccis and coordinating related dive

. activities. Rick (extension 71337) will be glad to assist you if you want.

Approved by: h1h W. P. Kovalak Acting Supervisor Environmental and Regulatory Compliance L anw.

. Copies to: G. A. Horuczi (file)

ServingCusbmers

-wwewe a

y m:.

]

. e. ,ro m; e..

v ,

1

. Detroit F -

n -=.A w%v e n O m:xm _ __ . - m .

-m

-: ~

Date: May 22,1991

+ - '

To: R. J. DeWulf Nuclear Operations ,

From: R. D. Smithee G. D. Longton Technical and Engineering Services

Subject:

Inspection of the Fermi 2 Potable Water Intake Structure for Zebra Mussels Technical & Eneineerine Services Reoort 91C36-4 Tec!mical and Engineering Services conducted an underwater videoprobe inspection of th?crmi I potable water intake structure on April 24,1991. The purpose was to determine if zebra mussels were fouling the 8 inch diameter water supply pipe which connects the crib to the water plant. A diver was ab!r io insert the videoprobe abou'. M feet into the pipe. Subsequent review of the video indicated that the walls cf tid 3 section of pipe were approximately 24% covered with a single layer of zebra mussels. If this level of fouling is tjpical, then about 6 cubic feet of

. zebra mussels are living in the supply pipe.

The level of fouling of the supply pipe and the intake crib'(Technical and Engineering Services Report 90H19-4) indicate that the system should be cleaned.

It also seems reasonable te install feed lines to allow for future chlorine injcetion at the crib. This would control zcbra mussels in the pipeline but not the intah grid.

The intake grid could be easily modified to allo _w for diver access and cleaning. It is anticipated that this cleaning wmid have to be done every two years. A diver

~s hould be able to clean the grid in less than one hour of bottom time.

Discussions with contractors and others suggest the a mechanical cleaning of the pipeline should be ccasidered. The job could be completed in several days using a barge anchored at the crib. The removed mussels would be backwashed out of the system as the cleaning progressed. The barge and cleaning equipment would also facilitate the installation of the chlorine feed line and support crib intake grid modification. - Alternatively, chemical or thermal treatment could be used to kill t!'e ServingCustomers m v.---  ;-- . _ ~y.y y; .., .

m Jiamt'uREREN'"T23E23L15 MEFWu'*"""u tJ eb L *b U- **M V MO "4 --

.e _ _. __ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _

3.f , }* -

o- .

91C36-4 : Page 2.

mussels, but this would not immedhtely remove them from the system. The dead

, animals would slough off the supply pipe over a several week period causing intermittent pluggage of the strainer system in the w2ter plant, _

i i

Approved by: M " t o- '

W. P. Kovalak Acting Sapervisor Enpronmental and Regulatory Compliance w

Copies to: .W. D. Gilbert G. A. Horuczi (file)

S. K. Labudda F. M. Lehnum -

d t-p

,w y r '- 1 9' *- 'rra - * " "+---e

= - - -- '** r **- - ' * - - - '

. ,y . . 3 7_

L ff D etK)lt Edison.  :

Date: October 17,1991 To: R. J. Dewulf Nne' ear Operations 7

From: R. D. Smithee G. D. Longton

- Technical and Engineering Services

Subject:

Control of Zebra Mussel Fouling of the Fermi Potable Water Plant Raw Water Intake System >

Technical & Enchecerine Servics Report 91C36-9 ne prob - 1 of zebra mussel fouling of the Fermi potable water plant raw water intake

.- system iv, oecn addressed.- A divt. contractor has modified the intake crib cover and pigged o . the 8 inch diameter raw water supply pipe. The project was completed on l.

October 1,1991. The crib cover modification will simplify and reduce costs of future cleanings. De pigging of the supply line has removed most, if not all, of the mussels and rust deposits. He pumping capacity required to meet the water plants raw water needs has also been reduced.

The mfestations of zebra mussels in the water plant intake system has been monitored since 1989. Technical and Engineering Services (T&ES) divers photo and video documented the increasing zebra mussel concentrations on the crib cap in 1989 and 1990 (T&ES Report 90H19-4). In addition, a videoprobe inspection in April,1991 revealed that zebra mussels had colonized the inside of the raw water supply pipe (T&ES Report 91C36-4). The buildup of the mussels in the supply pipe substantiated the need for a con. col program.

Hermal, chemical and mechanical methods of controlling zebra mussels have all been used l - with varying success in industry. The different approaches were discussed internally and with nyeral contractors. It was finally decided to hire a contractor experienced in >

mechanical pigging operadons to do the job (Pigging describes the process where a compressibh plug is forced through a line to remove unwanted deposits from the line).

He contractor began the operation in September with the modification of the concrete cap on the intake crib. A 11.5 lach hole was cut in the center of the cap to allow access for cleaning and a passageway for the pigs. A 0.5 inch thick aluminum plate with holes matching those in the original concrete cap was fabricated for installation after completion -

- of the pigging operation.

L L pigging operation was conducted on October 1,-1991. A pig launcher was connected to i

the raw water supply line in the dry well. A 6 inch valve and a portion of the strainer were temporarily removed to make room for the launcher, he launcher was plumbed with a fire hose to provide water pressure for launc.hing the pigs. The operation commenced with the launchings of three, progressively stiffer 8 inch diameter swabs. The swabs were bullet

! ServingCustomers N

.,& .3.

I 91036-9 Page 2.

7 .

shaped, compressible, open cell, plastic foam with a solid plastic sealing coating across the rear end. He operation continued with the launching of progressively larger pigs from 6.5 to 8 inches in diameter. The pigs aro similar to the swabs except that they are completely coated with a nild flexible pla; tic. The last pig was 8 inches in diameter and was also equipped with a spiral of stiff wire brush. A boat and diver were stationed at the intake crib to retriese the pigs (some floated to the surface and others did not). The raw water supply pipe was out of service for about 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />.

De launch sequence was as follows: 1. Open the launcher. 2. Load the pig or swab and close the launcher. 3. Open the raw water isolation valve. 4. Pressurize the launcher with the fire hose valve to launch the pig., 5. Close the fire hose valve. 6. Open the backwash valve to flush the pig out of the line. 7. Close the backwash valve. 8. Drain the launcher. Note; Observing the pressure changes ou the raw water line will indicate the pigs movements through the system to the operator. All valve operations should be made slowly to minimize the potential for wa cr hammer.

, it is felt that pigging is a viable method of controlling the zebra mussels tu this system. It has been demonstrated that the operation can be completed in a mir.imal amount of time with good results. Observations indicate tnat the swabs alone removed most of the mussels.

The more robust pigs removed mainly y-ars of accumulated rust and scale (it was several inches deep around the crib structure). Installation of a permanent pig launcher might further reduce cleaning coas.

Future zebra mussel concentrations should be monitored. His could include positioning a batch of test coupons in the crib area to determine annual zebra mussel deposition.

Retrieval of the coupons would also facilitate both a visual Mspection of the crib structure and removal of the uussels plugging the cap openings.

Approved by: -

W. P. Kovalak Acting Supervisor Environmental and Regulatory Compliance amw Copies to: G. A. Horuczi (file)

S. K. Labudda F. M. Lehmann William Terrasi J. C. Tokarski -