IR 05000412/1979002
| ML19208D838 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 06/06/1979 |
| From: | Bores R, Todd Jackson, Stohr J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19208D831 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-412-79-02, 50-412-79-2, NUDOCS 7910010116 | |
| Download: ML19208D838 (6) | |
Text
, -.... - - _.
-
_ - -..
- - - - - -
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No. 50-412/79-02 Docket No.
50-412
'icense No.
CPPR-105 Priority Category A-2
--
.
Licensee:
Duquesne Light Company (DLC)
435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
_
Facility Name:
Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS), Unit 2 Inspection at:
BVPS Site, Shippingport, Pennsylvania Inspection conducted-February 28 - March 1,1979
//d# I'./777 Inspectors:
-
T. J. Vacke'on, Radiation Speciclist (Intern)
/ date' signed
// sM Shhr R. J Bc(res, Ph0!, Radihtion Specialist date signed
'
date signed
!
.
,
[
Approved by:
J.
. /StohF, ' Chief,' Environmentdl and t: ate sighed ecial Projects Section, FF&MS Brsnch
,
~,
Inspection Summary:
_ Inspection on February 28 - March 1, 1 79 (Report No. 50-412/79-02)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of the envircunental protection program for construction phase at BVPS Unit 2, including:
observations made by the inspector of the existing environmental ccnoitions at the construction site and the surrounding environment; determination of the implementation status of the Construction Permit requirements; management controls and precedures for implementing the e vironmental protection program during site preparation and construction.
The inspection involved 16 inspector-hours onsite by two regionally based NRC inspectors.
Results:
Of the three areas inspected, one item of noncompliance was
identified in one area. This item is categorized as a Deficiency (Failure to control effluents from waste concrete disposal area - Details paragraph 3.b).
.
.
.
Region I Form 12 7p10010l16 4 (Rev. April 77)
k 1058 019
,_.____
___
-
.. _ _ _ _ _ _. _
_ _.
.
.
k
, DETAILS l
1.
. Persons Contacted
- R., J. Swiderski, Construction Superintendent, DLCo F. J. Bissert, Technical Assistant - Nuclear, DLCo
- J. R. Yun, Construction Specialist, DLCo l
- F. A. Arnold, Construction Specialist, DLCo
- J. E. Williams, Resident Manager, Stone & Webster Engineering Company (S&W)
E. Willif~d, Office Engineer, S&W
,
R. Johnson, Supervisor, Dick Corporation
denotes those present at the exit interview
!
T.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings i
(Closed) Unresolved Item (412/78-02-01):
Environmental Noise Measurements.
The inspector reviewed the environmental naise survey made by the licensee on August 21, 1978.
The licensee stated he intends to make similar noise survey measurements in the future at quarterly intervals.
The inspector had no further questions regarding this item at this time.
-
3.
_ General The inspection consisted of a review of the licensee's environ-mental program including measures taken to protect the environment
'
during site preparation and construction.
The licensee's current requirements in this area are listed in Sections 3.C and 3.E of the Construction Permit (CPPR-105), and described in the application and hearing records.
The inspection included a review of the licensee's records, procedures and audits, interviews with licensee personnel and observations made by the inspector.
a.
Site Tour Upon arrival at 1.he Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS), Unit 2 construction site, the inspector toured the area and examined the prevailing conditions at the sito and the surrounding 1058 020
.
.--
.... - -
_, - - - - -
.- - - --- - -
.
.
.
environment.
The inspector examined the waterfront at the Ohio River, soil and vegetation at the site discharge points, site laydown areas, and construction activities occurring during the inspectior..
i
!
4.
Management Controls and Program Implementation Procedures
-
The inspector reviewed the licensee's management control program to
,
insure that the environmental protection program was implemented
'
and adhered to during construction operations.
The inspector determined that daily construction site inspections and approximately
'
weekly insoections of the laydovm areas and the projected Unit 2 discharge construction area (now being filled with spoil material)
,
were made by the DLCo Construction Specialist, who reports directly
!
to the DLCo Construction Superintenden+ and the Stone and Webster Office Engineer.
The daily observatio cluded settling basins, run-off water, vegetation, slopes, erosion controls, dust control, sanitary waste disposal, potable water supply examinations, solid waste disposal and the general environment.
The sumr.ary of daily observations, including identified problem areas, was documented in the site environmental log book. The inspector noted that management was informed of program inadequacies through interoffice correspondence (IOC) and corrective actions were taken as recomended by the site Construction Specialist. The inspector reviewed the licensee's IOCs
- 43 through #77 (10/3/77 - 2/26/79) and Environmental Log Book entries from January 10, 1978 to March 1, 1979.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Status of Imolementation of'the Construction Permit Requirements a.
Effluent Management a.d Erosion Control The inspector noted that a settling basin was used to control turbidity and suspended solids content of most site effluents.
Most site run-off water and liquid effluents were collected, via a storm drain system, in settling basin no. 4.
The inspector
,
observed that settling basin no. 4 was provided with a filtration system which discharges to Peggs Run and eventually to the Ohio River.
The inspector reviewed EPA N.P.D.E.S. Permit No.
PA-0027707 which applies to the construction run-off dischan ges from site settling basin nos.1, 2, 3 and 4.
The licensee stated that basins 1, 2 and 3 have been covered and are now used as parking lot stonn drains which all enter Peggs Run through a single culvert, the discharge of which is monitored by the licensee.
The licensee stated that effluent from settling basin no. 4 is sampled as specified in N.P. D.E.S.
Pemit No. PA-0027707.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's 1058 02!
_
..
-
-._ -.
.
.
.
1 records of sampling and analyses for settling basin no. 4
'
discharges.
The inspector noted that surface water drainage
,
not connected to settling basins nos.1, 2, 3 or 4 flowed through extensive channels of rip-rap which prevented erosion
'
]
and provided time for settling of suspended solids.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for erosion control and slope stabilization and noted that dikes of hay bales were used extensively in areas where erosion might result in turbid run-oti, in order to reduce suspended solids in the discharge.
The inspector observed several areas of problem erosion on the. site along with evidence of prior
attempts by the licensee at seeding and slope stabilization.
The licensee stated that these slopes would be reseeded again as soon as weather permits.
The inspector noted that the
!
slope along the Ohio River at the site of future Unit 2 cooling water discharg construction was severely eroded and + hat the hay bale dike along the base of the slope had washc; sut at several locations.
The licensee immediately issued IOC #78 to repair the hay bale dike and stated that regisding as d reseeding i
of the slope would be accomplished as needed, as soon as
.
weather permits.
'
,
The inspector stated that this area will be examined again during a subsequent inspection (412/79-02-01).
The inspector had no.further questions at this time.
'
I b.
Waste Concrete Disposal i
The inspector observed that the waste concrete disposal area consists of a series of hay bale dikes.
The licensee stated that waste concrete and waste water which collects in the concrete truck loading area of the batch plant are dumped at the top of the disposal area.
The licensee stated that the series of hay bales was intended to hold up any waste water and allow sufficient time for settling of suspended solids
,
before the effluent reached the Ohio River.
The inspector
'
noted that water was flowing ander and around the hay bale
'
dikes at several locations.
Effluent from the waste concrete disposal area is not monitored.
On March 1,1979, the licensee sampled the effluent stream im-mediately above where it enters a drainage culvert which dis-charges into the Ohio River and found the effluent pH to be 12.4. A similar sample taken by the licensee on March 2, 1979, also was determined to have a pH of l?.4.
The inspector stated that effluent discharged with pH 12.4 into the drainage culvert and into the Ohio River was in noncompliance with NRC
regulatory requirements (412/79-02-02).
The licensee stated 1058 022
__
_ _ _.
.
_ _ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
,
.
.
,
that a daily sampling shedule would be initiated immediately in order to determine whether or not high pH in the waste concrete disposal area effluent presents a frequent problem.
,
The licensee stated that results from the daily sampling i
program will be used to determine necessary corrective action.
c.
_ Chemical, Oil and Fuel Storage and Control
.'
Th' inspector observed that all fuel and oil storage tanks on the site were surrounded by earthen dikes designed to contain spills. The licensee stated that these dikes are inspected
'
!
regularly during the daily site inspections.
The inspector i
observed a number of open drums filled with solvents in the i
temporary painting shack, located at the edge above the steep j
slope directly above Peggs Run. The inspector observed that i
if any of these drums were knocked over it would be probable that the solvent contained in the drum would flow into Peggs Run and into the Ohio River.
The licensee concurred and removed all open drums of solvent from the area before the inspector left the site. The inspector also observed several i
open drums and broad, open pans filled with waste oil outside
of the mechanic's shop.
The inspector observed that the open pans of oil were subject to possible spilling of the contents and that the open containers would allow water to enter, forcing oil out and onto the ground.
The licensee concurred and had all of the waste oil moved to a more sheltered location in a diked area before the inspector left the site.
'
The inspector had no further questions regarding the above items at this time.
d.
Solid Waste Disposal Site refuse materials were collected in designated containers and removed from the site by a private contractor on a regular basis. Construction scrap material was removed to a designated area near the site.
The licensee stated that no waste disposal is permitted at other than these locations.
The inspector toured the site and examined the waste disposal area.
No inadequacies were identified in this area.
1058 023
..
_
,
_ _. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _
_ _ _.
_.
.
_
,
...
.
..
.
e.
Sanitary Waste Disoosal The licensee stated that sanitary waste from temporary toilets was removed from the site on a regular basis by a private con-
,
!
tractor-Some waste entered the site leach field which has i
been used since 1968.
The licensee stated that new inputs to
the leach field are limited because i' is already receiving close to its capacity.
f.
Drinking Water The inspector noted that the site well drinking water was chlorinated and tested.
The licensee stated that drinking water standards set by EPA were followed.
,
No items of noncompliance were identif ed.
4.
Exit Interview The in:pector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the ena of the inspection on March 1,1979.
The
inspector summarized the purpose and the scope of the inspection and findings. The licensee acknowledged the item of noncompliance discussed in Details, paragraph 5.b.
..
.
.
1058 024