IR 05000413/1979011
| ML19242C419 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 06/05/1979 |
| From: | Cunningham A, Hufham J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19242C414 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-413-79-11, 50-414-79-11, NUDOCS 7908100386 | |
| Download: ML19242C419 (4) | |
Text
..
.. -
....
...
.
--
-
..
.
..
.
UNITED STATES
'o,
%
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
s.,.,
'E REGION 11
-
101 M ARIETT A sT., N.W., SUIT E 3100 k
k[*
AT LANT A, GEORGI A 30303 g..V
...
Report Nos. 50-413/79-4 and 50-414/79-4 Licensee: Duke Power Company 422 S. Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Facility Name: Catawbr Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos.: 50-41'; and 50-414 License Nos.: CPPR-116 and CPPR-117 Inspection at Charlotte, North Carolina and Catawba Nuclear Station near Rock Hill, South Carolina Inspector:
M [ k/w,/
&&/7f Date Signed
[_,A.L.Cunningham (/F/tT Approved by: M 2(
a D' te ' Signed
' Jv W. Hufham, Section Chief, FF&MS Branch a
SUMMARY Inspection on May 15-17, 1979 Areas Inspected This routine unannounced inspection involved 20 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of management controls; meteorological measurements program; waste management and controls; preoperational environmental monitoring; and erosion ccatrol.
Results Of the five areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in four areas; one apparent item of noncompliance was found in one area (erosion control).
c. ~ ^
p)3 790ElocMf,
.
..
-
..
.
.
DETAILS f.sda p O P! 'l$h ap
.,q
"
,p 4DW Q 116 #LC5i'
k
- g y 6 0 @ d O g j u s.
1.
Persons Contacted
.
$
_
A i
Licensee Employees t
.2/
J W. G. Rixon, Senior Planning and Facilities Engineer
- D. B. Blackmon, Design Engineer H. W. Comer, Engineering Aide
- T. C. Brcdley, Design Engineer
- R. S. Crowell, Technir"1 Associate
- T. H. Heitman, Junior Engineer D. G. Beam, Project Manager
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection secpe and findings were stunarized on May 17, 1979 with those persons indicated in Paragraph I above. Tb item of noncompliance listed herein was discussed.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Yindings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Management Controls Status of the management control program was reviewed and discussed with licensee representatives. Section 3.E.(4) of Construction Permits CPPR-116 and CPPR-117 require implementation of effective control over all construction activities which can cause significant adverse environe-ntal impact.
These documents further require a periodic review by the licensee of all construction activities to u sure compliance with the above conditions.
The inspector conducted a audit of quarterly reports submitted to the Design Engineering De3srtment for the final calendar quarter of 1977 through the first quarter of 1979. Activities reviewed in each report included those related to the major cocnitments su:narized on Section 4.6 of the FES (e.g., erosion control and waste management requirements).
The inspector also reviewed the licensee's annual audit of all environ-mental conditions and connitments imposed by the Construction Permits.
Inspection disclosed that ihe auditors identified no items of noncom-pliance and that all enviro.xental protection and control requirements were being implemented.
Inspection also disclosed that the licenwe's management control and review program appeared to meet the requirements of the Constr2ction Permits and accepted industry practices. There were no questions regarding this item.
t,7 9 7 ') h Ju
-
.
.
.
..... -
-
-
.
..
..
(
-2-6.
Vaste Management Controls Section 3.E(4) of Construction Pernits CPPR-116 and CPPR-117 requires the licensee to take the necessary mitigating actions, including those sumarized in Section 4.6 of the FES, to avoid unnecessary adverse environ-mental impacts from construction activities. The term waste management as used herein applies to the following sewage treatment facility, construc-tion waste, handling and control of fuels, chemicals and lubricants, and spoiled earth storage. Each of the above items are discussed below.
Sanitary Waste Treatment Facility a.
Inspection of State and County pemits, certificates and related correspondence revealed that the licensee complied with the following comitments concerning the sanitary weste treatment facility defined in Section 4.6.1(1) of the FES (1) sewage treatment facility must meet all applicable standards of the State of South Carolina; (2)
continued approval of its operation by the South Carolina Board of Health and Environmental Cot. trol, and the York County Health Department; and (3) operation of the facility by a trained waste treatment operator certified by the State of South Carolina. Operation of the system appeared consistent with its design criteria and functions.
The inspector reviewed all monitoring and maintenance data, records and logs for the secondary and tertiary systems of the facility.
There were no questions concerning this item. Plans have been implemented to modify the system to more adequately acconnodate the load generated by increased compliment of construction personnel.
b.
Spoil Storage In Section 4.6.1(12) of the FES, the licensee is comitted to staintain control of spoiled earth materials to mitigate high surface runoff and minimize transport of sedicent to I,ake Wylie.
In Section 4.6.1(10)
of the above document, the licensee is also comitted to control site erosion and subsequent sediment ation by providing piped drainage sistems, intercepts and berm h cnes, and ground cover to control che flow of surface waters. As a result of these requirements, a significant portion of the site inspection was directed toward verifying their impelementation.
Inspection of th; site, exclusive of the intake cove, confirmed that site drainage erstems, and management of spoil storage and borrow areas were consistent with Construction Permit requirements.
Inspection also disclosed, however, severe erosion along the sector of the northwest bers of the intake cove, incediately opposite the LPSW intake structure.
This finding was discussed with licensee representatives. The inspector informed licensee representatives that the subject finding constituted an item of noncompliance (79-04-01). A licensee repre-sentative stated that corrective action would be promptly implemented.
E )[
300 QQf f 7'py; a bu mag
_
-
.
..
. _ _ _.
_ _ _ _
_.
.
..
.
Y 9he n r Qh()
-3, g 9,Q @gr f-M.
- J M
- s fv
'
ig h6% p'
me c.
Control-Disposal of Checi:a1 and Construction Waste Section 4.6.1(14) requires that waste (including chemicals, fuels, lubricants, and bitumens) will neither be deposited nor discharged into a natural water shed where the possibility of surface runoff transfer to I.ake Wylie exists. This couaitment aslo requires the burial of construction wastes (e.g., foliage, scrap metal, packing materials, etc.) or transportation cf such waste to an assigned landfill area.
Inspection of the construction site revealed that the licensee had implemented effective bandling procedures and controls, and provided special areas for chemical storage, fuel supply and construction vehicle maintenance. Fuel supply, con-struction vehicle maintenance and washing areas were provided with sumps and special drainage as required to prevent discharge to the natural watersh-d.
Inspection also revealed that an approved onsite burial zone had been provided to accomodate disposal of construction waste. A licensee rperesentative stated that the landfill arca provided was adequate to accomodate construction and selected solid putrescible vastes generated during the remaining period of plant construction. There were no questions concerning this item.
7.
Preoperational Surveillance Program The current status of the preoperational nonradiological surveillance program is confined to monthly and quarterly aynoptic water quality monitoring of physicochemical parameters (e.g., temperature, pH, conductivity, nutrients, trace heavy metals). The final year of aquatic biological monitoring of plankton, periphyton, benthos, and bacteria as required by Section 3.E(2) of the Permits is defined in Section 6.1.1 of the FES. This program is scheduled to be implemented one year prior to fuel loading. Water quality monitoring was implemented as required during the period December 1977 through April 1979. There were no questions regarding this item.
8.
On-Site Meteorological Monitoring The terrestrial preoperational survey requirement defined under Section 6.1.1.1 of the FES includes on-site ceteorological monitoring of the following parameters (1) wind velocity and direction; (2) temperature; (3) vertical temperature gradients (dry bulb); (4) dew point temperatures corresponding with wind velocity and direction measurements.
Inspection included the review of meteorological data compiled during the period 1975 through December 31, 1977, and discussion of meteorological data retreival efficiency. During the above cited period of operation, mean data retrieval efficiency was in excess of 907..
The inspector also reviewed the status of the fog watch baseline study preceeding operation of the cooling towers during routine plant operation. This study is included as part of the meteorological program. During discussion of the meteorological measurements program, a licensee representative informed the inspector that two full years of monitoring, as per NRC requirement was completed December 31, 1977.
He also stated that the fog study would continue as required. There were no questions regarding this item.
- }
fOh
..
.
.
MEETING SUMMARY DISTRIBUTION ggt g g gg79 Do et File C70R -
'
Local PDR e-TIC
/
NRR Reading u
'
,
Branch File #4 E. Case
.
D. Bunch H. Denton D. Ross D. Vdssallo W. Gammill J. Stolz R. Baer 0. Parr S. Varga C. Heltemes L. Crocker D. Crutchfield F. Williams R. Mattson R. DeYoung Project Manager D. Hood Attorney, ELD M. Service
'
IE (3)
ACRS (16)
R. Denise L. Rubenstein NRC Participants:
D. Scaletti W. Lovelace D. Sells H. Bassett T. Abell G. Matthews S. Kari B. Kirschner L. Schaub l., * /*
'
i-).\\
J