IR 05000424/1980006
| ML19312E245 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 04/18/1980 |
| From: | Cunningham A, Jenkins G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19312E244 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-424-80-06, 50-424-80-6, 50-425-80-06, 50-425-80-6, NUDOCS 8006030585 | |
| Download: ML19312E245 (5) | |
Text
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'o UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
g r
REGION 11 o,,
f 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100
b
%
o ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
,
APR 211980 Report Nos. 50-424/80-06 and 50-425/80-06 Licensee: Georgia Power Company 270 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30303 Facility Name: Alvin W. Vogtle Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 License Nos. CPPR-108 and CPPR-109 Inspection at Plant ite., Waynesboro, GA, Environmental Affairs Center, Decatur, GA
,
af-2;;EiD
[/8 M
,
Inspector:
<
K. L. Cu i ~
m'
/
' tate Signed Approved by-
.[.
/[ h
/
E R.' J n3,'!Tection Chief, FFMS Branch Date Signed SUMMARY Inspection on March 31, 1980 - April 2, 1980
<
.
Areas Inspected This routine, announced inspection involved 24 inspector-hours on site in the areas of environmental protection including management controls; erosion and runoff control; construction effects monitoring; waste management; status review of aquatic and terrestrial preoperational monitoring; review of on-site meteoro-logical measurements program.
Results
.
Of the six areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
,
80060305 85 L
__
.
.
DETAILS
,
1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- K. M. Gillespie, Construction Project Manager
- B. L. Maulsby, Supervisor Environmental Affairs
- H. H. Gregory, III, Assistant Construction Project Manager Center
- E. D. Groover, Quality Assurance Site Supervisor
- J. P. McCall, Site Environmental Engineer
- G. A. Breece, Environmental Specialist
- C. H. Huling, Environmental Licensing Engineer
- C. D. McCrary, Environmental Licensing Engineer
- J. W. Barlow, Environmental Licensing Engineer G. N. Guill, Senior Biologist
- Attended exit interview at plant site.
- Attended exit interview at Environmental Affairs Center 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized, and the inspector follow-up items listed herein were discussed at the plant-site exit interview on April 1, 1980, and at the Environmental Affairs Center on April 2, 1980, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above..
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected. There were no previous inspection findings.
4.
Unresolved Items No unresolved items were identified during this inspection.
5.
Management Controls Section 3.E(2) of Construction Permits CPPR-108 and CPPR-109 required a.
the licensee to establish a control program to provide for periodic review of all construction activities to assure that such activities conformed to the environmental conditions defined 'in the permits.
Inspection disclosed that a control program had been established and implemented as required.
To assure implementation of Construction Permit conditions, a Site Environmental Review Committee (SERC) was organized.
The function, organization and responsibilities of SERC were defined in the Control Program Document.
i I
i
,
_,..... -.. _ ~
..
..
.
-
.
-
,
.
_.
,
.
-2-
-
.
b.
Inspection of this item included the following:
(1) review of SERC minutes and correspondence for the period December 18, 1978, through April 1,1980; (2) review and discussion of the annual quality assurance audit (June 11-29, 1979) of the environmental protection commitments and conditions; review and discussion of detailed written procedures established to assure implementation of Construction Permit requirements.
Inspection disclosed that management controls were consistent with the above cited requirements and accepted industry practice. There were no questions regarding this item.
6.
On-Site Meteorological Measurements Inspection included a detailed status review of the preoperational on-site meteorological measurements program, and assessment of its compliance with Regulatory Guides 1.21, 1.23, and Section 2.2.3 of the PSAR.
Inspection involved review of procedures, instrument calibration and maintenance logs, and weekly instrument surveillance records for the period December 18, 1978, through April 1, 1980.
Inspection disclosed that instrument cali-brations, maintenance, and surveillance requirements were implemented as defined by licensee procedures. Inspection further disclosed that on site meteorological measurements, including cumulative data recovery efficiency, were consistent with the criteria cited above. There were no questions regarding this item.
7.
Construction Effects Monitoring Section 3.E(1)of the Construction Permits required the licensee to take necessary mitigating actions, including those summarized in Section 4.5 of the Final Environmental Statement (FES), to avoid unnecessary adverse environmental inpacts from construction activities. In item 10 of Section 4.5 of the FES, the licensee is committed to control siltation of Daniels Branch, Telfair Pond, Beaverdam Creek and the Savannah River. A monitoring program was established to assess construction related siltation effects within the cited water bodies.
Inspection included review and discussion of turbidity monitoring data and logs for the period December 18, 1978 through March 28, 1980.
Inspection disclosed numerous instances, during the final quarter of 1979 and the first quarter of 1980, in which the Savannah River, east of the site docking area, exceeded a licensee imposed limit of 50 Johnson Turbidity Units. As indicated by the field data sheets however, the elevated turbidities were directly related to unusually heavy rainfall. At the time of inspection, river elevation at the subject location was 92.5 feet, as opposed to a mean elevation of 80 feet 'uring the current d
Inspection disclosed that extensive efforts, including installation season.
of sandbags and straw check dams, were implemented to mitigate elevated turbidity attending heavy rainfall.
The frequency of heavy rainstorms occurring during the initial quarter of 1980 have exceeded the recurrency period of 25 years, i.e.,
the worst case basis upon which the maximum anticipated load on the drainage system was predicated. The irspector had no further questions regarding this item.
.
.
_ _.
.
.
-. -
-
!
.
-3-O i.
8.
Erosion and Runoff Control
a.
Assessment of erosion and runoff control requirements defined in
'
Section 3.E of the Construction Permits involved a detailed inspection i
of the plant site. Major emphasis was placed on the following items:
i (1) management of spoil storage and borrow areas; (2) operation and
'
maintenance of the retention ponds; (3) management of site surface drainage system; (4) management of the concrete batch plant holding
, _
pond. Inspection disclosed the following:
(1) general erosion of the
'
spoil storage area, located due east of the pistol range, with runoff into drainage ditch CV-28; (2) erosion at base of sector of category I backfill stockpile and the contiguous berm immediatedly west of the concrete batch plant with runoff into the culvert draining the general batch plant area. The inspector and licensee representatives discussed the above findings and the relation of such findings to recurrent heavy rainfall during the initial calendar quarter of 1980, and measures used to minimize erosion during that period. The inspector later informed licensee representatives that although mitigative efforts were taken, additional controls appeared necessary; hence, the subject findings would be designated as an inspector followup item (50-424/80-06-01 and 50-425/80-06-01). A licensee representative stated that further use of the cited spoil storage area would be discontinued forthwith, and that required grading, mulching and seeding of the area would be
'
initiated. A licensee representative further stated that any localized
erosion associated with the category I backfill stockpile would be immediately reviewed and mitigating actions would be implemented where required.
The inspector -informed licensee representatives that all actions regarding this item would be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
b.
Inspection of the site retention ponds disclosed that as a consequence of recurrent heavy rainfall previously referred to, ponds 1 and 2 were
.
approaching overflow.
Inspection also disclosed, however, that all
]
possible efforts were implemented to minimize silt loading of the receiving creeks associated with each pond discharge. There were no questions regarding this item.
'
Inspection of the batch plant holding pond and discussions with licensee c.
reprcsentatives disclosed that the pond overflowed into the site drain-J age system during the initial quarter of 1980, as a consequence of heavy
!
rainfall. Effluent pH measurements were taken at point of discharge from the pond and point of entrance into site retention pond No. 2.
During
'
the period March I through 31, 1980, effluent pH at point of discharge exceeded 9.0 four times; however at point of entrance into the above referenced site retention pond, effluent pH was within the 6.0-9.0 pH
range assigned by the licensee. The inspector informed licensee repre-
.sentatives that this item would be designated as an inspector followup item (50-424/80-06-02 and 50-425/80-06-02) because of the potential adverse impact of pond discharges in excess of the licensee's currently
,
i imposed pH limit. A licensee representative stated that the potential problem had been under study prior to the inspection. He further stated i
I o
-
momm _.
- ~e-eveemw w er,e - smmwr o-- ~m =w y v s
+---**-~uv-
,
+
,
.. -,
.,,
rm.
. -
,m,c_m y--
,. - +, - --
, +
--
-
. _. _
_ _ _ _ _ -
-
_ ~. _ _ _
_ _ _
_.
__
.. _.
._.
._
.
-4-s that the inspector would be informed of results of such study and their planned management and control of batch plant holding pond discharge. The inspector informed licensee representatives that this item would be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
9.
Status of Preoperational Surveillance Program Inspection included a status review of the nonradiological preoperational surveillance program summarized in Section 6.1.2 of the final Environmental Statement. The following program parameters were reviewed:
(1) Beaverdam Creek water quality surveillance (physicochemical);
(2) site deer cen:ms; (3) raptorial bird study; (4) plant community survey and vegetable mapping study; (5) Mallard pond wetlands study. Inspection and audit of field data and draft reports for the period December 18, 1978, through April 2, 1980, disclosed that all of the subject program parameters were implemented as required. There were no questions regarding this item.
i I