IR 05000518/1979020
| ML19210D994 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hartsville  |
| Issue date: | 10/19/1979 |
| From: | Aufham J, Cunningham A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19210D988 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-518-79-20, 50-519-79-20, 50-520-79-20, 50-521-79-20, NUDOCS 7911290142 | |
| Download: ML19210D994 (5) | |
Text
.
'o,,
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
g
'
a-c REGION 11
o 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W.. SUITE 3100
%.....o ATLANTA, GEORGI A 303o3 Report Nos. 50-518/79-20, 50-519/79-20, 50-520/79-20 and 50-521/79-20 Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority 500A Chestnut Street Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401 Facility: Hartsville Nuclear Plant License Nos. CPPR-150, CPPR-151, CPPR-152 and CPPR-153 Inspection at Hartsv'
e Nu lea Plant near Hartsville, Tennessee Inspected by:
/.
'I,
_ ute/ cts
/MM A. L. Cudningham p"~
Oat ( Signed Approved by:
@
hue
/O/k7[7f
.
a J. W. Hufham, Secti$n Chief, FFMS Branch Date Signed SUMMARY Inspection on September 4-6, 1979 Areas Inspected This routine unannounced inspection involved 20 inspector-hours onsite in the of environmental protection including administrative controls; environ-areas mental protection program review; review of previous inspection findings; site erosion and runoff; dust abatement; solid waste management.
Results Of the six areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
1434 244 7911290 4 iN2-
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Parsons Contacted Licensee Employees
- R. T. Hathcote, Project Manager
- W. R. Brown, Construction Engineer
- W. O. Brown, Assistant Construction Engineer
- B. F. Painter, Engineer
- W.
A. Bartlett, Civil Engineer
- N. L. McCrory, Supervisor, Engineering Service
- K. L. Ramsey, Quality Assurance Engineer
- L. E. Wallace, Quality Assurance Engineer
- K. J. Bivens, Assistant General Construction Superintendent
- M.
U. Rudolphi, Administrative Assistant
- D. M. Egan, Environmental Engineer (Construction)
- K. Parr, Environmental Engineer (Power Regulation Staff)
- R. Andrews, Engineer
- L. A. Wilson, Engineer
- H. H. Jones, Engineer
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on September 6, 1979, with those persons indicated in Paragraph I above.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Noncompliance (50-518/78-12-01, 50-519/78-12-01, 50-520/78-12-01, 50-521/78-12-01) Recording zind reporting Discharge Water pH in Excess of Assigned Limits. Inspection disclosed that adequate administrative controls were implemented to assure recording and reporting of such incidents.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-518/78-12-02, 50-519/78-12-02, 50-520/78-12-02, 50-521/78-12-02) Dust Abatement.
Inspection disclosed that effective dust control measures were implemnted for operation of batch plant No. 1.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve noncompliance or deviations.
New unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in paragraphs 6.c and 6.d.
3434 245
.
'
-2-5.
Administrative Controls Section 3.2(7) of the Construction Permits requires the licensee to a.
establish a control program which includes written procedures and
.
instructions for control of all construction activities as prescribed, and to provide for periodic management audits that determine the adequacy of implementation of environmental conditions. The licensee is also required to maintain sufficient records to furnish evidence of compliance with all environmental conditions defined in the Permits.
The inspector reviewed organizational responsibility for implementation of environmental protection, surveillance, and construction effects monitoring. Detailed discussions with the site environmental engineer and cognizant personnel of the Environemntal Planning Section, disclosed that program management and responsibilities appeared consistent with Construction Permit requirements and accepted industry practice.
b.
The inspector reviewed detailed written procedures developed to assure implementation of plant site environmental protection requirements.
The following procedures were included:
(1) non-radioactive solid waste management; (2) point source discharge management (e.g., con-struction runoff and drainage, mixing plant discharge, sanitary wastes);
(3) water quality management; (4) air quality management; (5) construc-tion impact management (e.g., vehicular traffic, noise, endangered species and critical habitat protection).
Each procedure assigned specific management and implementation responsibilities and listed all pertinent procedural criteria.
Procedures were also inspected with respect to revisions and required review and approval. There were no questions regarding this item.
6.
Environmental Protection Program Review The inspector reviewed the status of the site environmental protection a.
program. The review included an audit of field data, quarterly and monthly reports, plant site inspection, and discussions with cognizant licensee personnel.
Elements of the program selected for review included erosion and runoff control, solid waste disposal, construction effects monitoring, air quality management, storage and management of fuels, lubricants and hazardous materials.
Site inspection included tours of all spoil storage and borrow areas, waste water holding ponds, fuel and lubricant storage areas, concrete batch plants, sewage treatment facility, barge slip, the oil spill equipment storage building, and the empty barrel storage area.
b.
Detailed review and audit of monthly environmental status reports for the period October 1978 through August 1979 disclosed that all findings having a potential for adverse environmental impact and requiring some form of corrective action were consistently listed.
Inspection also disclosed several instances of site management 's failure to promptly implement corrective actions, e.g.; (1) required removal of silt from vehicle wash pad oil skimmer was consistently listed in monthly reports for the period July 1978, through February 1979; (2) storage of partially 1434 246
.
-3-full oil barrels in the empty barrel storage area was listed during the months of November 1978 through February 1979.
The inspector discussed these and other similar findings with licensee representa-tives during the exit interview. Licensee representatives were ininrmed that all correctives actions for findingr cited in the monthly reports should be promptly implemented to minim..:e the potential for adverse environmental impact frem construction related activities.
c.
Inspection of fuel and lubricant storage facilities disclosed that both storage and material handling met accepted industry practices for minimizing adverse environmental impact.
Inspection of the empty barrel storage area however disclosed the following:
(1) presence of full and partially full oil barrels wLich were allowed to drain within the storage area; (2) although the area was equipped with an oil skimmer and a valved discharge pipe, the discharge pipe valve was in open position allowing waste oil ard chemicals access to a low-land area which drained into the East Holding Pond; (3) presence of other materials (empty and partially full barrels) including liquid commercial floor wax, antifreeze, and concrete mold release agents; (4) oil skimmer in overflowing condition.
The inspector informed licensee representatives that these findings constituted an unresolved item (50-518/79-20-01, 50-519/79-20-01, 50-520/79-20-01, 50-521/79-20-01).
A licensee represenattive stated that such findings would be reviewed and necessary corrective action implemented.
d.
Inspection included a status review, discussion and tour of the sulfuric acid injection facility (IE Inspection Report 50-518/78-12, paragraph Sc) controlling pH of batch plant effluent discharged to the East Holding Pond.
Inspection disclosed the following:
(1) the planned permanent injection facility was not completed; (2) mode of pH control involved manually decanting sulfuric acid into batch plant effluent; (3) safety problems and potential hazards in handling of concentrated sulfuric acid persisted. The inspector informed licensee representatives that both the status and mode of sulfuric acid usage constituted an unresolved item (50-518/79-20-02, 50-519/79-20-02, 50-520/79-20-02, 50-521/79-20-02).
Inspection of TVA and TVA cooling tower construction contractor's e.
batch plants included review and observations of dust emission control and the release of liquid effluent to the East Holding Pond. Inspection disclosed that operations of TVA batch plants was consistent with aecepted dust abatement limits and controls. The inspector observed wat the TVA contractor failed to use, for a brief periad, dust abate-ment controls during transfer and mixing of cement and flyash. The dust emission was minor; however, the inspector informed licensee representatives that their contractors must comply with all environ-mental protection limits and requirements defined in the Construction Permits.
Review cf the contractor's contract disclosed that such environ:aental requirements were cited therein. A licensee representative state.d that contractor construction activities would continue to be reviewed to assure compliance with assigned environmental protection commitments.
1434 247
.
-4-
.
7.
Erosion and Runoff Control Section 3.E of the Construction Permit requires the licensee to implement methods for protection against soil erosion and siltation during plant and transmission lines construction defined in Section 4.5 of the Final Environ-mental Statement.
Inspection included tours of soil storage and borrow areas, East and West holding pond areas, power block and cooling tower construction areas. Inspection disclosed that all controls were apparently implemented as required.
8.
Onsite Meteorological Measurements Program Inspection included a review and discussion the preoperational onsite meteorological program and inspection of the meteorological facility.
Inspection disclosed that the program was implemented as defined in Section 6.1 of the Final Environmental Statement and in compliance with the recommen-dations of the applicable Regulatory Guides.
.
p