ML19344E284
| ML19344E284 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/16/1980 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19344E270 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-443-80-05, 50-443-80-5, 50-444-80-05, 50-444-80-5, NUDOCS 8008280320 | |
| Download: ML19344E284 (2) | |
Text
_
O~
APPENDIX A 10TICE OF VIOLATION Public Service Company of New Hampshire Docket Nos. 50-443 Construction Pemit Nos. CPPR-135 50-444 CPPR-136 Based on the resalts of an NRC inspection conducted on May 5-7, 1980, it appears that certain of your activities were not conducted in full corpliance with the conditions of NRC Facility Construction Pemit Nos. CPPR-135 and CPPR-135, as identified below.
Item A is categorized as an Infraction.
Items B and C are categorized as Deficiencies.
A.
Section 3.E.(8) of Construction Pemit Nos. CPPR-135 and CPPR-135 requires that, "A control program shall be established by the applicants to provide for a periodic review of all construction activities to assure that those activities confom to the environmental conditions as set forth in these pemi ts".
Section 3.E.(7) of Construction Pemit Nos. CPPR-135 and CPPR-136 requires that, "The applicarts shall take the necessary mitigating actions, includ-ing those su:x.arized in Section 4.5 of the Final Environmental Statement (FES) during construction of the Station... to avoid unnecessary adverse environmental imoacts from construction activities".
Comitment No.13 of Section 4.5.1 of the FES requires that " Plans will be developed for measures to be used in mitigating undesirable effects con-s truction. These measures will include erosion control, dust stabilization landscape restoration, traffic control, restoration of animal habitat, and preservation of archeologically valuable artifacts".
Contrary to these requirements the licensee's environmental surveillance program, established pursuant to Section 3.E.(8) of the Ccnstruction Pemits, was not adequate to assure that certain construction activities confomed to the environmental conditions as set forth in the above Con-struction ? emits.
Scecifically, tne following site conditions which existed on thy 5-7, 1980 and were not identified by the environmental surveillance progran, were in ncncomfomance with comitments made in Section 4.o.1 or the t o.
(1) Haybales, used to control turbidity of run-off water at the site perimeter, were not maintained in an effective condition.
(2) 'laste concrete had been improperly disposed of at one location.
(3) Erosion was not controlled en the slopes of the " South 40" area.
(4) Temporary settling basins were not of sufficient capacity nor ade-quately maintained so as to effectively control turbidity and sus-pended solids of the effluents.
8008280 N 1
APPENDIX A 2
B.
Section 3.E.7 of Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-135 and CPPR-136 requires that, "The applicants shall take the necessary mitigating actions, including those sumarized in Section 4.5 of the FES, during cnstruction of the Station... to avoid unnecessary adverse environmental impacts from construction activities".
Commitment No. 4 of Section 4.5.1 of the FES requires that, " Settling basins will be utilizd to control the turbidity of effluents from dewatering processes carried out during construction".
Contrary to these requirements settling basins as used were not of sufficient capacity nor adequately maintained to effectively control the turbidity of effluents from dewatering processes carried out during construction, as shown by silt and sediment deposits from the basin effluents outside the basins on May 5, 6, and 7, 1980.
C.
Section 3.E.(7) of Construction Pemit Nos. CPPR-135 and CPPR-136 requires that, "The applicants shall take the necessary mitigating actions, including those sumarized in Section 4.5 of the FES, during construction of the Station... to avoid unnecessary adverse environmental impacts from construction activities".
Comitment No.14 of Section 4.5.1 of the FES requires that the turbidity of waters discharged from holding basins be limited to 25 JTU unless and until acceptable levels have been established.
Contrary to these requirements the discharge from the pemanent settling basin exceeded 25 JTU on numerous occasions including January 8, August 20, October 1, 1979 and March 3, 10. April 19 and 21, 1980.
.