ML20065R724

Annual Environ Operating Rept 890915-900914

ML20065R724
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	09/14/1990
From:	Wallace E TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
NUDOCS 9012190150
Download: ML20065R724 (5)

Text

1 c.

l TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 5B Lookout Place Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801 December 12, 1990 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN? Document Control Desk Washington, D.C.

20555 Gentlemen In the Matter of

)

Docket Nos. 50-327

. c; Tennessee Valley Authority

)

50-328 SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT (SQN) - ANNUAL ENVIR0hMENTAL OPERATING REPORT The enclosure contains the Annual Environmental Operating Report for SQN for the period from September'15, 1989, through September 14, 1990.

This report is submitted in accordance with Appendix B Technical Specification 5.4.1.

Please direct questions concerning this issue to J. D. Smith at (615) 843-6172.

Very truly yours,-

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY j

W E. G.

Wa11' ace,' Manager Nuclear Licensing and Regulatory Affairs Enclosures cc (Enclosures)

Ms. S. C.-Elack,-Deputy Director Project Directorate II-4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint,. North 11555 Rockville Pike i

Rockville, Maryland.20852-Mr. J. N. Donohew, Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-

-One White' Flint,. North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852

,1 4

NRC Resident? Inspector-Sequoyah Nuclear Plant u

2600 Igou Ferry Road' ll Soddy-Daisy,= Tennessee 37379 l

i Mr. B. A.. Wilson,. Project Chief U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Region.II 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 C OC[

Atlanta, Georgia 30323 I9012'190150 900914 P

R PDR

./ l.

iPDR. ADOCK 05000327 An Equal Opportunity Employer

r l

i ENCLOSURE 1 l

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 4

SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT (SQN) t ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING rep 0RT j

September 15, 1989, through September 14, 1990 1.

In accordance with Technical Specification (TS) 5.3.C. facility design and L

operational changes were reviewed for potential effect on the environment. A study of facility design and operational changes from September 15, 1989, through September 14, 1990, that could have affected the environment was performed.

projects considered to have potential impact on the environment included (1) those involving excavation, a

construction, or asbestos removal; and (2) those resulting in new or increksed discharges to outside drains. The study identified and documented a basis that the design and operational changes did not involve an unreviewed environmental question.

A copy of this study is attached (attachment'1).

r 2.

.In accordance with TS 5.4.1, the following reports have previously been submitted to NRC as specified in the SQN National pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit No. TN0026450 Report on results of Nonradiological Aquatic Monitoring program -

Rotenone Studies, submitted July 5, 1990.

Report on Investigation of. plant Impact on Dissolvod Oxygen Levels in Chickamauga Reservoir, submitted September 27, 1990.

I 3.

The following information is provided as required by TS 5.4.1:

s.

All environmental technical specifications (ETS) noncompliances and the corrective actions taken to remedy them.

There were no ETS noncompliances during the reporting period.

[

L b.

Changes made to applicable State and l'odoral permits and l

l certifications On September 29,- 1989, 'the Tennessee Division of Water pollution

-Control-terminated the permit to hold and haul sewage from DSN 113.

The need for the permit was eliminated by connecting part of the plant'-

sewers to the Soddy-Daisy municipal system.-

On January 30, 1990,ithe Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air pollution

-Control Bureau issued the following permits Installation permit No.

4150-30700804-061 and temporary operating permit No.. 4150-3070804-06T l

'for the Maintenance Insulators Shop; installation permit No.

4150-30700804-071 and temporary operating permit No.- 4150-30700804-07T h

for the Modifications : Insulators Shop.

\\;

{

2612c2' l

a;_

_. ~... _. _..,...

,_.-_,.a

dhanges in station design that could involve a significant c.

environmental impact or change the findings of the Final Environmental Statement (FES).

As concluded in attachment 1, there have been no facility design or operational changes since September 15, 1989, that have resulted in an unreviewed environmental question.

d.

All nonroutine reports submitte' in accordance with ETS Section 4.1.

On April 2, 1990, a report of oil spills on July 10, 1989, and February 3, 9 nnd 15,1990, was submitted to EPA.

Individual telephone notifications of these events were made to the National Response Center and to NRC.

On May 8, 1990, a Report on Investigation of Alternatives for prevention of Damage to Fish and Aquatic Life from Discharges at Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah Nuclear plant was submitted to the Tennessee Department of Health and Environment.

On July 9, 1990, approximately 257 dead fish were observed in the diffuser pond. The cause of the fishkill was thermal stress.

Coples of the reports for the above incidents have been provided in accordance with TS requirements, e.

Changes in approved ETS.

There were no changes made during this report period.

2612c3

ATTACHMENT 1 STUDY OF SEQUOYAll NUCLEAR PLANT (SQN)

DESIGN AND OPERATIONAL CHANGES BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 15, 1989, AND SEPTEMBER 14, 1990 FOR EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT Facility design and operational changes made during this report period have been reviewed for potential to affect the environment as described below.

The criteria used to identify those projects with a potential for environmental offects included (1) those involving excavation, construction, or asbestod removal; and (2) those resulting in new or increased discharges to outsido drains.

Before 1988 non-temporary modifications were controlled by administrative procedures which required all workplans meeting the above criteria to receive cn environmental evaluation. The new projects authorization procedures were revised several times and by mid-1989 all new projecte or "new issues" were getting an environmental review.

Therefore, the new issues documents werc used to make the environmental review delet1nination instead of workplans.

1.

The following projects met the above criteria for potential environmental effects and were reviewed for potential impact on the environment:

a.

New Issues New fire protection system for diesel generator building

- Employee cafeteria Unit 2 Main Turbine asbestos removal Unit 2 Feedwater llcater replacement Reclamation of pCB-contaminated Low Volume Waste Treatment pond Replace relay room plaster ceiling

- Spent fuel storage alternatives b.

precial Tests

- There were no special testo conducted during this period that met the environmental impact criteria, c.

Tnnp_ ora,1y_ Alterations l

There were no temporary alterations made during this period that l

l met the environmental impact criteria.

261264 Jd

9 Desi,n and operational changes with a potential for causing new or 2.

t

" increased discharges to outside drains, including runof f f rom excavation, were reviewed and determined to be within the scope of the SQN NPDES permit.

3.

Monthly discharge monitoring reports submitted as required by the SQN NPDES permit were reviewed.

Permit excursions were attributed to either equipment malfunctions or operational errors and determined to be within the purview of the NPDES permit and hosociated enviromaental evaluations.

In summary, there have been no facility design or operational changes from September 15, 1989, to September 14, 1990, that have resulted in an unreviewed environmental question.

l 1

l t

I l

l l

2612e5

.