ML20148K487

Forwards IE Inspec Repts 50-556/78-04 & 50-557/78-04 on 780925-26 During Which No Items of Noncompliance Were Noted

ML20148K487
Person / Time
Site:	Black Fox
Issue date:	10/17/1978
From:	Seidle W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Ewing T PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF OKLAHOMA
Shared Package
ML20148K493	List: IR 05000556/1978004 ML20148K487
References
NUDOCS 7811170168
Download: ML20148K487 (2)

See also: IR 05000556/1978004

Text

/ pH Ricoqjo

NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION

UNITED STATES

a

3

o

HEGION IV

5.

.$

611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 1000

C

ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76011

o

% * *v., /

October 17, 1978

In Reply Refer To:

RIV

Docket Nos. STN 50-556 Rpt. 78-04

STN 50-557 Rpt. 78-04

Public Service Company of Oklahoma

ATTN: Mr. T. N. Ewing, Director

Black Fox Station Nuclear Project

Post Office Box 201

Tulsa, Oklahoma

74102

Gentlemen:

This' refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. R. J. Everett and Mr. H. C.

Harrison during the period September 25-26, 1978, of activities authorized

by NRC Limited Work Authorization dated July 26, 1978, for the Black Fox

Project Units No. 1 and 2, and to the discussion of our findings with

Messrs. M. E. Fate

T. N. Ewing, and other members of your staff at the

conclusion of the inspection.

Areas examined during the inspection and our findings are discussed in the

enclosed inspection report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted

of selective examination of procedures and representative records, interviews

with personnel, and observations by the inspector.

Within the scope of the inspection, no items of noncompliance were identified.

Two unresolved items are identified in paragraph 5 of the enclosed report.

In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2,

Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed

inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.

If the

report contains any information that you believe to be proprietary, it is

necessary that you submit a written application to this office, within 20

days of the date of this letter, requesting that such information be withheld

from public disclosure. The application must include a full statement of

the reasons why it is claimed that the information is proprietary. The

application should be prepared so that any proprietary information identified

is contained in an enclosure to the application, since the application without

the enclosure will also be placed in the Public Document Room.

If we do not

hear from you in this regard within the specified period, the report will be

placed in the Public Document Room.

){///Nlb ?

- _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _

.

.

Public Service Company

-2

October 17, 1978

of Oklahoma

Sliould you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased

to discuss them with you.

Sincerely,

Yh

c(G

s

%

W. C. Seisle, Chief

Reactor Construction and

Engineering Support Branch

Enclosures:

IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-556/78-04

50-557/78-04

,

.

.--

___ _-

@~

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

REGION IV

IE Inspection Report Nos. STN 50-556/78-04

STN 50-557/78-04

Licensee: Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PS0)

P. O. Box 201

Tulsa, Oklahoma

74102

Facility: BlackFoxUnits1and2(BFS)

Inspection conducted:

September 25-26, 1978

Inspectors:

.[. kh

wu6'

_/C//7/7 h

R. J. Everett, Radiation Specialist

Date

[

a hhr

.

/6 - /7- 7f

Accompanied by:

h

H. C. Sarriso~n, Radiation. Specialist

Date

Reviewed by:

/W /

MM

/d / ?/?)(

'

'

'GlefiD. Brown, Chief, Fuel Facility and

Dat'e

Material Safety Branch

Inspection Summary

Inspection on September 25-26, 1978 (Report Nos. STN 50-556/78-04 and STN

50-557/78-04)

Areas Inspected:

Initial, announced inspection of construction phase

environmental protection programs, including organization and administration;

plans and procedures; implementation of environmental control program; envi-

ronmental monitoring; and a tour of the site and surrounding area. The

inspection involved 28 inspector-hours by two NRC inspectors.

Results: Of the five areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identi-

fied.

._ ________

. _ -

- _ _ _ _ _ _

.

-2-

l

DETAILS

1.

Persons Contacted

Public Service Company of Oklahoma

• M. E. Fate, Executive Vice President

• T. N. Ewing, Manager, BFS Nuclear Project

• V. L. Conrad, Manager, Licensing and Compliance

J..L. Haynes, Site QC Supervisor

H. H. Eller, Site QA Supervisor

• S. A. Bennett, Licensing Engineer

R. D. Eyman, Environmental QC Specialist

• J. B. Perez, Manager, Quality Assurance

• Present at exit meeting on September 26, 1978

2.

Organization and Administration

The inspector inquired as to the organizational structure that had

been established to carry out the environmental control programs during

the construction phase. The following chart shows the present structure

and assigned individuals as indicated by BFS personnel.

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

.

-3-

M. E. Fate,. Exec. V.P.

T. N. Ewing, Manager BFS

M. J. Lindberg, V.P.

Power Generation

.i

Asst. to Manager

K. Jones

G. W. Muentch, Manager

A. F. McGilbra, Manager

Engineering & Construction

Env. & Chemistry Control

!

R. J. Kime, Manager

V. L. Conrad, Manager

Construction

Licensing & Compliance

i

H. H. Eller, Site

J. C. Haynes, Site

QA Supervisor

QC Supervisor

l

R. D. Eyman, Env.

• S. A. Bennett

QC Specialist

Licensing Engineer

• Lead responsibility for the ECP.

'

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

-4-

3.

Environmental Control Program (ECP) and Procedures

The inspector reviewed the written program and procedures that relate

to the Environmental Protection Control Program. The documents are

as follows:

Copy fio. 8

" Construction Environmental Impact Control Program for

Black Fox Station Construction"

Project Procedure Manual - Procedure fio.15.04

" Construction

Environmental Impact. Control Program

Implementation"

Field Project Procedure Manual - FPPM 4.9

" Site Construction

Environmental Impact Control"

After review of these documents and a discussion of the program with

the applicant, the inspector determined that the environmental control

program was sufficiently documented and assignments of responsibility

have been made.

Further, the program called for site inspection and

audits by the corporate staff and procedures established to find and

correct items of potential environmental impact. The inspector had

no further questions at that time.

4.

Implementation of the ECP

The inspector discussed the implementation of the ECP and examined

selected records. Monthly reports from the Site Environmental QC

Engineer were reviewed for June, July, and August of 1978. The monthly

report contained checklists for each legal requirement listed in the

LWA to provide protection from environmental impacts during construction.

The reports also contained status information on each item of noncom-

pliance cited during the report period.

The inspector had no further

questions at that time.

The inspector reviewed the document AA-1 "8FS Socioeconomic Impact

Assessment Program." The applicant described his preliminary contacts

with local governments and state planning agencies in order to implement

the program.

The inspector stated that the program content and the

initial contacts that have been made to implement the program were

l

sufficient to comply with section

"f" of the LWA.

5.

Environmental Monitoring

The applicant's environmental monitoring programs are described in

section 6.1 of the FES.

The following gives the status of each

monitoring program:

.

_ _ _ _ _ _- _ _ _ _ - _ _ _

_

.

.

-5-

a)

Thermal - temperature studies in the Verdigris River have been

completed.

No additional information is required.

b)

Radiological - Baseline studies have been completed. Applicant

will initiate Preoperational Program no later than two years

prior to the operating license.

c)

Hydrological - The applicant has developed a program to assess

the physical, chemical and geological parameters of the site area

surface waters. This program is discussed in detail in section

6.1.1 of the ER. The applicant considers the program completed

with exception of two stations in the river which are sampled for

physical and chemical parameters. The inspector stated that the

requirement in section 6.1.3 of the FES calls for an expanded

program to include the above two stations. This would imply

that the applicant should continue the detailed program and add

the two stations in question. The inspector stated that this

issue would remain unresolved pending discussions with the NRC

staff,

d)

Meteorological - Site meteorological data was taken using the

330 foot tower in 1973-1974.

The applicant plans to take no

other meteorological measurements during the construction phase,

e)

Ecological

1.

Terrestrial - Baseline surveys have been completed.

No

construction or preoperational monitoring programs are

required.

Section 6.1.5.1 of the FES requires an inspection

program for erosion in the draw between the central station

complex and the wastewater holding pond.

The applicant

stated that this program would be implemented or the draw

would be concreted on each side to prevent erosion.

2.

Aquatic - The applicant's program was carried out according

to table 6.1-1 of the ER. The program has been completed

and no further preoperational monitoring is required.

'

The applicant stated that no monitoring programs or special

studies are being conducted by contractors and PS0 Programs

are essentially complete.

The applicant described the training provided by an ecology

-

consultant on March 8-9, 1978.

Construction personnel were

given ecological training so that they can become aware of

and avoid ecological impacts during construction. Section

'4.5.2.1 of the FES requires specifically trained personnel

._- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

..

.

.

-6-

_

to recognize and protect ecologically sensitive areas.

Item 12.b

of the LWA exempts right of way (ROW) monitoring for ecological

l

impact which appears to conflict with the requirements stated in

section 4.5.2.1.6.

The latter reference calls for ecological

inspections by a qualified individual of all completed areas.

The inspector stated that this issue would be considered unre-

solved pending discussions with the NRC staff.

6.

Site Tour

The inspector toured the site and surrounding area during'the inspec-

tion to observe the condition of the site with regard to environmental

impacts and to observe the implementation of the applicant's environ-

mental control program. The inspector noted two areas needing attention

and corrective action. A small oil spill was noted at-the discharge

structure cofferdam and fire damage was found in the protected cemetery

plot south of the station complex. The cemetery is fenced but not

locked. The fire consumed a few square meters of grass and brush.

The applicant stated that these incidents would be investigated and

appropriate action taken to protect these areas.

The applicant stated that all known oil and gas wells have now been

plugged. The inspector reviewed certificates of plugging prepared

by a state agency.

The inspector inquired as to work on transmission line right of way

(R0W). The applicant described the planned R0Ws, which are described

in section 3.9 of the ER, and stated that a separate environmental

impact procedure would be written in the future to cover this activity.

No construction work on R0W is planned for at least two years. The

inspector had no further questions at that time.

7.

Unresolved Items

Unresolved items are matters which require additional information in

order to determine if they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance,

or deviations. Two unresolved items were identified during the inspec-

tion. These items are discussed in paragraph 5.

8.

Management Meeting

_

The inspector met with PS0 representr.cives at the corporate offices in

Tulsa on September 25, 1978 (See paragraph 1). The inspector discussed

the NRC environmental inspection program and the regulatory require-

ments for environmental-protection in the LWA.

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ -

__

___

.

.

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _

. . . .

-7-

9.

Exit Interview

The inspector met with PS0 representatives at the corporate offices

in Tulsa on September 26,1978(Seeparagraph1). The inspector

summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection, and discussed

the findings.

l

)

_ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _