ML20149J335
| ML20149J335 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 09/14/1987 |
| From: | TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149J333 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8802220368 | |
| Download: ML20149J335 (10) | |
Text
,3.
.c n
\\
1 s
'l
,; 1
)
)
EF,)4,0SURE 1 TENNES5ftE VALLEY AUIHORITY SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT (SQN)
IU 1
ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT Sept diber 15, 1984. through September 14, 1987
\\
n
(
s A with Technical Specificjt!.on (TS) 5.3.C. facility design and 1.
In accorda operationni shanges were reviewed for potenhialgffect to the environment!
A stady of facility design and opee.attonal changes from September 15, 1994, through SeptembeA 44,1987, dat could have affected the environment Yes }erfomed. Projec,ts considered as having potential to impact the enviro.Nment included: (1) those involving excavation, construction, or sobestos removal; and (2) those resulting in new or increased dischargos to outside drains Thestudyidentifiedand documented a basis that the design and ope.rt!;ional changes did not involve an unreviewed environmental.';uestion., A copy of this study is attached (attachment 1).
m,
. s 2.
In accordance with TS 5.4.1, the following report's have previously been submitted to NRC as epocified in the SQN National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NppES) Permit No. TN 0026450:
s, Fourth Annual Operational Stage Nonradiological Aquatic Monitoring Program Report, submitted June 25, 1985.
i
\\
Fifth Annual Operational Stage Nonradiological Aquatic Moultoring Program Report, submitted August 29, 1986.
Sixth Annual Operational Stage Nonradiological Aquatie Monitoring Program Report, s bm41.ted March 31, 1987.
q b
3.
The following summaries are provided as required by TS 5.4.1:
A.
All Environmental
- hnical Specifications (ETS) noncompliances and the corrective action t.iken to remedy them.
During a procedure and document review on June 15, 1987, it was determined that SQN had not ben maintaining evaluation records or submittino annual environn. ental operating reports in accordance with Appendix B - Environmental Technical Specifications was submitted (Nonradiological).- I.icensee Event Report (dtR) 1-87-029 to NRC on June 162 1987. The following corrective actions have been taken:
The study provided h0 sitachment i descelbra the review of design and operational changes since September 15, 1984, for effects on the environment.
\\
s 4
s 8802220368 980217 PDR ADOCK 05000327 R
PDR 3
A l
'q n
e J -
SQN Administrative Instruction (AI) 19, part IV, was revised and approved by the plant Operations Review Committee on December 30, l
1986, to. require an evaluation of changes, tests, and experiments to the facility that could affect the environment.
Therefore, modifications and changes since December 30, 1986, have been reviewed according to these procedures. AI-19 was further reviewed on August 21, 1987, to add a review signoff by the
. originating supervisor to enhance his determination of whether an environmental evaluation is required.
In addition, SQN Standard practice SQA201 was written and approved on August 31, 1987, to provide a basin and documentation for unreviewed environmental question determinations.
A copy of the applicable parts of these ao. documents is provided in attachment 2.
AI-18, file package No. 63, will be revised to clearly identify rerponsibilities for the preparation, review, and transmittal of the' Annual Fnvironmental Operating Report and to specify implementation dates for each of these activities. A reminder notice will be issued by the SQN planning and Scheduling Croup on September 15 of each year to start the reporting process. AI-18 is scheduled to be revised and implemented by July 31, 1988.
B.
Changes made to applicable State and Federal permits and certifications:
Air pollution control permit No. 4150-30501101-02C was allowed to expire because the concrete batch plant had been dismantled and a permit was no longer needed.
Air pollution control permit No. 4150-40301009-041 was issued by the l
Chattanooga-hamilton County Air pollution Control Bureau on June 27, l
1987, for a gasoline storage tank and a diesel fuel storage tank at SQN.
C.
Changes in station design that could involve a significant 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, 1984, that have resulted in an unreviewed environmental question.
D.
All noncoutine reports submitted in accordance with ETS Section 4.1.
A fishkill in thn SQN diffuser pond occurred on July 12, 1985. The apparent cause was the 104-degree temperature, which killed i
approximately 1,500 fish. A copy of the report to the Tennessee l
Division of Water pollution Control is provided in attachment 3.
l l
L_-------____-------.---------------_-------------------------------------_
. A pipe break in the hypochlorite building on May 12, 1987, caused a s;ill of 200 gallons of 10-percent sodium hypochlorite solution.
B cause this contained more than 100 pounds of reportable quantity of sodium hypochlorite, the National Response Center Tennessee Division of Water pollution Control, and NRC were notified.
E. Changes in approved ETS.
No changes to the ETS have been approved; however ETS change 87-05 was requested on April 17, 1987.
This change would revise parts of the ETS to reflect the new title for the station superintendent, assign the audit responsibility to the licensee instead of a specific organization, extend the audit time interval from annual to once every 18 months, and delete a reference to a defunct section of the Code of Federal Regulations. A response to this request has not been received.
i i
r y
~.?
i ATTACHMENT 1 STUDY OF SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT (SQN)
DESIGN AND OPERATIONAL CHANGES SINCE SEPTEMBER 15, 1984 FOR EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT Facility design and operational changes made since September 15, 1984, have been reviewed for potential to affect the environment as described below. The criteria used to evaluate those projects with a potential for environmental effects included:
(1) those involving excavation, construction, or asbestos removal; and (2) those resulting in new or increased discharges to outside drains.
1.
Projects involving asbestos removal were reviewed and determined to be performed in accordance with State and County regulations for asbestos removal and disposal.
~
2.
Significant construction projects, such as new office buildings, were reviewed and determined to be in conformance with the SQN FES.
3.
Projects with a potential for causing new or increased discharges to outside drains, including runoff from excavation, were reviewed and determined to be within the scope of the SQN NPDES permit.
4.
Monthly discharge monitoring reports (DMR) 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 associated environmental evaluations.
5.
The projects listed in the following reports were reviewed for potential impact to the environment in accordance with the criteria previously identified.
SQN Annual Operating Report - January 1,1984, to December 31, 1984, submitted to NRC on February 27, 1985.
SQN Annual Operating Report - January 1, 1985, to December 31, 1985, submitted to NRC on February 27, 1986.
SQN Annual Operating Report - January 1, 1986, to December 31, 1986, submitted to NRC on February 27, 1987.
6.
Modifications since December 31, 1986 (after the last Annual Operating Report), have been reviewed for potential environmental effects in accordance with SQN AI-19, Part IV.
In summary, there have been no f acility design or operational changes f rom September 15, 1984, to September 14, 1987, that have resulted in an unreviewed environmental question.
4 9
e 6
ATTACHMENT 2 l
.' %.. ios.... n o...,,...,
S02 870113 949 irro stares coven.wour
~
Memorandum TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Id P.
. Vak ace, Plan nager, ONP, POB-2, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant FROM R. V. Olson, Modifications Manager, DNC, SB-2. Sequoyah Nuclear Plant JAN 1 ' 127 DATE
SUBJECT:
SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT - ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEV 0F TEMPORARY ALTERNATIONS AND PLANT MODIFICATIONS - MATS ITEM NO. 9305
Reference:
My memorandum to B. W. Hamby dated November 14, 1986 (S02 861113 984 - copy attached)
AI-19, Part IV, was revised and PORC approved (revision 19) on December 30. 1986.
Included in this revision was the environmental review as requested and discussed with J..R.
Henson.
R. W. Olson
,g (l'u.)
A
\\
LDA:CRV:GDL j
Attachment i
cc (Attachment)';
RIMS, MR 4.'
72A-C J.
R. Henson, ONP, DSC-E, Sequoyah J. W. Proffitt, ONP, O&PS-4, Sequoyah This was prepared principally by Carl R. Vinton.
0335M i
4 f, -4
- n..1 e
e....,~
nr R.,,.d< R,..,.giark n n th, Panoll Sa::in es Plan l
wm
e n{
.n. w.. n. ~.m
.. s e r.., :..
- a..sw......
.J
=
SQN.* -
[
AI-19 (Part IV)
Page 10 Revision 19 f
3 3.0 DEFI?lITIC.'l3, REFERD!CES. AND RESPC!!SIBILITIES (continued)
[
Unroviewed Safety Ouestions (USO)--A proposed change, test or g
experiment shall be deemed to involve an unreviewed safety question.
[
1.
If the probability of occurrenes or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the safety analysis report may be increased: or 2.
If a possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the safety 9
l analysis report may be created; or 3.
If the margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any I
Technical Specification, is reduced.
(Definition quoted frem 10CFR50.59.)
Environ:-ental Encineer--The individual responsible for performing an Unreviewed Environmental Question Determination (UT;D) to encure the design change does not have an envirc= ental impact.
Unreviewed Envirerrental Cuestion (UEO)--A proposed change, test, or exper: ment shall be deemed to involve an unreviewed envircreental question if it' concerns:
1.
A matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse envire= ental impact previously evaluated in the finsi envircreer.tal statemen:-operating licensing stage (TSL-OL), envir:rsen:31 impac: appraisals. or in any decisicas of :he A m:: Safety ind Licensing ? card; or 2.
A significar.: change in effluents or pcwer level oth'er than i
specified in Federal or State licensing or permit requirements; or l
3.
A matter, no: previously reviewed and evaluated in the d:cument:.:pecified in 1, which may have a significant adver:e envire.reantal impact.
CH W vic,
.**/.
l/*
./
/
s.... ~ e w.. w.c......
SQN AI-19 (Part IV)
Page 120 Revision 19 ATTACINE!fr 11 Page 5 of 8 WORK PREPAPJ. TION GUIDELINE I.
INSTRUCTICN PREPARATION (continued) o
- 12. EQ 3inder Tab G (QMDS) requirements for installation shall be addressed for 10CFR50.49 equipment.
For 10CFR50.49 equipment, ensure the procurement process provides qualified equipment traceable to the test report referenced in the applicable EQ binder.
~
- 13. Review for security barriers such as fences, doors, drains, pipe penetrations, or other penetirations through the walls, floors, ceilings, or HVAC system of a protected or vital area t
barrier in the AB, RB, CB, DGB, and ERCW.
- 14. Workplans that require "environmental review" by the Environmental Engineer are any that could affnet the envirc:. ent in some manner. As a general guide, any workplan that involves the du,: ping or potential spilling of waste (pe:roleun. pecducts, chemicals, coolants, etc.) removal of insula:icn (asbestos type), earthwork (digging, grading, hauling, disposing of, etc.), new buildings (reworking land),
and demolition must get a review.
If the modification connects to a potable or raw water system, sanitary sewer, or drain, it would require a revieu to evaluate its impact.
+
f I
P t
l I
i i
f i
8 CD 7 2 A/ j U.7 b
b
t,-
. 2 -
. e-
....D=%.
l
., ~.. _
r -.. e -
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT' ADMIN!S RATIVE INSTRUCTION AI-19 (Part IV)
PLANT M00lFICATIONS: AFTER LICENSING Revision 24 PREPARED BY:
Carl R. Winton RESPONSIBLE SECTION: DNC.Hodifications REVISED BY:
Carl R. Winton SUBMITTED BY:
$b Respon~sibl~e Sectib6 Supervisor SITE OA CONCURRENCE: 3.9 af PORC REVIEW DATE:
2I 387 APPROVED BY:
M ##
Plant Manager NS7 DATE APPROVED:
Reason for revision (include all Instruction Change Form Nos.):
~
Revised to comolv with SPTS 870603C for NQAM PART III, Section 1.1, Rev. 1.
Revised to comolv witn SPTS 8706096 for NQAM Part II, Section 3.2, Rev. 2.
Revised to complv witn TS(5.~4.1) (App. B). T S( 5. 3. C ) (Apo. B).
This revision aces a review signoff Dv the oricinatino suoervisor to ennance nis cetermin-l atton of whether an Environmental Evaluation is reevired.
Revtsed to incor-porate AI-47 recuirements.
Incorporated verbal comrritment to NRC for 6 month
_ closure of ECNs/DCRs.
Ennancec material control anc traceaoility oer SC-CAR-l 86-064 anc other mistellaneous cnances.
t j
The last page of this instruction is number:
161 i
4 y,..~.
AI-19 (Part IV)
Page 79 Revision 24 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 2 of 13 III.
a.
Other affected sections (excluding Operations, Safety, and QE&C) review (see para 4.2.3 of instructions) for technical accuracy, instructions and/or vendor manuals revision, EQ binder and/or 10CFR50.49 requirements, etc.
List documents requiring revision in Section XIII of Attachment 2.
(If ANI/ANII review required, add appropriate Attachment 10 review pages.)
b.
Will any work within the scope of this workplan involve entering a radiological controlled zone at any point? Yes No If "yes", then RADCON (RAD Control) review shall be required and so noted below.
NOTE: All sections shall have the 'yes' o'r 'no' block checked.
Orig.
Reviewing ATT.
Section Review Rea Sec. Sup Supervisor's Stenature Date Included Elect. Maint.
Yes 0 No O Mecn. Maint.
Yes 0 No O Inst Maint.
Yes O No O DNE Yes 0 No O
- Environmental Yes O No O ANI/ANII Yes D No 0 Nuc. Security Yes 0 No O RAD Control _ Yes 0 No O Syst. Enc.
Yes a No O E0. Coor.
Yes 0 No O Yes 0 No O
- Environmental section shall indicate if attachments are included in package.
Section to Order Supervisor's signature Scare Parts Acknowledcine ResDonsibili ty Date IV.
Reviewed by Industriat Safety and Fire Protection Section:
/
Signature Date V.
Reviewed (see para 4.2.6 of instructions) for affect on operating system.
(Check appropriate blocks in paragraph XI.)
Review to ensure that if workplan does not complete DCN/ECN/DCR that there will be no aeverse affect on plant operability. Operating instructions and SI's requiring revision are listed in Section XIII of Attacnment 2 as required for operability.
/
Supervisor, Operations Section Date 0570A/dri
.