.

'

UNITED STATES#g8 8E00g'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,,

[ REGION ilo.

5 ;; $ 101 MARIETTA STREET. N.W.* 8 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 3o303

$,g % * * *,/

Report Nos.: 50-416/79-3 and 50-417/79-3

~ -Licensee: Mississippi Power and Light CompanyP. O. Box 1640Jackson, Mississippi 39205

Facility Name: Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units I and 2

Docket Nos. : 50-416/79-3 and 50-417/79-3

License No. : CPPR-118 and CPPR-119

Inspection at Gran 65f delear Station near Port Gibson, Mississi,pi/ !Inspector: sitti/ M $say' . J/jf ff

, , ,

A. L. Cunningham I) ate digned'~

3 L$'f 79Approved byk _(d .

ction Chief, FF&MS Branch Date Signed._

J( W. Hufha ' ~i

SUMMARY

Inspection on February 27 - March 1,1979

Areas Inspected

This routine unannounced inspection involved 20 inspector-hours onsite inthe areas of administrative and management controls; groundwater hydrology;site erosion and runoff control; review of daily inspection log; review ofmonthly and quarterly reports; environmental protection program statusreview.

Results

Of the six areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviationswere identified.

7906070104- .

.. _ __

,

.

i 9

DETAILS

.

- 1. Persons Contacted

Licensee Employees

*T. E. Reaves, Jr., Manager of Quality Assurance*W. E. Edge, Quality Assurance Program and Audits Coordinst -*L. Dean, Biologist*E. W. Chumley, Engineer-Licensing*A. T. Ramey, Quality Assurance Representative*P. Russell, Quality Assurance Representative*J. A. Hendrix, Quality Assurance RepresentativeW. Guider, BiologistJ. P. McGuaghy, Nuclear Project ManagerW. D. Hayes, Nuclear Construction Supervisor

* Attended exit interview.

2. Exit Interview

The inspection scope and findings were summarized on March 1,1979with those persons indicated in Paragraph I above. The inspectionfindings listed herein were discussed.

3. Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings

Not inspected.

4. Unresolved Items

Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.

5. Administri.tive Controls

Staff Exhibit 2-A, as referenced in Section 1.E.1 of ConstructionPermits CPPR-118 and CPPR-119, requires the licensee to provide effec-tive administrative controls to assure implementation of environmentalprotection monitoring and construction practices. The followingrequirements were defined: (1) weekly reconnaissance of the site;(2) reconnaissance of erosion and sediment control facilities within24 hours after every rainstorm but not more than once during thisperiod; (3) maintenance of written records of observations on eachitem defined in the Environmental Protection Program (EPP); (4) mainte-nance of such records in current manner, and keeping them availablefor inspection by the Regulatory staff at all times during working

.

. . _ . . _ _. ..._ _ _

,

.

-2-

hours; (5) observation and inspection records shall indicate correctiveactions prescribed by licensee inspector for any noted deviation fromassigned program requirements, and completion of the corrective actionwill be documented therein; (6) submission of monthly environmentalprotection program reports to licensee management; (7) submission tothe NRC of a summary of the monthly reports every six months; (8)-

assurance that site contractors and subcontractors' constructionpractices comply with the Environmental Protection Program as definedin Staff Exhibit 2-A; (9) maintenance of records to document effortstaken to familarize contractors with the subject program. The inspectorconducted a detailed review and audit of each of the above requirements.Environmental protection procedures, and the licensee's annual audit ofthis program were also reviewed. Inspection revealed that the adminis-trative control requirements summarized above were implemented asdefined during the period November 15, 1977, through March 1, 1979.Program procedures and the audit are discussed below.

Environmental Protection Proceduresa.

The Environmental protection procedures were developed to assureimplementation of all environmental protection commitments definedin Staff Exhibit 2-A. Inspection included the following: (1)review and assessment of adequacy of procedures in assuringimplementation of program requirements and commitments; (2)review of all procedural revisions with regard to required approvaland implementation; (3) discussion of revised procedures withlicensee representatives. Inspection disclosed the following:(1) revised procedure EPP-04-05 was approved as required; (2)all procedures appeared adequate to assure implementation ofConstruction Permit environmental requirements.

b. Internal Audit

The inspector conducted a detailed review of the licensee'sannual audit of the Environmental Protection Program. The subjcetaudit was conducted on October 24-25, 1978. Two items of noncom-pliance were disclosed: (1) failure to calibrate sedimentationbasins A and B stage gauges as per Procedure EPP-03-04 (Rev. 1);(2) failure to convey aashings from concrete transportationequipment to concrete separator as per Procedure EPP-04-05.Inspection of adutioni records and correspondence verified thatthe above licensee identified enforcement items were corrected asrequired. There were na questions regarding this item.

6. Environmental Protection Program Status Review

Each applicable requirement defined in Parts One and Two of StaffExhibit 2-A was reviewed and discussed with licensee representatives

*.

. . , _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ .

.

-3-

to determine the status of implementation. The requirements reviewedincluded the following: (1) administrative controls; (2) general workpractices; e.g., dust and noise control, erosion antrol, chemical andsolid waste management, vehicle movement; (3) specific constructioactivities, viz., transmission line construction, spoil storage, river;structures; (4) dewatering; (5) surface water quality monitoring.Inspection revealed that during the period November 15, 1977, throughMarch 1, 1979, all requirements defined in Staff Exhibit 2-A wereimplemented as required. There were no questions regarding this item.

7. Groundwater Hydrology

Part Two of Staff Exhibit 2-A required that possible constructiondewatering effects on groundwater level at the plant site be monitoredat approximately 10 wells on a biweekly basis. Inspection end auditof monitoring records and monthly Environmental Program Scmmariesconfirmed that the ebove cited requirement was implemented as defined.There were no questions regarding thic item.

8. Site Inspection

The inspector toured the plant site t,, assess the status of the following

environmental protection requirementr. (1) erosion and runoff control;(2) chemical and solid waste manage 7ent; (3) surface water stage andwater quality monitoring at the stations assigned at sediment basins Aand B.

.

Inspection disclosed the following findings: (1) borrow and spoilstorage areas appeared adequately maintained to mitigate crosion andcontrol runoff; (2) surface water stage at the head and discharge ofsedimentation basins A and B were continuously monitored and recordedas required; (3) review and audit of site inspection records andrelated correspondence disclosed that all incidents involving chemicaland solid waste management were corrected as required to precludeadverse environmental impacts; (4) fuels, chemicals and other hazardousmaterials were stored, handled, and maintained to effectively precludeadverse impacts; (5) water quality of sedimentation basins dischargestreams immediately below each dam was monitored for suspended solidsas required during periods of high runoff; (6) fugitive dust managementappeared adequate. There were no questions regarding this item.

9. During transmission line construction, Staff Exhibit 2-A requires thelicensee to implement necessary erosion control practices to mitigateerosion. At the time of inspection, no such construction activitieswere in progress.

.