IR 05000250/1979039
| ML17339A827 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 01/25/1980 |
| From: | Cunningham A, Jenkins G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17339A822 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-250-79-39, 50-251-79-39, NUDOCS 8004040365 | |
| Download: ML17339A827 (8) | |
Text
~S BEOII
~o
~o 4y n
D Q
~+o
~o~
++*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSlON
REGION II
101 MARIETTAST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos. 50-250/79-39 and 50-251/79-39 Ii'censee:
Florida Power and Iight Company 9250 Vest Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33101 Facility Name:
Turkey Point Plant Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251 License Nos.
DPR-31 and DPR-41 Inspection at Corporate Office in Miami, Florida, and at Turkey Point Site near Homestead, Flori Inspector:
.
r A. L. Cunningham Da e Signe Approved by:
. R. Je s, Section Chief, FFMS Branch I~
SUHHARY Inspection on December 19-21, 1979.
Areas Inspected Date Signed This routine, unannounced inspection involved 28 inspector-hours on site in the areas of administrative controls including environmental procedures and annual audit of Appendix B Technical Specifications implementation; review of monitoring, surveillance and special study programs; review of chemical and thermal monitoring of plant cooling water; review of plant reporting requirements; review of previous inspection findings; review of Licensee Event Reports (LERs).
Results Of the six ar'eas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in five areas; one apparent item of noncompliance was found in one area (Deficiency - approval of procedures - paragraph 5.c.).
8004<<3~
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
+A.
"C.
+R.
H.
J.
Y.
W.
~L.
D. Benedict, Specialist, Environmental and Technical Services D. Henderson, Manager, Environmental and Technical Services J. Spooner, Quality, Assurance Engineer E. Yeager, Plant Manager Hayes, Plant Superintendent (Nuclear)
M. Gaafer, Site Superintendent E. Abel, Assistant Supervisor, Monitoring and Research L. Leskovjan, Senior Specialist, Environmental and Technical Services NRC Resident. Inspector R. Vogt-Lowell
+Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on December 21, 1979, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
The item of noncom-pliance identified herein was discussed with licensee representatives.
A licensee representative stated that the finding would be reviewed upon receipt of the inspection report and that appropriate corrective action would be implemented.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed)
Noncompliance (78-22-01)
Groundwater Monitoring Program Review.
The requirement for quarterly reviews of the groundwater monitoring program by the licensee, in consultation with the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District and USGS, was deleted in Amendments
and 33 to facility licenses for Units 3 and 4, respectively.
The subject amendments were issued November 6, 1978.
There were no questions regarding this item.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Management Controls a.
Section 5.0 of Appendix B Technical Specifications charges the licensee with responsibility for establishment, execution, and review of programs to administer the Environmental Technical Specifications (ETS).
The Specification further requires detailed written operating procedures and the establishment of organizational and administrative procedures
ll
that will provide for management review and independent audit functions to assure implementation of the ETS.
The inspector reviewed organiza-tional responsibility for implementation of environmental monitoring, surveillance, and special studies programs defined in Appendix B
Technical Specifications.
Review of FPScL Corporate environmental functions and detailed discussions with licensee representatives disclosed that program management and responsibilities appeared consistent with the above cited requirements.
b.
Section 5.1 of Appendix B Technical Specifications provides for peri-odic management review and independent audit of all requirements and conditions defined in the specifications.
The inspector reviewed the minutes and proceedings of meetings of the Company Environmental Review Group (CERG) for the period October 1978 through December 19, 1979.
The inspector also reviewed and discussed with licensee repre-sentatives Quality Assurance Report QAS-ENV-79-1 for Audit of the Environmental and Technical Service Department's compliance with FPSrL QA Manual OPs 4.4, 6.2, 17.1, and implementation of Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 ETS. Inspection disclosed that the licensee's review and audit programs appeared to meet requirements of the referenced specification.
Inspection disclosed that all findings identified in the subject report were either corrected or that appropriate corrective action was in progress.
There were no questions regarding this item.
c ~
Section 5.3 and references cited therein, requires, in part, that detailed written procedures prepared for implementation of Environ-mental Technical Specifications shall be reviewed and approved.
Inspection included a review of revisions of procedures for protection limits and monitoring requirements defined in,Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of the ETS.
The inspector also conducted a detailed review of procedures prepared for surveillance, monitoring, and special study programs defined in Section 4.0 of the ETS.
Inspection disclosed that all procedures applicable to Sections 2.0 and 3.0 were approved as speci-fied.
In the case of Section 4.0 requirements, inspection disclosed that none of the required procedures were approved.
Following detailed discussions with licensee representatives, the inspector informed them that failure"to approve the subject procedures, as required, constituted an item of noncompliance (50-250/79-39-01 and 50-251/79-39-01).
The surveillance and monitoring programs included the following:
(1)
plankton-zooplankton and phytoplankton; (2) fish; (3)
benthos and substratum; (4) discharge area recovery; (5) applicable elements of the cooling canal revegetation program defined in ETS Section 4.2.1; (6)
long-term monitoring (absenting annual color infrared aerial photography of plant site) defined in.ETS Section 4.2.2.
.6.
Environmental Monitoring E
a ~
The objective of Section 3.0 of Appendix B Techn'ical Specifications is verification of operating conditions of the cooling water system and definition of monitoring and surveillance related to that system and effluents discharged from the facility.
Inspection included review
1 ~ I d
~
and discussion of thermal and chemical monitoring of influent and effluent plant cooling water for the period September 16, 1978 through December 19, 1979.
b.
Thermal monitoring requirements are defined in Section 3.1.1 of the ETS.
During the above cited period, thermal monitoring was generally implemented through use of the backup monitoring system, viz., facility condensers intake and discharge monitors.
Discharge temperatures were consistent with the limits and conditions of the consent Final Judgement and orders entered in the United States of America,v. Florida Power and Light Company, Civil Action No.
70-328-CA, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
c ~
Inspection of records and reports disclosed that monitoring frequency and analysis of chemical parameters, defined in Section 3.1.2 of the ETS, were implemented as required.
Effluent cooling water parameters included pH, dissolved oxygen, salinity, chemical oxygen demand, copper, and zinc.
There were no questions regarding this item.
7.
Plant Reporting Requirements
Appendix B Technical Specification 5.4.a requires that the Semiannual Environmental Monitoring Report include records of monitoring programs, surveys and samples, and an analysis of environmental data.
The inspector reviewed and audited the Semiannual Environmental Monitoring Report for the periods ending December 31, 1978, and June 30, 1979, to 'assess compliance with the above cited specification.
Inspection disclosed that all reports were consistent with such requirements.
8.
Licensee Event Report During the course of the previous inspection (IE Report Nos. 50-250/78-22 and 50-251/78"22),
the licensee reported that a breach in the intake dam (separating the cooling canal system from the barge turning canal)
was identified on September 12, 1978.
Inspection disclosed that the integrity of the dam was restored and all mitigating actions defined by the licensee were implemented as required.
~
~
t'