IR 05000302/1980034
| ML19290G681 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 11/10/1980 |
| From: | Cunningham A, Jenkins G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19290G680 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-80-34, NUDOCS 8012180308 | |
| Download: ML19290G681 (6) | |
Text
a
- pn nac u
'o UNITED STATES
!" 1 E,7, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.
$
$
REGION 11
[
101 M ARIETT A sT., N.W., sUlT E 3100
- K'
o be j'
AT L ANT A, GEORGI A 30303
'
- ....
Docket No. 50-302/80-34 Licensee: Florida Power Corporation 3201 34th Street, South St. Petersburg, FL 33733 Facility Name:
Crystal River Unit 3 License No. DPR-72
/
Inspection at Cry (
Jer P ent near stal River, Florida
' Mr
// /
Inspector:
,
//
o g/ '
/
A. L.
f-am /
D6te/iigned
"
/!/[O/[O
Approved by-
-
-
G. R. Je iiss, Chief, E&SP Section Date Signed SUMMARY Date of Inspection: September 16-19, 1980 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 28 inspector-hours on site in the areas of management controls; review of previous enforcement matters, review of licensee Event Reports; nonrad waste releases; chemical-industrial waste water treatment system.
Results Of the five areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in five areas.
8012180 3 0 6
i DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- D. C. Poole, Nuclear Plant Manager
- L. A. Hill, Radiological Licensing Specialist
- K. F. Lancaster, Nuclear Compliance Supervisor
- J. L. Bufe, Nuclear Compliance Auditor
- K. R. Wilson, Nuclear Licensing Specialist (Nuclear Support Servicer)
A. W. Morneault, Supervisor, Surveillance Af fairs J. Studt, Environemtnal Scientist R. M. Bright, Nuclear Support Specialist M. R. Casada, Nuclear Support Specialist NRC Resident Inspectors T. Stetka and B. Smith
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on September 19, 1980, with those persons indicated in Paragraph I above. The unresolved item, and the inspector identified items cited herein were discussed.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Open) Noncompliance (50-302/80-24-03) Failure to sample and analyze samples from test well No. 4 and failure to obtain NRC approval prior to changing Environmental Technical Specification 3.1.5 requiring such sampling. The inspector reviewed the status of the subject test well. Inspection disclosed that the well was replaced on 8/16/80. This item remains open, however, pending receipt and review of licensee response to subject citation.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which additional information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve noncompliance or deviations. The new unresolved item identified during this inspection is discussed in Paragraph 8.d.
5.
Management Controls Section 5.0 of Appendix B Technical Specifications charges the licensee a.
with responsibility for establishment, execution and review of programs to adminsiter the Environmental Technical Specifications (ETS). The
.
-2-section further requires detailed written operating procedures, and the establishment of organizational responsibility and administrative procedures that will provide for management review and independent audit functions to assure implementation of the ETS. The inspector reviewed organizational responsibility for implementation of environ-mental monitoring, surveillance, and special studies program defined in Appendix B Technical Specifications.
Review of FPC Corporate Environmental Department functions, and detailed discussions with licensee representatives disclosed that program responsibilities appeared consistent with those requirements defined in the ETS.
b.
Appendix B Technical Specification 5.3 requires the licensee to conduct audits, at least once a year, which address the following items:
(1)
implementation of environmental monitoring and surveillance programs imposed by the ETS; (2) conformance to procedures and ETS requirements; (3) contractor operations. The inspector conducted a detailed review of audits, and their respective responses, completed during the period March 16, 1979, through September 18, 1980.
The review included Audits Nos. EST-106, EST-107, EST-108, and EST-109 which were conducted during the period June 7-19, 1979.
In the order cited, the audits addressed the following contractor program activities:
(1) Connell, Metcalf & Eddy (benthos, outer bay zooplankton, inner bay sea grasses),
(2) Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitation Services (radio-logical environmental monitoring); (3) University of Florida Department of Engineering Sciences (general aquatic ecological survey); (4)
University of Florida-Gair.sville (radiological environmental monitoring).
Licensee findings and recommendations disclosed in the above audits were responded to and corrective actions were implemented by the contractor as required. There were no questions regarding this item.
c.
Inspection also included a detailed review of audits conducted during the period June 23-24, 1980.
The review included reports of Audit Nos. ETS-110, ETS-111, ETS-112, and ETS-113 of the following contractors respectively:
(1) Connell, Metcalf & Eddy; (2) Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitation Services; (3) University of Florida Department of Environment and Engineering Sciences; (4) University of Florida-Gainsville. Audit findings were reviewed and discussed with licensee representatives. Since contractor responses to the audit findings and recommendations were not completed at time of inspection, this item will be reviewed during subsequent inspections (50-302/ 80-34-01).
The four audits reviewed herein (ETS-110; 111,112 and ETS-113) were the subj ect of LER-028/042-0 which addressed licensee contractor's f ailure to follow explicit written procedures, as required by ETS-5.5.1, in implementation of selected portions of the environmental monitoring program. Contractor responses to all findings, similarly, were not yet established.
This item will be followed up by the inspector during subsequent inspections referenced above.
d.
Appendix B Technical Specifications 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 require preparation and adherence thereto of explicit written procedures to assure imple-mentation of monitoring requirements described in ETS Sections 2 and 3.
The referenced specifications further require that all procedures
.
s-3-and changes to procedures utilized by the licensee and licensee contrac-tors to implement the environmental monitoring programs described in ETS Section 3 shall by reviewed and approved by a designated licensee manager. The inspector conducted a detailed review of licensee and contractor nonradiological environmental monitoring, surveillance, and related analytical procedures with reference to the following:
(1)
required review and approval; (2) compliance with criteria defined in ETS-5.5.1; (3) required corrections and revisions in response to licensee audit findings.
Inspection disclosed that all procedures reviewed were consistent with requirements of the above cited specifica-tions. There were no questions regarding this item.
6.
Nonradiological Waste Releases - Refer to Attachment A Appendix B Technical Specification 2.1.2 limits the temperature of the condenser cooling water at the point of discharge to 103 F for a period of not more than three consecutive hours or a maximum of 106 F, except under conditions of an emergency power need as defined in ETS Section 1.
On August 20, 1980, the thermal discharge temperature limit of 103 F was exceeded for a period greater than three hours; viz., from 1600-2100, reaching a high of 103.4 F.
The event was reported in accordance with ETS 5.6.2.A., and later as LER 80-034/04T-0, dated September 2, 1980.
The inspector reviewed the event and subsequent corrective action implemented by the licensee. The inspector also reviewed licensee Surveillance Procedure SP-439 (Maximum Circulating Water Discharge Temperature) which required implementation of immediate corrective action upon notification of thermal discharge values approaching the 103 F limit.
Inspection disclosed that failure to implement the subject procedure culminated in the above event.
The licensee's corrective action executed in response to the event, however, included reinstruction of control room personnel on the necessity of adequate communications and prompt implementation of the subject procedure corrective action requirements. There were no further questions regarding this item.
7.
Chemical Industrial Waste Water Treatment System Appendix B Technical Specification 3.1.5 requires monthly monitoring a.
of the wastewater ponds and adjacent test wells 1, 4, and 5 for pH and selected chemical parameters (viz., nutrients, dissolved solids, and trace metals). Review and audit of monthly analytical data for the period March 16, 1979 to September 18, 1980, disclosed that the subject requirement was implemented as defined in the case of test wells Nos.
I and 5.
The status of test well No. 4 is the subject of an outstanding item of noncompliance (50-302/ 80-24-03) and is discussed in paragraph 3 herein.
b.
The inspector discussed s ith licensee representatives the status of discharge of the following three effluent streams from Unit 3 radwaste system to the wastewater p,nds; viz, (1) evaporator condensate storage tanks 3A and 3B (ECST); (2. laundry and shower sump tank (LSST); (3)
regeneration waste neutraliittion tank (SDT-1). Licensee representa-tives stated that the subject streams discharge to the nuclear service seawater system. Licensee representatives further stated that none of the above effluents have been discharged to the ponds since 1979. The inspector had no further questions, at this time, regarding this ite.
-4-8.
Review of Licensee Event Reports (LER's)
Inspection included a detailed review of licensee environmental event a.
reports to verify the following requirements: (1) accurate description of the respective events; (2) ccrrect identification of event cause; (3) adequacy of proposed corrective action; (4) implementation of corrective action.
b.
LER Nos.78-022, 78-024,79-021, 79-039,79-064, 79-099,79-114 and 80-013 address reported changes in metabolism beyond two stendard deviations of that measured during preoperational monitoring of benthos and marsh grass defined in ETS-3.1.1 and 3.1.2 respectively. Discus-sions with licensee representatives disclosed metabolism of the subject systems increased by factors greater than two standard deviations, as expected for zones within the influence of the heated discharge from the plants.
A licensee representative further stated that a final report of these studies is planned for next year. These event reports were closed out at the exit inte. view. There were no further questions regarding this item.
c.
LER Nos.79-013, 80-011,80-022 and 80-029 address the licensee's failure to sample test wells adjacent to the waste water percolation ponds as stipulated by ETS-3.1.5.
These LER's are the subject of an outstanding item of ' noncompliance (50-302/80-24-03) referenced in Paragraph 3 above. These items will be closed out upon resolution of the referenced noncompliance item (50-302/80-34-02).
d.
LER No.80-028 involved analysis of the semiannual green leafy vegetable sample collected at sample station C48 for Strontiun-90. The single measured concentration was determined to be 87 pci/ml which was greater than ten times the control station value of 8 pci/ml (ETS-3.2). The occurrence date of this event was cited as January 19, 1980; however, the event was not determined at the plant until July 30, 1980 (greater than six months later).
Inspection disclosed that the licensee's contractor responsible for sample analysis and reporting of analytical results was the subject of a licensee internal audit, the findings of which, concerned contractor analytical and reporting procedures. The inspector was also informed by licensee representatives that they were awaiting receipt of the contractor's report treating the subject semiannual sample analysis, followup analyses of the saaple, and explanation of the reporting delay. The inspector informed licensee representatives that the subject finding was considered an unresolved item (50-302/80-34-03) until such time that assessment of both the contractor's report and resolution of the licensees audit findings regarding the contractor are completed.
e.
LER Nos.78-022, 78-024,79-021, 79-039,79-064, 79-099,79-114 and 80-013 address reported changes in metabolism beyond two standard deviations of that measured during preoperational monitoring of bentbos and marsh grass defined in ETS-3.1.1 and 3.1.2 respectively.
Discussions with licensee representatives disclosed that metabolism of
.
,
-5-the subject systems increased by factors greater the above limit, as expected for zones within the influence of the heated discharge f.om the plants.
A licensee representative fucther stated that a final report of these studies is planned for next year. These event reports were closed out at the exit interview. There were no further reports regarding this item.