IR 05000329/1979007
| ML19225B866 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 06/05/1979 |
| From: | Essig T, Oestmann M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19225B855 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-329-79-07, 50-329-79-7, 50-330-79-07, 50-330-79-7, NUDOCS 7907260196 | |
| Download: ML19225B866 (6) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. KUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.T!ISS10N OFFICE OF INSPECTION AhT) ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-329/79-07; 50-330/79-07 Docket No. 50-329; 50-330 License No. CPPR-81-, CPPR-82 Licensee:
Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson MI 49201 Facility Name: Midland Nuclcar Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Midland Plant Site, Midland, MI Inspection Conducted: April 26-27, 1979 s
-
] R?I S U f' " "
Inspector:
M. J. Oestmann
/ ~77 h j.
~ nm bu t,
Approved By:
T. H.
ssig, Chief D
Environmental and Special
Projects Section Inspection Summary Inspection on April 26-27, 1979 (Report No. 50-329/79-07; 50-330/79-07)
A_reas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of environmental protection requirements including:
management controls; implementation of the preoperational radiological and nooradiological environmental monitoring programs; quality control of analytical measurements, and implementation of environmental protection requirementr. during construction. The inspection involved 16 inspector-hours on site by one h7C inspector.
Results:
Of the five areas inspected, no apparent items of noncom-pliance or deviations were identified.
398 323 79072 60t%
-
.
.
-
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
- T. Cooke, Project Superintendent of Construction R. Montross, Plant Manager for Operations G. Slade, Plant Superintendent for Operation and Maintenance
,
- A. Kowalczuk, Chem /HP Superintendent B. Peck, Field Supervisor W. Strodl, Health Physicist D. Andersen, Environmental Supervisor D. Sibbald, Senior Construction Advisor
- J. Corley, Quality Assurance Engineer
- T.
Buczwinski, Engineer The inspector also interviewed twelve other licensee employees during the course of the inspection. They included HP tech-nicians, members of the security force, and construction force.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
General, The inspector examined the implementation of the licensee's preoperational radiological and nonradiological environmental monitoring programs and environmental protection program for constructim.
The construction permits issued in 1972 and the licensee's kneironmental Report at the Operating License Stage (ER-OL) were used as primary inspection criteria.
3.
Management Controls The inspector examined the licensee's organizational structure for construction and oper-tion, delegation of responsibilities and authorities, and administrative controls. The licensee has documented in internal correspondence the corporate and plant organization and persons responsible to conduct the preoperational and operational environmental protection and monitoring programs.
In addition, another internal correspondence, dated April 11, 1979, discusses the interface responsibi?ities, scope, and implementation procedures to be conducted by the Division of Environmental Services (ES) in the licensee's corporate headquarters and by the Midland Project Organization (MPO). The Midland Envircamental Supervisor acts as liaison officer between the two groups.
398 324 2-
.
,
Details of each en~ironmental monitoring program are provided v
in Volume 3, Section 6 of the ER-OL.
Eberline Instrument Company is the licensee's contractor for the radiological environmental monitoring program.
The licensee's ES has overall responsibility to conduct the nonradiologsca) prograno Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly Engineers is the licensee's con-tractor for this work.
Murray and Trettle, Inc., is the licensee's centractor for the fog monitoring program.
The
~,
licensee is utilizing Bechtel of San Francisco, California, as the principal construction contractor for implementing environ-mental protection requirements during construction.
No apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Implementation of the Radiological Environmentai Monitoring Program The preoperational radiological environmental monitoring program was initiated in the fall of 1978.
The inspector reviewed Procedure CH/HP 8290.1 which describes the details of this pro-gram; Procedure EHP-01 which includes the sample collection s h e e t <, EHP-02 which describes administrative controls; and EHP-94 which includes sample receipt acknowledgement.
No problems were identified.
The licensee has placed thermoluminescent dosimeters C1 E around the dikes of the cooling pond and at locations close to the plant for the purpose of determining tFe background radi-ation dose. During a tour of the TLD stations, the inspector observed that two TLD packages were tied to the steel casings of the observation wells on the dikes by means of a metal strap, therby resulting in partial shielding of the TLDs from exposure to background radiation.
The licensee stated that he
..ould correct this arrangement and assure that the TLDs are properly placed and mounted for true exposure to background radiation. This item will be examined during a future inspection.
The licensee plans to install air sampling equipment starting in the fall of 1979.
The licensee has collected vegetation, sediment, and fish samples. The inspector reviewed the results in monthly reports from the licensee's contractor, Eberline, star.ing in October 1978 through February 1979.
No unusual results or trends were observed.
This contractor also conducts a quality control program involving split and duplicate s=.mples.
The licensee's contractor also participates in the Environmental Protection Agency interlaboratory cross-check program.
398 325-3-
.
.
No apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were 'dentified.
5.
Implementation of Preoperational Nonradiological Environmental Monitoring Program The inspector reviewed Section 6.1, Volume 3 of the ER-OL which presents the details of each facet of the preoperational non-radiological environmental monitoring program. These facets include monitoring of surface and ground water, air, geology
and soils. The schedule for the various facets of the program was also examined. The majority of tne individual aquatic programs will begin in the spring and summer of 1979. A pre-liminary water quality program involving a preliminary survey and evaluation of monitoring techniques for further investi-gation of the water quality of the Tittabawassee River was reported in 1977. The report included a general summary and recommendations of oiological, physical and chemical water quality studies to be conducted. Discussions were also held in February 1979 between the license:e and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the NRr staff regarding the sampling frequencies, locations and techniques to be used in the water quality studies. The inspector also reviewed a proposal for the studies to be conducted by the licensee's contractor, Lawler, Matusky and Skelly Engineers.
Results of the aquatic program will be examined during a subsequent inspection.
A terrestrial environmental moaitoring program was conducted in 1971 by the Michigan State Universitj prior to start of construc-tion of the plant.
No additional program is scheduled to be conducted since the impact of construction or vegetation and wildlife habitat has already been felt by these communities during building of the cooling pond.
No apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Cooling Pend The licensee has completely filled the 880 acre-cooling pond to the 627 foot elevation. During a tour, driving on the dike around the cooling pond, the inspector observed the onsite observation wells and the piezometers which are used to deter-mine water level and the integrity of the dike.
Ground water quality samples are also taken from the observation wells.
Results for CY 78 of the water elevation in the wells were recorded monthly and were reviewed.
No unusual results were indicated.
The intake and discharge structures were also 3%
-4-
,
3,7,.o
i observed during th6 tour of the site. The licensee maintains an intake velocity of less than 1 foot per second in accordance with Section 2.E.(a) of the construction permit requirements.
No apparert items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Implementation of the Meteorological Monitoring Program a
The inspector examined the meteorolog: cal monitoring prcgram.
The licensee has a 91.5 meter tower in 2 ration with instru-mentation to measure wind speed, direction, temperature, snd dew point at the 10-m, 40-m, 60-m, and 91.5-m levels. The inspector observed that all instruments were operational during a tour of the tower. The licensee condert' ;alibration of all sensors and recording equipment on a six month frequency. Data recovery rates have been 94%, meeting tr e requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.23.
The licensee also initiated an onsite fog monitoring progrt1 in November 1978 under contract with Murray 2-? 1rettle Inc.
The program consists of (1) visual observation at different specified times at five site locations and (2) self reccrding instrumentation using two visiometers.
The visiometer: will be placed at different locations during the summer of 1979. The inspector reviewed the onsite fog observation procedure manual and the contractor's proposal.
No apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Implementation of Environmental Protection During Construction The inspector toured the plant site for examination of compliance with environmental requirements of Section 2.E of the construc-tion permits and licensee's commitments in the ER-CP and -0L.
Specific items examined inclt.ied:
erosion centrol by placement of rip-rap, construction of drop structures and culverts, road improvements, and seeding; dust control by road and parking lot surfacing; maintenance of visual screens; water pollution prevention by establisLAent and maintenance of a cc. trolled site crainage system.
The licensee discharges its sanitary waste tht augh the Dow Chemical Company waste treatment plant.
No apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
"OO-5-J'O
, ) j,
,
.
9.
Exit Interview
-
The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on April 27, 1979. The inspector summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection and the findings.
The licensee acknowledged the need tc, remount the TLDs to assure true exposure to background radiation.
,
.
_,
398 323-6-