IR 05000335/1978025
| ML17206A602 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1978 |
| From: | Gibson A, Zavadoski R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17206A598 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-335-78-25, NUDOCS 7901090389 | |
| Download: ML17206A602 (9) | |
Text
~P,R llEC0 Vp
+
O~
Cy UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTASTREET, N.W.
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 Report No.:
50-335/78-25 Docket No.:
50-335 License No.:
DPR-67 Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company P.
O. Box 013100 9250 West Flagler Street Hiami, Florida 33101 Facility Name:
St. Lucie
Inspection at:
St. Lucie Site, Hutchinson Island, Florida Inspection conducted:
October 16-20, 1978 Inspector:
R.
W. Zavadoski Reviewed by:
A. F. Gibson, Chief Radiation Support Section Fuel Facility and Haterials Safety Branch Date Ins ection Summar Ins ection on October 16-20 1978 (Re ort No. 50-335/78-25)
Areas Ins ected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of gaseous radioactive effluent releases, liquid radioactive effluent control, procedures for controlling effluent releases, reports and records of radioactive effluents, solid radioactive wastes, liquid waste system's operation, liquid cavity filters, neutron dose rates, ALARA evaluations and followup on previous items.
The inspection involved about 32 inspector-hours on site by an NRC inspector.
Results:
Of the nine areas inspected, no apparent items of non-compliance or deviations were identified in eight areas; one apparent item of noncompliance was identified in one area (Infraction: Improper shipment of solid radioactive wastes (78-25-01)).
V90109D gpy
RII Rpt.
No. 50-335/78-25 DETAILS I Prepared by:
EU3 R.
W. Zavad i, Radiation Specialist Radiation S
port Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch s
Date Dates of Inspection:
Reviewed by:
A. F. Gibson, Chic Radiation Support Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch
~~gC
Date 1.
Individuals Contacted-C.
M. Wethy, Plant Manager-J.
H. Barrow, Operations Superintendent-H. F. Buchanan, HP Supervisor C. A. Moore, Project Manager (Special Assignment)
-R. J. Frechette, Acting Chemistry Supervisor-H.
M. Mercer, Health Physics
""C.
AD Wells, Operations Supervisor
- "G.
M. Green, Health Physics Shift Supervisor
- A. W. Bailey, QA Operations Supervising"Engineer-N.
G. Roos, Acting QC Supervisor G. J. Boissy, Electrical G.
M. Vaux, Quality Control J.
E. Bauer, Maintenance 2 Health Physics Technicians 4 Chemistry Technicians-Denotes those present at exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Ins ection Findin s a.
(Closed) Deviation (78-10-01):
Improper Storage of Filters.
The inspector verified that both HEPA and Charcoal Adsorber Filter Trays were being stored in accordance with the recommendations of ORNL-NSIC-65,
"Design, Construction and Testing of High-Efficiency Air Filtration System for Nuclear Application."
b.
(Closed)
Open Item (78-10-2): Caulking on ESF Filter Systems.
The licensee's representative estimated that no more than 20 linear feet of caulking had been used on any ESF filter system and
RII Rpt.
No. 50-335/78-25 I-2 determined that such a
small amount should not deliteriously affect the impregnated activated charcoal for iodine removal.
3.
Unresolved Items No new unresolved items were identified during this inspection.
4.
Gaseous Radioactive Effluent Releases The inspector examined selected gaseous release permits, gaseous waste management running logs and licensee scheduling records for the period January 1,
1978 thru October 18, 1978.
An inspection was also made o'
the waste gas decay tanks, compressor, monitor and surge tank.
The release of the contents of the waste gas decay tanks and the containment are considered to be batch releases for this facility.
Over the period reviewed, the inspector noted that there had been
batch releases made, 8 of which were containment purges.
Four of the containment purges occured during the month of January, 1978.
A licensee representative stated that efforts were being made to reduce releases from the containment, while at the same time, not needlessly expose personnel entering containment.
Based on the records reviewed and discussions with licensee representatives, the licensee appeared to be in compliance with Appendix B Technical Specifications requirements related to:
(1) noble gas instantaneous, quarterly and annual release rates; (2) release rates for radioiodines; (3) establishment of gaseous waste monitor alarm settings; (4) maximum activity in decay tanks; (5) sampling and analysis of radioactive material in gaseous wastes.
The inspector also verified that adequate meteorological information was available during a release.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Li uid Radioactive Effluent Control The inspector examined selected liquid release permits, liquid waste management running logs, and chemistry department scheduling records for the period January 1978 to October 1978.
Based on these examinations and subsequent discussions with licensee representatives, the inspector determined that the licensee appeared to be in compliance with Appendix B Technical Specification requirements relating to:
(1) instantaneous release limits; (2) cumulative release limits; (3) establishment of alarm setpoints for the effluent control monitor; (4) maximum activity in radwaste tanks; (5) and sampling and analysis of liquid radwastes.
During the inspection, the inspector witnessed the sampling and analysis for the release of the conte'nts of the 40,000 gallon 1B Equipment Drain Tank.
The pertinent details for this release
RII Rpt. No. 50-335/78-25 I-3 are contained on Liquid Release Permit //78-56, dated October 18, 1978.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Procedures for Controllin Effluent Releases The inspector reviewed Chemistry Department procedures C-70,
"Processing Aerated Liquid Wastes",
Revision 6, dated March 27, 1978 and C-72,
"Processing Gaseous Wastes",
Revision 8,
dated March 27, 1978, and Operating Procedures 050022,
"Controlled Release to the Circulating Water Discharge",
Revision 10, dated March 27, 1978, 0520020,
"Radioactive Resin Replacement," Revision 3, dated October 4, 1977, and 0530021,
"Controlled Gaseous Batch Release to Atmosphere,"
Revision ll, dated March 27, 1978.
The inspector had no comments on the procedure content or comments concerning recent revisions.
Based on a
review of the procedures and discussions with licensee representatives, the inspector determined that revised procedures received the reviews and approvals required by licensee procedures.
The aforementioned procedures required that each of the liquid and gaseous releases be done under a permit system.
Based on a review of licensee release records for the period January 1978 to October 1978, the licensee appeared to be utilizing the permit system for all liquid and gaseous releases.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Records and Re orts of Radioactive Effluents The inspector verified from selected records of liquid and gaseous releases made during the period early 1978 to mid 1978, that records required by sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.4 of Appendix B Technical Specification were maintained.
The inspector also noted that the licensee had submitted the Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report for the period January 1,
1978 to June 30, 1978, as required by Appendix B Technical Specification 5.6.1.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Solid Radioactive Wastes The inspector reviewed records of shipments of radioactive solid waste from the plant during the period October, 1977 to October, 1978 and discussed solid waste shipments with licensee representatives.
The inspector determined from the shipping paper and discussions that the shipments were Low Specific Activity, although spent resin shipments were sent in specially licensed casks.
Specially licensed casks were necessary for spent resin shipments because most shipments exceed the Type A
RII Rpt.
No. 50-335/78-25 I-4 curie limit established by
CFR 71.4.q.
From the records the inspector noted that on August 29, 1978, a specially licensed cask, bearing a certificate of compliance No.
9113 and licensed under
CFR 71.12.b, was used to ship 25 curies of transport group III and IV licensed material (spent resin)
on a sole use truck with a total shipping weight of 45000 pounds.
Licensee representatives told the inspector that the cask was filled on site and was weighed after it left the site.
Based on review of records, and subsequent discussions with licensee representatives, it did not appear that the weight of the cask contents and secondary container were determined prior to shipment offsite.
The inspector informed the licensee representatives that shipment of Type B quantity of radioactive material, made under the general license provided by 10 CFR 71.12, in a container cask for which a certificate of compliance is issued, must comply with the conditions of the certificate as well as the requirements of Subpart D, "Operating Procedures,"
of 10 CFR 71.
Specifically, condition 5.b.2 of the certificate of compliance No. 9113, issued pursuant to
CFR 71.12b, requires that "The maximum weight of the contents and secondary containers shall not exceed 7,000 pounds" and
CFR 71.54 requires a
determination prior to each shipment that the requirements of the license are satisfied.
The inspector noted that failure to determine the weight of the cask contents and secondary container prior to shipment was noncompliance with 10 CFR 71.54 (78-25-01)
and so informed licensee representatives.
b.
The inspector compared the quantities of radioactive solid wastes listed on the shipping records for the period of January 1,
1978 thru June 30, 1978, with the data reported in the Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report for the same period and had no questions.
9.
Li uid Waste S stem's eration The inspector reviewed the operation of the liquid waste system.
The licensee representative stated that the waste concentrator or evaporator had never been used on radioactive liquid waste.
The evaporator had never been pre-op tested.
The reason for not using the evaporator lies in the fact that the design thru put for the evaporator is 2 gpm, whereas present liquid radwaste discharged is running about 4 gpm.
In addition, demineralizers, both portable and permanently installed, are adequately maintaining discharges to a small fraction of Technical Specification limits.
The inspector had no further questions in this are RII Rpt.
No. 50-335/78-25 I-5 10.
Plant Tour and Housekee in During the period of the inspection, the inspector toured various areas of the facility to observe radiological controls, work practices, housekeeping, instrumentation, etc.
The inspector noted that the housekeeping appeared exceptionally good and consistent with good health physics practice.
No items of noncompliance were identified by the inspector.
Li uid Cavit Filters While touring the facility, the inspector noted that the Liquid Cavity Filters located in the 19.5 foot Elevation Pipe Chase of the Reactor Auxiliary Building were accessible and unshielded.
The filters are used during refuelings for removing radioactive particulates from the reactor cavity.
Experience at other facilities has shown that while they are being used radiation levels of 1 to 5 R/hr are not uncommon.
Such radiation levels necessitate a locked door be provided to preclude access, as required by Technical Specifications 6.12, High Radiation Area.
The inspector alerted the licensee representatives to this potential problem.
12.
Neutron Dose Rates The inspector independently measured the neutron levels outside the reactor building at ground level with a Region II portable neutron rem meter, model No.
PNR-4.
No measurable neutron levels were detected.
Accompanied by a licensee representative, the inspector measured the neutron levels inside the shield building annulus and found at ground level the dose rates were 25 to 50 mrem/hr and peaked at 275 mrem/hr at the equipment hatch.
The inspector re-verified that no measurable neutron dose rates were present outside the reactor building opposite the equipment hatch.
The inspector had no further questions.
13.
ALARA Evaluations From discussions with licensee representatives, the inspector noted that an evaluation of the dose received for each radiation work permit issued for containment during the last refueling was made.
The purpose of the evaluation is to establish a data base for projections of future exposures during refuelings.
The data base also is used to highlight high exposure tasks where extra efforts, such as 'additional training, mockups, or shielding, can most effectively be considered to reduce overall exposures.
The inspector stated that such an evaluation
.
appeared to be in the best interests of maintaining exposures as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) and had no further question 'f
~
~
~
RII Rpt.
No. 50-335/78-25 1-6 14.
Exit Interview The inspector met with management representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
on October 20, 1978, and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
Items discussed included the item of noncompliance (78-25-01).
~
~
~
~
~
0