IR 05000335/1981019
| ML17212A790 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 09/02/1981 |
| From: | Cunningham A, Montgomery D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17212A789 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-335-81-19, 50-389-81-15, NUDOCS 8109240483 | |
| Download: ML17212A790 (14) | |
Text
'8 REDO PO Op A.
OO
'40 qO Wp*y4 UNITED STATES UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI RE@ION II 101 MARIETTAST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos. 50-335/81-19 and 50-389/81-15 Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company P. 0. Box 529100 Miami, FL 33152 Facility Name:
St. Lucie Plant 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389 License Nos.
DPR-67 and CPPR-144 Inspection at St.
i la t, near Ft. Pi ce, Florida Inspector A. L. Cun n
at i ned Approved b
.
M M ntgomery, Acting Section Chief EPP Branch Date Signed SUMMARY Inspection on August 17-21, 1981 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 36 inspector-hours onsite in the area of radiological environmental monitoring including:
implementation of monitoring programs; review and evaluation of annual radiological environmental monitoring report (period ending December 31, 1980);
management controls; monitoring program procedures; quality control of analytical measurements; status review of Unit
LER's; followup on IE Bulletins; status review of Unit 2 radiological environmental monitoring preop program; review of semiannual effluent release reports for the periods ending June 30, and December 31, 1980.
Results Of the nine areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
'" Sf09240483 810~02T )
PDR ADOCK 0500Q335,
'PDR
~
r
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- C. M. Wethy, Plant Manager H. S. Buchanan, Health Physics Supervisor
~J. Barrow, Operations Superintendent
- N. G. Roos, Quality Control Supervisor
"A. W. Bailey, Quality Assurance Supervisor J. Sheetz, Supervisor, Nuclear Licensing J. Moaba, Supervisor Plant Operating Licensing Other Organizations J.
M. Pelchat, Public Health Physicist, Florida DHRS J. Zudans, Power Plant Licensing Engineer (NUS)
NRC Resident Inspector
- S. Elrod
~Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on August 21, 1981 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings No previous inspection findings were outstanding.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Management Controls Management and administrative controls defined in Section 5.0 of Appendix B Environmental Technical Specifications were reviewed by the inspector with respect to the following items:
(1) organizational and management responsibility for implementation of the radiological environmental monitoring program; (2)
environmental monitoring procedures; (3)
quality assurance including periodic audits and analytical quality contro I I
b.
The inspector conducted a detailed review, including discussions with cognizant licensee representatives, of recent corporate organizational changes to determine the adequacy of specific management responsibility for assuring implementation of the radiological environmental monitoring program.
Inspection disclosed that organizational structure and specific management assignments should assure continued implementa-tion of the program in accordance with license requirements.
There were no q'uestions regarding this item.
Technical Specifications 5.5. 1 and 5.5.2 require the establishment of detailed written procedures to assure implementation of all environ-mental conditions and commitments defined in the specifications.
Inspection included a
detailed review of procedures and their respective revisions developed to implement radiological environmental monitoring, sampling and analytical requirements of Technical Specifi-cation 3.2 and Tables 3.2-1 and 3.2-2.
The radiological environmental monitoring and analytical programs are conducted by the State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS).
The inspector reviewed the DHRS procedures listed below.
Procedures Number
& Rev.
No.
(1)
Collection of guality Control Samples (2)
Analysis of guality Control Samples (3)
Laboratory Analytical Procedures (4)
Air Samplers (5)
Biota (Sampling)
(6)
Gamma Background
(7)
Water and Precipitation (Sampling)
(8)
Vegetation (Sampling)
(9)
Food Crops (Samping)
(10)
Silt (Sampling)
(11)
Soi l (Samping)
(12)
Algae (Sampl ing)
(13)
Milk (Sampling)
(14)
guality Control A-1 B-3 C-1 I-3 III-2 IV-2 V-0 VI-0 VII-2 VIII-0 IX-0 X-3 XI-2
I
(15)
Ann'ual Garden Census (16)
Semiannual Dairy Animal Census ( 17)
Thermoluminescent Dosimeter (18)
Nuclear Chicago Gas Flow Proportional Counter ( 19)
Hewlett Packard 5406B Gamma Spectrometer (20)
Packard Liquid Scintillation Spectrometer (21)
Field Calibration Procedures (22)
Gas Meters (Calibration)
(23)
Ionization Chamber s, Stray Radiation (24)
Administrative Procedures (25)
Estimation of Statistical Error (26)
Lower Limit of Detection for Analyses XII-0 XIII-0 I-4 2-0 3-0 4-0 7-4 8-0 TM 1-1 TM 2-0 Inspection disclosed that both the licensee and the Florida DHRS main-tained updated and approved procedures including their respective revisions.
There were no questions regarding this item.
d.
Technical Specification 5.3.4 requires periodic audit of the licensee's conformance to all provisions contained within the Environmental Technical Specifications and applicable license conditions as provided in the Quality Assurance Manual.
Inspection included a detailed review of audits and respective audit checklists of radiological environmental surveillance Technical Specification requirements, and the DHRS imple-mentation of environmental sampling and respective radiochemical analysis defined by Technical Specification 3.2 and Table 3.2. 1 and 3.2.2 during the period December 1979 through June, 1981.
The scope of DHRS audits conducted by the licensee, included the following items:
( 1) quality assurance program and procedures; (2)
compliance of sampling and chemical analytical programs with technical specification requirements; (3) verification of radiological environmental survey implementation.
Criteria for DHRS and monitoring program audits included all applicable Technical Specifications defined in Sections 3.2 and 5.0 of that document, Appendix B of 10CFR50, DHRS QA procedures,'DHRS sampling and analytical procedures.
Licensee audits conducted during the period December 1979, through June 1981, and reviewed by the inspector are listed belo $ 11 "tg
'
'
(1)
Audit No. 08.06.FLS.79.1 (State DHRS Environmental Monitoring)
(2)
Audit No. 08.03.FLS.80.
1 (State DHRS QA/QC Program)
(3)
Audit No. 08.03.FLS.81.
1 (State DHRS QA/QC Program)
Review of the above audits, their respective findings and required resolution of such findings, disclosed that the licensee's audits appeared consistent with those requirements defined in Technical Specification 5.3.4.
There were no questions regarding this item.
6.
Implementation of Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Technical Specification 3.2 (Tables 3.2-1 and 3.2-2) defines the radio-logical*environmental monitoring program requirements.
The inspector conducted a
detailed review of the radiological environmental monitoring program to verify the implementation thereof and to assess its compliance with the program commitments defined in the above specification.
The review included the following:
( 1) inspection of monitoring and sampling stations including the availability, main-tenance, and calibration of monitoring and sampling equipment; (2)
review of the Annual Radiological Environmental Monitoring Report for the period ending December 31, 1980, with emphasis on identification of missing data, obvious mistakes and anomalous measurements, observed trends or biases in the data presented, and implementation of corrective action for anomalous results identified; (3) written procedures for assuring implementation of each program parameter.
There were no questions regarding this item.
Inspection of monitoring and sampling stations listed in Tables 3.2-1 and 3.2-2 of the referenced specification included the. following:
(1)
all air particulate and associated radioiodine, soil, and TLD monitoring stations; (2) all surface and groundwater sampling stations; (3)randomly selected direct radiation monitoring stations; (4) milk sampling station.
The inspector accompanied the DHRS Public Health Physicist during recovery/replacement of air particulate filters, and observed the collection of a milk sample at station H-03 (Meadowbrook Diary).
The inspector also accompanied the state representative on an inspection of all surface and groundwater sampling stations, sediment sampling stations, green leafy vegetative and crop sampling stations.
Inspection disclosed that all air particulate monitoring equipment was calibrated periodically at six month intervals and appropriately tagged with calibration stickers.
Inspection also disclosed that an adequate supply of air particulate monitoring replacement equipment and spare parts were maintained to minimize periodic interruptions of required continuous monitoring.
The location of all monitoring and sampling stations listed above complied with those locations cited in the referenced specification and the respective monitoring and sampling procedures.
There were no questions regarding this ite kp
Inspection included a review of Semiannual Ra'dioactive Effluent Release Reports required by Appendix B of Facility Technical Specifications for the periods June 30, 1980 through June 30, 1981.
Inspection disclosed that the reports were consistent with the requirements defined in terms of sampling locations, monitoring and surveillance frequencies, assigned effluent limits, and the interpretation and evaluation of results.
There were no questions regarding this item.
IE Bulletin 81-03 The inspector reviewed the licensee's response to IE Bulletin 81-03 (Flow Blockage of Cooling Water to Safety System Components by Corbicula Sp.
(Asiatic Clam)
and Mytilus Sp. (Mussel)).
The response was discussed with cognizant licensee representatives who stated that Asiatic Clams ~Corbicola)
were not indigeneous to the plant cooling water; however, a
chemical biofouling program had been maintained to preclude such blockage by other marine fauna and flora.
There were no further questions regarding this item.
8.
Review of Licensee Event Reports (LER's)
Inspection included a detailed review of environmental event reports to verify the following requirements:
( 1) accurate description of the respective events; (2) correct identification of each event cause; (3)
adequacy of proposed corrective action; (4) implemenation of corrective action.
The LERs reviewed are listed below:
b.
LERs 80-03, 80-19,80-128, 80-156, and 80-415 addressed loss and/or malfunction of the plant cooling water intake canal thermograph.
Inspection disclosed that causes of subject events were adequately identified and appropriate corrective actions were implemented.
These items were closed out.
There were no further questions regarding these items.
c.
LERs 80-01 and 80-02 addressed the loss of the plant cooling water discharge (mixing zone)
thermograph.
Inspection disclosed that causes of the events were identified and appropriate corrective actions were implemented.
The subject events were closed out.
There were no questions regarding this item.
d.
LERs 80-81,81-100, and 81-101 addressed discharge mixing zone surface temperature values greater than the 3. 1'C limit assigned by ETS-2. 1. 1, loss of plant cooling water discharge canal high temperature alarm function, and loss of plant cooling water condenser hT monitor respectively.
Inspection disclosed that the causes of the events were identified and appropriate corrective actions were taken.
These items were closed out.
There were no further quest,ions regarding these item Ls V
9.
Unit 2 Radiological Preoperational Environmental Monitoring The preoperational radiological monitoring program is defined in Section 6. 1.5 and Tables 6. 1.2 and 6. 1.3 of the St.
Lucie Unit
Environmental Report.
The preoperational monitoring program of Unit
and sequentially for Unit 2 began in January 1971.
Following startup
'and commercial operatiop of Unit 1, in 1975, the program evolved into the current operational radiological monitoring program for Unit 1.
The detailed review and inspection of the current radiological environmental monitoring program is discussed in the,preceeding sections of this, repor 'k
~
~
~
~
P
~
. v e