IR 05000335/1993028
| ML17228A397 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 12/03/1993 |
| From: | Elrod S, Landis K, Mark Miller, Michael Scott NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17228A396 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-335-93-28, 50-389-93-28, NUDOCS 9312270211 | |
| Download: ML17228A397 (4) | |
Text
+p,Q Rfg~
~4
~o Cy AO Op gO
++*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTASTREET, N.W., SUITE 2900 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30323-0199 Report Nos.:
50-335/93-28 and 50-389/93-28 Licensee:
Florida Power 5 Light Company 9250 West Flagler Street Hiami, FL 33102 Docket Nos.:
50-335 and 50-389 License Nos.:
DPR-67 and NPF-16 Facility Name:
St.
Lucie 1 and
Inspection Conducted:
April 1 - November 12, 1993 Inspectors:
S. A. Elr
, Senior R
ident Inspector D
e S gned H. A. Scott, Resident nspector Da e gned spector H. S. Hil er Resid Approved by:
K. D.
L ndis, hief Reactor Projects Section
Division of Reactor Projects Date S gned zS Da e Signed SUHHARY Scope:
This special inspection entailed direct site inspection of the licensee's program to periodically review and evaluate changes in population distribution or changes in industrial, military, or transportation hazards that could occur on or near the site.
Results:
The licensee has performed periodic reviews of local demography and has found population growth to be consistent with Updated Final Safety Analysis Report projections.
The licensee did not previously have a systematic process for detecting changes in site proximity hazards; however, during the course of this inspection, the licensee implemented a method to perform periodic reviews in this area.
No safety issue was identified.
93i22702ii 93i203 PDR ADOCK 05000335
REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees D. Sager, St. Lucie Plant Vice President C. Burton, St. Lucie Plant General Manager H. Buchanan, Health Physics Supervisor K. Heffelfinger, Protection Services Supervisor J. Holt, Plant Licensing Engineer L. McLaughlin, Licensing Manager G. Madden, Plant Licensing Engineer C. Pell, Site Services Manager Other licensee employees contacted included engineers, technicians, operators, mechanics, security force members, and office personnel.
NRC Personnel C
S. Elrod, Senior Resident Inspector M. Miller, Resident Inspector M. Scott, Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview 2.
Acronyms and initialisms used throughout this report are listed in the last paragraph.
Review of Licensee Evaluations Regarding Changes to the Environs Around Licensed Reactor Facilities (TI 2515/112)
This inspection was performed to determine:
1) the adequacy of the licensee's programs to evaluate public health and safety issues resulting from changes in population distribution or in industrial, military, or transportation hazards that could occur on or near the St. Lucie Plant and 2) if these changes were routinely reflected in updates to the UFSAR.
The St. Lucie Plant Radiological Emergency Plan, section 7.3.1,
"Review Procedure,"
required continuing review of the plan and update when substantial changes affecting emergency response were identified.
Table 5-4, "Evacuation Time Estimates,"
had been kept current and reflected the State of Florida radiological emergency management plan for nuclear power plants, revision dated August 15, 1991.
The licensee explained that the state updates population estimates on an approximately annual basis and that the radiological emergency plan'is revised accordingly.
a.
Changes in Demography A review of UFSAR Section 2.1,
"Geography and Demography," indicated that changes have been made to this section since its original issue.
Section 2.1.3.9 stated that the licensee will periodically obtain and submit to the NRC actual and projected population dat The nature and periodicity of these data were consistent with TS 6.9.1.9 and 6.9.1.10.
In discussions with site licensing personnel, the inspector was informed that the need to conduct demographic reviews and to submit demographic data to the NRC, as described in the UFSAR and as required by TS, was included in the licensee's commitment tracking system.
The system retained these requirements as database entries.
The licensee would be alerted to the need to prepare such reports as the required submission date approached.
The inspector confirmed that the licensee had made timely demographic reviews and submittals of 'data to the NRC, as described in the UFSAR and as required by TS.
The licensee conducted a review of demographic information for comparison with UFSAR data.
The licensee found that, in the aggregate, population growth has remained below that predicted in the UFSAR.
b.
Changes in Site Proximity Hazards UFSAR section 2.2,
"Nearby Industrial, Transportation and Nilitary Facilities," was reviewed.
The inspector found that no commitment involving periodic review of site proximity hazards was included.
There was no TS-required periodic review for potential changes in this area.
The inspector did note that a change (involving stored materials)
had been made to this section since its original issue.
The inspector questioned the methods employed to identify changes in site proximity hazards and was informed that there had been no method in place to consider potential changes prior to the issue of TI 2515/112.
The licensee conducted a review of site proximity hazards for comparison with UFSAR data.
The licensee found, in consultations with local authorities, that no significant changes in site proximity hazards had occurred from those identified in the UFSAR.
Changes to the UFSAR were controlled in accordance with JPN-gI 3.6,
"FSAR Updating by Nuclear Engineering,"
which described criteria for UFSAR changes and the potential sources for such changes in general terms, as opposed to specific categories or line items.
The inspector's review of this procedure concluded that JPN-gI 3.6 contained adequate general guidance and was thorough in its consideration of potential sources of FSAR changes.
However, the potential sources delineated in this procedure were generally the result of deliberate actions on the part of the licensee (e.g. design changes, co~itments to the NRC), whereas changes in the site environs occur largely out of the licensee's control.
As this procedure is general in nature, the specific review items delineated in TI 2515/112 had not been formally delineated or addressed in considering changes to the UFSAR.
The licensee examined the methods employed to ensure that changes to the site environs are adequately evaluated for inclusion in the UFSAR.
The
licensee acknowledged that there had been no clear method for considering changes in site proximity hazards for possible inclusion in the UFSAR.
As a result, the licensee added elements of the inspection requirements of TI 2515/112 to the commitment tracking system for review prior to each UFSAR update submittal.
The inspectors concluded that the licensee had not implemented a formal program to evaluate changes in demographics or site proximity hazards for UFSAR applicability, although these changes would fall within the general guidance provided in JPN-gI 3.6.
Notwithstanding the lack of a formal program, the inspectors concluded that the use of the commitment tracking system to ensure consideration of potential changes in the environs was an adequate approach to this issue.
This adequacy was born out, in part, by the licensee's timely submittals of TS-required reports of demographic information to the NRC.
The preparation of these reports was initiated, in part, through the use of the commitment tracking system.
The inspectors found that the licensee's actions in identifying and responding to questions involving site proximity hazards constituted a
thorough and noteworthy approach to identifying potential changes to the surrounding area.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on November 17, 1993, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results listed below.
Proprietary material is not contained in this report.
Dissenting comments were not received from the licensee.
Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Initialisms ATTN CFR DPR FPL FSAR JPN NPF NRC gI RII St.
TI TS UFSAR Attention Code of Federal Regulations Demonstration Power Reactor (A type of operating license)
The Florida Power 5. Light Company Final Safety Analysis Report (Juno Beach)
Nuclear Engineering Nuclear Production Facility (a type of operating license)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission guality Instruction Region II - Atlanta, Georgia (NRC)
Saint
[NRC] Temporary Instruction Technical Specification(s)