IR 05000341/1982004
| ML20053B240 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 05/10/1982 |
| From: | Oestmann M, Paperiello C, Rozak S, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20053B232 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-341-82-04, 50-341-82-4, NUDOCS 8205280210 | |
| Download: ML20053B240 (5) | |
Text
. -. -
.
.
__
-
. -
.
_
-
.
-
l
'
,
'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
!
<
REGION Ili Report No. 50-341/82-04 Docket No. 50-341 License No. CPPR-87 Licensee: Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, MI 48226
!
Facility Name: Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2
,
i Inspection At: Enrico Fermi Plant Site, Monroe, MI Inspection Conducted:
April 12-13 and 20, 1982
$t/ 'h
- %
cly Inspectors:
M.
. Oestmann
S [2W-
f,.
i S. Rozak hh,h//sxAch Approved By:
M. C. Schumacher, Chief h# D Independent Measurements and l
Environmental Protection Section (L$U Y
( l0 D -
C.
. Papefiello, Chief Emergency Preparedness and Program Support Branch
'
Inspection Summary
!
Inspection on April 12-13 and 20, 1982 (Report No. 50-341/82-04)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced safety inspection of:
(1) radio-logical environmental monitoring. program, including management controls,
.
'
program implementation and results; quality control of sampling and analy-
!
tical measurements; (2) a tour of the licensee's chemistry laboratory and l
counting facilities; and (3) a review of licensee actions on previous inspection findings. The inspection involved 30 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
!
,
i a
820 5 2 8 0 AID,
-- -
.
-
.- -.
.
. - - - - -. -. -. -
--
-
__
- _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
'
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted 1,2 E. Madsen, Environmental and Land Use Coordinator, Corporate Office
E. P. Griffing, Superintendent, Nuclear Production, EF-2
R. S. Lenart, Assistant Superintendent, ?,'uclear Production, EF-2
E. H. Newton, Operational Assurance Engineer, EF-2
W. D. Gilbert, Radiochemical Engineer, EF-2
R. R. Eberhardt, General Supervisor, Chemistry, EF-2
K. M. Wagner, Chemist, EF-2
J. Kepus, Environmental Engineer, EF-2
J. E. Bahleda, Senior Quality Assurance Engineer, Resource Technical Training, EF-2
P. Lavely, Health Physicist, EF-2
W. R. Holland, Assistant Vice President and Manager of Nuclear Operations, Corporate Office
L. Schuerman, Licensing Engineer, Nuclear Engineering, Corporate Office The inspectors also interviewed several other licensee employees during l
the course of this inspection, including radiochemical technicians,
members of the security force, and general office personnel.
f 1 Denotes those present at the plant exit interview on April 13, 1982.
2 Discussed inspection findings by telephone on April 20, 1982.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings a.
(0 pen) Open Item (50-341/78-06-01):
Preoperational Environmental Monitoring Program. The licensee's aquatic monitoring program was approved by the State of Michigan in August 1979. Because of the Yellow Creek Decision by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appoal Board, the States through the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency have authority over aquatic programs in accordance with the licensee's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The aquatic monitoring program will not be enforced by NRC at the Fermi-2 Plant.
The terrestrial monitoring program discussed in Inspection Report No. 50-341/80-03, is conducted by a licensee contractor, Texas Instruments, Inc.
The most recent annual report issued by the contractor was not available for review at the plant site during this inspection. This remains open pending review during a subsequent inspection.
b.
(0 pen) Open Item (50-341/80-70-01): The licensee in an internal audit of the radiological environmental monitoring contractor, Nuclear Utilities Services (NUS), on June 26, 1979, identified two findings related to work instructions on calibration of air samplers and on laboratory practices, and one observation related
- - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
.
to training checksheets for field technicians. Corrective action was completed on one finding and on the observation and was initiated on the other finding. No information on the corrective
'
action on the second finding was available during this inspection.
In addition, no followup audit on the corrective actions already taken was available for review by the inspectors. This item remains open, pending completion of corrective actions and the followup audit. The licensee also agreed to conduct another audit of NUS prior to issuance of the fuel load license. This item will be examined during a subsequent inspection.
(0 pen Item 50-341/82-04-01).
c.
(0 pen) Open Item (50-341/60-07-03): Environmental air samplers gave about 47% recovery of air particulate data in the fourth quarter of 1979. The inspectors' review of the 1980 and 1981 monitoring reports indicated even lower recovery of particulate data. Air Sampler No. 5 was not operational over 5 quarters in 1981-82 and Sampler No. 4 was out of operation intermittently for a number of months in 1980-81. There were also problems with the other samplers. This item is discussed in Paragraph 3 below. The licensee has ordered new air samplers to replace the older ones and has committed to have them in operation by May 1, 1982. This matter will be reviewed during subsequent preoperational inspections.
,
d.
(0 pen) Open Item (50-341/80-07-04):
Air sampler intakes were not oriented toward the direction of the plant. The samplers had been removed from the air monitoring stations prior to this inspection.
This item remains open until the air samplers can be observed in a future preoperational inspection.
e.
(Open) Open Item (50-341/80-07-11): The Quality Assurance and Quality Control of the nonradiological and radiological analytical laboratory program, including laboratory procedures developed at the plant, will be inspected prior to issuance of the fuel load license.
Prior to that inspection, the NRC will ser.d the licensee a letter describing the Confirmatory Measuren,ents Program and will provide spiked effluent samples for the licensee to analyze with his counting equipment to demonstrate his analytical capability.
3.
Preoperational Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP)
a.
Quality Control of Analytical Measurements The licensee's contractor has prepared a Quality Assurance Manual for conduct of the REMP. The contractor is also developing new sampling and analytical procedures to be based on guidance from NRC Regulatory Guide 4.15 " Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Normal Operations) - Effluent Streams and the Environment" Revision 1, dated February 1979. These documents will be reviewed in a future inspection (50-341/82-04-02).
_ - _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ -
.
.
'
b.
Implementation of REMP The licensee's monitoring results for CY 1980 and 1981 and for the first quarter of 1982 were reviewed to assure adherence to the program described in Table 6.1-10 of the licensee's Environ-mental Report, Supplement 4, dated February 1978. The licensee has placed 37 thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) surrounding the plant site and has collected samples of fish, shoreline sediments, surface and drinking water samples. The inspectors observed a composite water sampler and several TLDs during a tour of monitoring stations. The licensee will initiate collecting milk and radiciodine (charcoal adsorbers) samples later in 1982.
Limited results of air particulate data did show fallout effects of weapons testing from the Peoples Republic of China in the fall of 1980 and spring of 1981.
The inspectors found in review of the 1980 Annual Report and 1981-82 quarterly reports that no air monitoring data were available from Air Sampler No. 5 for 5 quarters, and from Air Sampler No.4 for a number of months in 1980-82.
Other stations also had operational problems. The licensee described the difficulty in the operational performance of the air monitoring stations in his deviation reports. The licensee's contractor had attempted to
resolve the problems but in many cases was unable to because no electrical power was available to power the air monitoring samplers.
During a tour of the stations, the inspectors found three stations without monitoring equipment and without electrical power svailable.
Discussions with licensee representatives indicated no one was certain when the samplers were removed from these locations.
In addition, no keys to the protective boxes were available at the plant site and no one knew the name of the NUS field technician who has the keys and who collects the environmental samples and ships them to the NUS laboratory for analysis.
The licensee agreed to have new air samplers replacing the old ones operational by May 1, 1982. At the same time the licensee is to install a new
-
air sampler south of the plant site near Stony Point in accordance with an agreement reached by the licensee with the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
(0 pen Item 50-341/82-04-03).
The inspectors found during their review that the program described in Section 11.6 of the FSAR was not consistent with that presented in Section 6.1.5 of the Environmental Report.
The licensee agreed to update Section 11.6 of the FSAR within three months of this inspection. This item will be examined in a future inspection.
(0 pen Item 50-341/82-04-04). The licensee also agreed to send a copy to Region III of the section on the operational REMP planned for inclusion in the licensee's proposed Technical Specifications and copies of the NUS 1982-83 quarterly reports on the preoperational monitoring program.
(0 pen Item 50-341/82-04-05).
.
.
.
c.
Management Controls The REMP implementation problems discussed above indicated a weakness of management controls.
In particular, the respective roles of the contractor, corporate, and site groups and the interaction between them appeared to be poorly defined and understood. These matters were discussed with licensee manage-ment representatives from the site and from the corporate office (Paragraph 5) and corrective actions to alleviate the problems were agreed upon.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Tour of the Licensee's Analytical Facilities The inspectors toured the licensee's chemistry laboratories and counting areas at the plant. These areas appeared to be well managed and adequately stocked with modern equipment and supplies. The 11-censee is in the process of developing procedures and a trainir.g program for the laboratories and counting rooms. Most of the equip-ment observed was already operaticnal or in the process of being calibrated.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Exit Interview The inspectors discussed their findings with licensee representatives at the site at the conclusion of the inspection on April 13, 1982 and with corporate management representatives (paragraph 1) by telephone on April 20, 1982.
As a result of these discussions, the licensee agreed to take a number of actions to correct problems observed in the implementation of the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP).
a.
Establish management controls, including procedures that define the respective roles of contractor, corporate, and site organiza-tions with respect to the REMP; (Open Item 50-341/82-04-06).
b.
Designate the plant Environmental Engineer as the responsible persor onsite with responsibility for periodic checks of the sampling station; (Open Item 50-341/82-04-07),
I c.
Make the necessary arrangements to assure that maintaining electrical service to the sampling stations receives a high priority; (Open Item 50-341/82-04-08) and d.
Prepare a procedure whereby the NUS field representative promptly informs the Environmental Engineer when samples are collected and when any problems are encountered.
(0 pen Item 50-341/82-04-09).
5