IR 05000348/1978030
| ML19305A038 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 12/05/1978 |
| From: | Hufham J, Peery W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19305A031 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-348-78-30, 50-364-78-18, NUDOCS 7901020045 | |
| Download: ML19305A038 (9) | |
Text
e
,*
,
p Eth UNITED STATES
,y q
g k
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
&
o REGloN ll
$
101 MARIETTA siREET N.W.
'
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
'+9
... *,o Report Nos.: 50-348/78-30 and 50-364/78-18 Docket Nos.: 50-348 and 50-364 License Nos.: NPF-2 and CPPR-86
.
Licensee: Alabama Power Company Post Office Box 2641 Birmingham, Alabama 35291 Facility Name: Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Inspection at: Farley Nuclear Plant, Dothan, Alabama Inspection conducted: November 14-17, 1978
'
Inspector:
W. W. Peery
,
s e
Reviewed by: 'N d ww
/JJ s 7 f J.'
. Hufha hief pate
,
En ronmental a d Special Projects Section Fue Facility a Materials Safety Branch Inspection Summary Inspection on November 14-17, 1978 (Report Nos. 50-348/78-30 and 50-364/78-18)
Areas Inspected: The radiological environnental monitoring program including management controls, quality control of analytical measurements, inspection of envirstaental monitoring stations, review of environmental monitoring data, review of radiological environmental monitoring procedures and implementation of the monitoring program.
Of the six areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
79010200Yg l
,
,
.
.
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-348/78-30 and 50-364/78-18 I-1 DETAILS I Prepared by:
/2
W. W. Peery, Rad'
ion Specialist
/Dite Environmental an Special Projects Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch Dates of Inspection: Nodember 14-17, 1978 l'1 N
Reviewed b (b_
nv
-
,
J. W. Tiufhani, thi I Date En ronmental and Special Projects Section Fu Facility and aterials Safety Branch 1.
Persons Contacted W. G. Hairston, Plant Manager J. D. Woodard, Assistant Plant Manager K. W. McCracken, Technical Supesintendent W. M. Jackson, Environmental and Health Physics Coordinator C. D. Nesbitt, Chemistry and Health Physics Supervisor M. W. Mitchell, Assistant Chemistry and Health Physics Supervisor D. L. Cox, Operations Quality Assurance J. M. Walden, Counting Room / Environmental Foreman P. E. Farnsworth, Health Physics Foreman J. F. Stinson, Environmental Technician All of the above were present for the Exit Interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Licensee actica was not pending on previous inspection findings for the radiological environmental monitoring program.
l 3.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance, or deviations. One unresolved item is discussed in paragraph 6.b of this report (348-78-30-01, 364-78-18-01).
4.
Management Controls a.
Technical Specification 5.1.1 assigns responsibility for assuring that the radiological environmental monitoring program is conducted in accordance with Section 3.2 of the Environmental Technical
.
.
.
.
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-348/78-30 and 50-364/78-18 I-2 Specifications.
Responsibility was assigned to organizations and individuals for the maintenance and operation of sampling stations and the collection of samples for submittal to contractors for analysis.
b.
Technical Specification 5.3.3 provides for audits of the activities performed in the Environmental Monitoring Program.
Licensee audit reports for 1977 and 1978 were reviewed and determination made that established procedures provide a system of teporting audit results to management and supervision and a system for followups to determine that corrective action is completed.
5.
Quality Control of Analytical Measurements Section 5.5.1 of the Technical Specifications refers to requirements for quality control provisions.
The radiological environmental monitoring samples have been analyzed under contracts with Eberline Instrument Corporation and the University of Georgia Geochronology Laboratory. The contractors furnish information to the licensee on quality control of their analytical measurements which was reviewed by the inspector with no further questions. The licensee's quality assurance group has audited the contractor laboratories and the inspector reviewed the results of these audits with no further questions. In addition, the inspector reviewed schedules for audits of the environmental monitoring program and had no further questions.
6.
Implementation of the Environmental Monitoring Program a.
Section 3.2.1 and Table 3.2.2 of the Technical Specifications contains requirements for the implementation of the radiological environmental monitoring program, including sample locations, sampling frequency and sample analysis. Section 5.6.1 contains requirements for reporting the results of the environmental monitoring program.
The inspector reviewed licensee reports and dete rmined that required reports apparently have been submitted on schedule with required content. The review also revealed that requirements for sampling locations, frequencies and analysis have apparently been met within variables accommodated by the Technical Specifications.
The only anomalous results revealed by the inspection have involved Chinese testing and follow-up by the licensee on these has been apparently satisfactory.
The licensee's system for plotting biases or trends was reviewed and the inspector had no further questions in this area.
b.
Nine of ten air particulate and charcoal filter monitoring stations were inspected along with associated TLD stations. The stations were found to be operating and the TLD's intact and apparent good condition. The inspector pointed out to licensee representatives that inleakage of air l
!
,
.
.
RII Rpt. Nos. 50-348/78-30 and 50-364/78-18 I-3 to the particulate and charcoal filter holders inside the cabinets resulted in sampling the cabinet atmosphere rather than outside as intended. The inspector also pointed out that the cumulative timers on two stations were not operating properly and that the vacuum pumps at two stations were exhausting inside the station cabinets.
Licensee representatives stated that the observed problems would be corrected.
The inspector re-inspected one nearby station on November 17, 1978, and found that corrective measures in progress fo'r the cabinet air inleakage problem were effective in that placement of a gasket around the sample holder assures sampling of the outside atmosphere. These problem areas were described by the inspector during the exit interview and assurance receiv-d from licensee representatives that corrective measures would be completed in a timely manner. Licensee representatives informed the inspector that corrective action was in progress as of the exit int e rview.
A licensee representative informed the inspector by telephone on November 29, 1978 that all corrective action had been completed except the venting of the two vacuum pumps outside the cabinets.
He said that equipment was being obtained to exhaust the pumps outside the cabinet.
The inspector informed licensee representatives during the exit interview that the above described problems with air monitoring stations would be considered an unresolved item (348-78-30-01, 364-78-18-01). This item will be reviewed on a subsequent inspection.
c.
The inspector reviewed radiological environmental procedures and revisions and observed the method of collection of air particulate and charcoal filters, reviewed records of flow calibrations for air monitoring stations and records of the census of milk producing animals and vegetable gardens, inspected various other solely TLD stations and forage sample plots, inspected one composite water sample station downstream of Farley Nuclear Plant and inspected the meteorological tower for operability of instrumentation and placement of sensors on the tower with respect to the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 23.
Satisfactory resolution was obtained for any questions raised by the above inspection effort.
7.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (shown in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on November 17, 1978 at Farley Nuclear Plant.
The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
l l
l r