IR 05000395/1978024
| ML19274C929 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 11/30/1978 |
| From: | Hufham J, Macarthur T, Peery W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19274C927 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-395-78-24, NUDOCS 7901050400 | |
| Download: ML19274C929 (5) | |
Text
.
.
.
UNITED STATES g** 8800 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[p
,o, REGloN ll
,
,
,
o
&
,y, 101 M ARIETT A STREET.N.W.
J
"
r ATLANT4. GEORGI A 30301
[
- p,s,*..../
Report No.-
50-395/78-24 Jocket No.:
50-395 License No..
CPPR-94 Licensee: South Carolina Electric and Gas Company
-
P. O. Box 764 Columbia, South Carolina 29202 Facility Name: Virgil C. Sumer Nuclear Station, Unit 1 V. C. Sumer Nuclear Station, Jenkinsville, South Carolina Inspection at:
Inspection conducted:
October 17-19, 1978 Inspectors:
T. C. MacArthur W. W. feery.
/MM 'g Reviewed by:
<m u u
,_
'Date
,
J. W. Hufham, Chief g~
[L,7 Environmental and Special Projects Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch Inspection Sumary Inspection on October 17-19, 1978 (Report No. 50-395/78-24)
Radiological environmental monitoring program including:
Areas Inspected:
management control, quality control of analytical measurements, inspection of environmental monitoring stations, review of environmental monitoring data, review of radiological environmental monitoring procedures, and implementation of the monitoring program. The inspection involved 44 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were idectified in the six Results:
areas inspected.
790105040
.
.
.
RII Rpt. No. 50-395/78-24 I-1 DETAILS I Prepared by:
h
//
f 76 W. W. Peery, Radi W1on Specialist
/Date Environmental and Special Projects Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch 9 'c W a, 4
~ /w /w T. C. MacArthur, Radiation Specialist Date Environmental and Special Projects Section Fuel Facility and Materials' Safety Branch Dates of Inspection; ~0ctober 17-19, 1978
//befff Reviewed by:
Jt4M(
, ou J. W. Hufham, Chief 7/
'Dafe Environmental and Spe'tTal Projects Section Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch 1.
Persons Contacted
- H. T. Babb, General Manager, Nuclear Operations
- 0. S. Bradham, Maintenance Supervisor
- V. R. Baehr, Health Physicist and Environmental Coordinator
- K. Beale, Health Physics Supervisor
- H. Donnelly, Site Quality Assurance Coordinator C. J. Zimmerman, Dames & Moore
- Denotes those present during the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings This was the initial inspection of the radiological environmental monitoring program, therefore, no previous inspection findings in this area were pending.
3.
Unresolved Items No unresolved items were identified during this inspection.
4.
Management Control Management controls were reviewed by the inspectors with respect to overall adequacy and specific management responsibility for radio-logical protection. Management controls in this area were found to be with..n acceptable standard industr, practices. T'ere were no further questions in this are *
.
.
.
RII Rpt. No. 50-395/78-24 I-3 sample media, ranging from six months to two years. These appeared reasonable. A licensee representative informed the inspector that the preoperational radiological environmental monitoring program will be completed as described in the FSAR.
The inspector pointed out this commitment during the management exit interview.
b.
The licensee currently has a contract with Dames and Moore, Atlants, Georgia to collect many of the samples and licensee personnel collect the remainder. The inspectors observed the collection of fish samples from the Monticello Reservoir during this inspection and found the equipment and system employed to be effective. The inspectors inspected the '.icensee's air particulate and charcoal filter stations with associated TLDs and ether solely TLD stations as well.
The air particulate and charcoal filter equipment and TLDs all appeared to be in good condition and protected within locked, high, industrial type fencing.
A licensee presenta-tive stated that during preliminary operation of the air m..itoring equipment a problem was experienced with air flow back-pressure causing some pump failures.
He stated that the air flow problem had been corrected and no further problem with this equipment is anticipated.
He stated that the air sampling equipment will be activated in November 1978 to collect one year of data prior to operating license stage. The inspector confirmed this under-standing during the management exit interview.
The air sampling and TLD stations were rtrategically located in relation to Summer Unit 1 and as described in the FSAR.
The inspectors also observed spare parts available for the air monitoring stations and they were informed by a licensee representative that the spare equipment will be transported during sample collections to restore malfunctioning units in the field.
Inspection of the equipment and procedures employed in the environmental TLD program revealed a p: gram of apparent high quality. The inspectors observed the equipment to be used to sample the Columbia, South Carolina drinking water supply. The installed equipment will be inspected during the next inspection.
The status of the licensee's records of the results of the preoperational radiological environmental monitoring program were reviewed by the inspectors and the determination made that the data had not been compiled into a format similar to Table 11.6-7 of the FSAR. This will be reviewed at the time of the next
, inspection. The inspectors reviewed trend plotting done with some
.- of the data.
Licensee procedures for the radiological environmental monitoring program were reviewed and comments by the inspectors e
were acknowledged by a licensee representative. The piocedures
l were not complete and had not been organized into a complete unit such as an overall manual for the radiological environmental
<
monitoring program. A licensee representative indicated that the procedures will be completed in a timely way. The procedures will be reviewed at the time of the next inspection. This area of incompleteness was pointed out by the inspector during the management exit intervie.
.
.
RII Rpt. No. 50-395/78-24 I-2 5.
Quality Control of Analytical Measurements The licensee analyzes the samples from the radiological environmental monitoring program in a facility located off the Summer site near Parr, South Carolina. A licensee representative stated that comparative measurements have been made with the EPA and that more of these are planned as well as comparative measurements with the State of South Carolina. The licensee representatives also indicated that other quality control measures such as duplicate sample analysis, recounting, spiked samples and intralaboratory comparisons will be employed.
Saction 6.1.5 of the FSAR states that experience gained through the use of analytical procedures and quality control reviews provides the basis for appropriate analytical modifications. The licensee laboratory participated in the Third International Intercomparison of Environ-mental Dosimeters.
The licensee representative stated that an audit of the program by Quality Assurance personnel will be arranged as soon as the overall program is more nearly complete, including procedures.
The status of the program for quality control will be reviewed at the time of the next inspection.
6.
Implementation of the Preoperational Environmental Monitoring Program a.
The licensee's construction permit for Summer, Unit 1, CPPR-94, states in paragraph 2.El that the applicant will perform preopera-tional measurement of physical parameters to establish baseline conditions upon rhich possible adverse effects of the station can be evaluated.
Paragraph 2.E2 of CPPR-94 states that the applicant will submit a proposed operational environmental monitoring program for approval by the regulatory staff prior to the granting of an operating license.
Section 1.2.1.7 of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) for the Summer Nuclear Station states that an environ-mental radiological surveillance will be initiated prior to operation and continue subsequent to commencement of plant operation.
Section 11.6.4 of the FSAR states that the specific analyses of radiological environmental samples are presented in Table 11.6-4 with Table 11.6-6 indicating anticipated analytical detection sensitivities. The inspector compared Table 11.6-4, Amendment 3, dated March, 1978 with Table 6.1-15, Amendment 1, dated April, 1978, furnished to the inspector during this inspection, and found them to be essentially identical in content. The licensee representa-Live informed the inspector one. the program identified in the Tables is in fact that being pursued for the Summer Nuclear Station.
The inspector noted differer.ces in Table 21 of the Final Environmental Statement, dated January 1973 and Table 11.6-4 of the FSAR, however, these did not involve primary pathways to man and the program being conducted as identified in the FSAR, more nearly coincides with the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 4.8.
Table 11.6-5 of the FSAR describes the preoperational period of record for various
- .
.
.
.
.
.
RII Rpt. No. 50-395/78-24 I-4 7.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (shown in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on October 19, 1978 at the Summer Nuclear Station. The inspactors simarized the scope and findings of the inspections.
.