IR 05000206/1986006
| ML20140B778 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 02/21/1986 |
| From: | Johari Moore, North H, Yuhas G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20140B776 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-206-86-06-MM, 50-206-86-6, 50-206-86-6-MM, 50-361-86-07, 50-361-86-7, 50-362-86-07, 50-362-86-7, NUDOCS 8603240505 | |
| Download: ML20140B778 (4) | |
Text
'
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
'
Report Nos.
50-206/86-06, 50-361/86-07 and 50-362/86-07 Docket Nos.
50-206, 50-361 and 50-362 License Nos.
DPR-13, NPF-10 and NPF-15 Licensee:
Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770
~ Facility Name:
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station - Units 1, 2 and 3 Inspection at:
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Inspection conducted:
February 6, 1986 Inspectors:
h/
_
11. S. North, Senior Radiation Specialist Da'te Sig'ned W
MfN J. T. Moore, Radiation Specialist Date Signed Approved By:
[d
G. 'P.
Yuhas, Chief Date' Signed
'
Facilities Radiation Protection Section Summary:
Meeting on February 6, 1986 (Report Nos. 50-206/86-06, 50-361/86-07 and 50-362/86-07)
Areas Inspected: Special, announced meeting with licensee representatives concerning their plans to reduce the quantity of radioactive material in liquids discharged from the site.
Inspection procedura addressed 84723.
The meeting involved three hours onsite by two inspectors and one Region V Management representative.
Results: No violations or deviations were identified in connection with the meeting.
8603240505 860307 PDR ADOCK 05000206 G
>
'
.
.
DETAILS 1.-
Persons' Contacted
.
.
J. T.-Reilly, Manager, Technical Division J. Wray, Senior Health Physicist,' Corporate
.
R. C. Douglas, Compliance Engineer G. T. McLandrich, Supervising Engineer NRC Representatives Present
!
.R.' A. Scars'no, Director, Radiation Safety and Safeguards Division, RV H. S. North, Senior Radiation Specialist
_J. F. Moore,-Radiation Specialist-2.
Background During an inspection conducted in May-June, 1984, (50-361, 50-362/84-12)
it was noted that the radioactive material' contained in liquid effluents from Units-2/3 significantly exceeded the values projected in the FSAR.
=An inspector followup Open Item (84-12-01) was generated to assure followup of this concern.. The rel~ eases were found to be in compliance Jwith the. applicable Technical Specifications and regulatory requirements.
An inspection conducted in January-February, 1985, (50-206/85-03, 50-361,
'50-362/85-02) noted with respect to the Open Item that the licensee had
' established a' project dedicated to the. reduction of liquid effluents'on February ~1, 1985. The licensee expected to have developed plans for a course of action to effect a reduction'in three months based principally-cn improved filtration techniques.
The disparity between.the actual and expected ~(FSAR) level of liquid effluents-was addressed again in the report ~of an inspection of liquids and. liquid wastes conducted in March-April. 1985-(50-206, 50-361/85-10,
-50-362/85-09).
On November 12, 1985, a meeting arranged by Mr.
J...B.' Martin,-Regional Administrator, Region V and Mr.' H. Ray, Vice President, SCE.was held in the Region V office to discuss the results of the licensee's investigative
^
efforts and plans for future actions.,_ The.information presented by the.
licensee was documented in an NRCsMemorandum to' File,._ dated November 21, 1985. At the meeting,~the licensee's representatives discus' sed the impact of
~
the Unit 3 fuel performance on liquid effluents, the establishment.of a joint Corporate / Site Task Force.to address the liquid. effluent releases
~
and the findings of-the initial Task Force which examined the-situation.
The licensee reported that:
a.
Due to the Unit.1 design little could be done to reduce effluents
- without a complete system redesign.
'b.
Problems identified at Units 2/3 included:
System design flaws.
i
w.
..,.
.
^-
.
.
,
' Organic (oil, etc.) and' dirt (floor drain) contamination of the
..
~'
' waste system.
r
+
F
,
c.
Steps taken to reduce-effluents had included a reduction in the test
~
.
frequency of the turbine stop valves which had produced-increased volumes of liquid waste.
r
,
d.
The second phase Task Force"was to address:
'
'
' Evaluation of improved filtering techniques;
,
A~ leakage reduction program to minimize liquid waste;
'
Evaluation of the use of the liquid waste evaporator; and
An ALARA cost / benefit of $5,000/manrem was to be used.
.
e.
The licensee had established as a goal for 1986 a 50% (20 Curie to 10 curie) Reduction in liquid effluents to be achieved through:
,w,
i
Better use of personnel; Better'use of equipment;
'*
.Use of improved techniques; and
,
,
. Raising-the level of awareness of the problem with SCE
.
'
management and staff.
~
r During the period covered'by the'above.summar'.the releases of liquid y
1 effluents from the San Onofre site were within Technical Specification'
'
and regulatory limits.-
t v
3.
. Meeting of February 6, 1986
,
N
'The licensees representatives reported'that a proposed plan'of action-nad been presented to Mr. H. Ray, Vice. President,cSCE,'and had been
'
- approved and funded.
It was noted that major system redesign and-modification, discussed during'ths. earlier-meeting, was'not being
' considered at this time, pending the-evaluation of-the effectiveness of
'
the proposed plan..The licensee's goal is a factor of two reduction in
- the activity of liquid effluents during 1986 (1985 total released 18.1 curies - 1986 go.1 9.1. curies).
The 'overall plan addressed four main topics. areas and identified the expected percent ~ reduction to be achieved through each area, a..
Improved system effectiveness through system modification at Units 2/3, overall goal 25%-reduction;
'
~
1)
Sump tank modifications to reduce ~ oil and dirt.
2)
Use of' flocking agent for Co 58-60 filtering.
3).
Use of Chemical Waste Tank for surge volume holdup.
,.
d
,
_ 7:
- ~
y
.
'
g.
n;
'
- g y
- q
,
=
,,
J
-
'y-
~
.c
~
-
'
.
..
- *"
,
~
<
.
=.b.
LReduction of foreign material' via an '" awareness" program, overall -
_ goal 10%.
'
~
C
_
'
'
11)
-Control of decontaminating' agents - Chemistry Department: review
. and approval of chemical agents used onsite.
-
-
,
,2)
~ Control'of oil or CCWJsaltwater leaks.
~
.3)-
Control,of hydrazine/ water.-
~
'
, _
.
.
.
.
.
, -
~
Lc.
- Procedure Improvemen'ts overall - 20%.
'
,
yA
.
'1): Eliminate' unnecessary chemistry limits -in -holdup; tanks.'(Unit 1 only).
,
'
d.
' Reduce Gene $ation: Rate overall - 6% Ehrough a lia'kage; reduction
.
'
'
-
program."-
'
-
,
.
.
M,
-The ^ 1icens'ee"had as' signed a high priority 't.o the IS uid effluent' activity ;
"
!
~
l
'
< reduction' p,rogram.. !A total of 39 action' items addressing all phases of'
,
_
- the' program;had been generated. ' As of the Task Force 4 January 31,.1986
.
Dnecting,?six,itemsjwere' completed,1four_ items were late;and 29 items s
' remained open?^With the exception of?two' items with April' 30,;1986^due'
fdates, all items.had scheduled due dates of March 31,.1986 or earlier.
"
'
,
,
.
'
l
= 1
....
..
.
...
.
.
' ' -
The.~ licensee had11ssued, effective January.13, 1986, Operations Division
,
-
Procedure S0123-0-34 Rev. 0,. Special Orders Number 86-02,' Subject:
Radwaste Processing-Guidelines.-. The procedure addressed-the ' goal (50%
reduction) and activity and procsssing guidelines:to limit releases'from
,
Units 2/3.
-
y v-
,
Based.on the. licensee's plans _,and. implementation to the date of the
~
meeting, the open; item relating to this matter is considered closed.
(50-361, 50-362/84-12-01,l Closed):
O A followup meeting ~to review the licensee's progressein this matter was
,
tentatively scheduled for April 1986.
>
-
\\
.
N
,
a s
d '
%
-.?_.
-.