IR 05000266/1987006
| ML20212N347 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1987 |
| From: | Hueter L, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212N334 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-266-87-06, 50-266-87-6, 50-301-87-06, 50-301-87-6, NUDOCS 8703120452 | |
| Download: ML20212N347 (8) | |
Text
--
_ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l
. *.
,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
REGION III
Reports No. 50-266/87006(DRSS);50-301/87006(DRSS)
Docket Nos. 50-266; 50-301 Licenses No. DPR-24; DPR-27 Licensee: Wisconsin Electric Power Company 231 West Michigan Milwaukee, WI 53201 Facility Name:
PointBeachNuclearPlant(PBNF)
Inspection At:
Point Beach Nuclear Plant; Units 1 and 2 Two Rivers, Wisconsin Inspection Conducted:
February 17-20, 1987 d
q.,LL 3/#/#7 Inspector:
L. J. Hueter Date f/.A$kMW g/9/n Approved By:
M. C. Schumacher, Chief Date Inspection Summary Inspection on February 17-20, 1987 (Report No. 50-266/87006(DRSS);
No. 50-301/8/006(DR55))
Areas inspected:
Routine announced inspection of gaseous and liquid radioactive programs including:
effluent releases, records and reports of effluents; procedures for controlling releases; effluent control instrumentation, changes to egui) ment; air cleaning system surveillance; reactor coolant chemistry /radioclemistry and secondary system integrity; audits and appraisals; and staffing, training and qualification effectiveness.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
0703120452 B70349 PDR ADOCK 05000266 O
_
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted 1F.Flentje,AdministrativeSpecialist 1T. Fredrichs, Radiochemist 3D. Johnson, Project Engineer, NPERS IJ. Knorr, Regulatory Engineer, EQRS P. Kurtz, Engineer, Nuclear 3E. Lipke, General Superintendent, NPERS M. Moseman, Specialist Nuclear 1J.Reisenbuchler,ecialIst, Nuclear 2R. Neustadter Sp
, Superintendent,EQRS 10. Schoon, Licensing Engineer T. Slack, Specialist, Nuclear 1,4J. Zack, Manager, PBNP 1R. Hague, NRC Senior Resident Inspector R. Leeman, NRC Resident Inspector The inspector also contacted other plant staff during this inspection.
1 Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2 Tele hone conversation on February 24, 1987.
3 Tele hone conversation on February 24, 1987.
4 Tele hone conversation on February 27, 1987.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Open Item (266/85023-01; 301/85022-01):
Licensee to submit an errata to the semiannual effluent report for the first half of 1985 to correct the erroneous gaseous effluent data reported for the month of June and for the semiannual totals.
The appropriate corrections were submitted as an errata attached to the semiannual effluent report for the last half of 1985 which was dated February 28, 1986.
3.
Gaseous Effluents The inspector reviewed selected records of sampling and analysis of gaseous effluents as well as the semiannual effluent reports for the last half of 1985 and both balves of 1986.
The pathways sampled and analyses performcJ appear to Comply With the requirements of Technical Specification Table 15.7.6-2.
Since the last gaseous and liquid radsaste inspection in December 1985, Unit 1 had a refueling outage in the Fall of 1986.
Each unit is now refueled annually.
The licensee is switching over to an " optimized" fuel which should extend refueling intervals to 18 months.
Unit 1 core and Unit 2 core are currently comprised of about 46% and 65% of the new fuel type, respectively.
_
.
During this review period, elevated levels of both gross activity and dose equivalent I-131 concentration in the primary coolant of bothunits(morepronouncedinUnit1)wasevident. Apparent reasons for the elevated levels have been two fold, residual tramp uranium and current fuel cladding failures.
The tramp uranium in the primary system of both units is the residJal uranium Contamination resulting from more significant fuel cladding problems back in the early to mid-1970's.
Most of the recent fuel cladding problems have been attributable to some vibrational wear on certain fuel rods in the outer ring of fuel in the coreduetoaphenomenoncalled"bafflejetting." A modification to thebafflejointdesignedtoeliminatethisproblem,ificationisplanned was made for Unit 2 during the recent refueling outage and a similar mod for Unit 1 during the refueling outage scheduled to begin in early March 1987.
During this review period, on two occasions following Unit 1 shutdown, the dose equivalent I-131 concentration of primary coolant exceeded one uCi/gm for several hours.
Following a scheduled shutdown on July 11, 1986, the dose e of 1.30 uCi/gm) quivalent I-131 concentration exceeded one uCi/gm (maximum for about a 14.7 hour8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> period.
Following a reactor trip on November 17, 1987, the dose equivalent I-131 concentration exceeded one uCi/gm (maximum of 2.67 uCi/gm) for about an eight hour period.
Analysis of these events were documented in Excursion Reports VI 86-09 and UI 86-13 respectively.
Samples were collected and analyzed on a timely basis.
The licensee plans to identify and remove leaking fuel rods during the Unit 1 refueling outage.
Three leaking fuel rods were identified and removed during the recent Unit 2 refueling outage.
Although 3rimary coolant activity has been somewhat elevated, noble gas releases lave been maintained at very low levels.
Noble gas releases were quantified at only 9.8 Ci and 18.0 Ci for the first and lasts halves of 1986 respectively for both units combined.
A review of last half of 1986 noble gas release totals showed the following approximate inputs containment venting, 60%; auxiliary building vent, 23%; g%; and gas as decay tanks, 7%;ipper,4%. drumming area vent (including spent fuel pool area) 6 str Activity in gaseous effluents were less than one percent of applicable annual RETS limits.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Liquid Effluents The inspector reviewed selected records and procedures associated with radioactive liquid releases and the semiannual effluent reports for 1986.
The pathways sampled and analyses performed were compared with the requirements of Technical Specification Table 15.7.6-1.
Liquid releases, both batch and continuous, are discharged by one of three monitored pathways to the circulating water discharge which in turn discharges to the lake.
The three monitored pathways are the retention pond effluent (including sewage treatment plant effluent and turbine
- s
.
.s
\\
,
building floor drains), the Unit 1 service water return, and the Unit 2 service water return (including their respective steam generator blowdown, the four CVCS monitor, tanks, and the two waste distillate tanks).
Releases via the service water are also typically monitored upstream before dilution with the service water.
Quantification of liquid releases is based on analyses of samples collected from each batch before release and samples collected twice weekly from continuous release paths.
Activity (excludingtritium)inliquideffluentshascontinuedtodecline from about 1.9 Ci total in 1985 to 0.85 Ci total in 1986.
The last half of 1986 accounted for only about 18 percent of the 1986 total.
This indicates good use of liquid waste processing systems.
Tritium (which can not be removed by processing) releases seem to have stabilized at about 800 Ci total per year for the last two years.
Activity in liquid effluents were less than one percent of applicable annual RETS limits except for tritium which was about four percent.
s s
The licensee continues quarterly tritium analyses of samples collected from four different locations in the subsoil system drains.
The most recentdatareported(secondquarterof1986),hadconcentrationsbelow MDA at two locations and concentrations of 6.2 E-7 and 3.7 E-7 uCi/cc at the other two locations.
After declining for several years the release rate via this pathwayseemstohavestabilizedatabout3$-2 curies per calendar quarter.
From review of semiannual effluent reports and discussion with licensee representatives it was learned that beginning in December 1983, the
'
licensee made six land applications of contaminated sludge from aeration ponds and aerobic digester in the onsite sanitary sewage treatment facility.
The sludge, actually a slurry of about three percent solids, was spread on licensee owned land and mixed into the top foot of soil by plowing.
The land has been leased to farmers with restrictions limiting land usage for hay and other crops not used directly for human consumption.
The six applications involved a total of approximately 300 uCi in 100,000 gallons of slut.y with an average isotopically weighted concentration of about three percent of the unrestricted area release limit of 10 CFR 20.106.
Individual applications ranged from about two to ten percent of this limit.
Identified isotopes included chromium-51, manganese-54 cobalt-58, cobalt-60, cesium-134, and
'
The radioactivity is presumed to have come from sanitary facilities, including controlled area showers, and to have been concentrated by bacterial action in the sewage facility.
Licensee representatives stated that analyses of liquid input to and effluents from the sewage facility have failed to detect radioactivity.
The sewage facility liguid effluent flows to a retention pond that is part of an ODCMrecognizedreleasepathwaysubjecttomonitoring.
_
_
.
s
-
-
According to licensee representatives, the dis)osals were made in accordance with Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES)
permit WI-000957-3 at onsite locations selected with the assistance of the issuing agency.
However, no request was made #cr NRC approval of the disposal method pursuant to 10 CFR 20.302, nor was the method considered a facility change in the context of 10 CFR 50.59(a)(1).
Neither the sewage facility nor sludge disposal appear to be addressed in the FSAR, the plant technical specifications or the ODCM.
Licensee representatives indicated their belief that their actions were in compliance with regulatory requirements inasmuch as they met the requirements of 10 CFR 20.203 for disposal to a sanitary sewer system and their subsequent disposition of sludge was consistent with measures that would be taken by any operator of a sanitary sewage system.
They also stated that a radiological evaluation performed by them in 1985 indicated that direct radiation from the disposal areas and ingestion of meat and milk from cows grazed exclusively on these areas would result in annual doses much less than one millirem.
The licensee's sludge disposal practice was discussed during the exit and during subsequent telephone conversations. Whether the licensee practice is consistent with regulatory requirements or in noncompliance for failure to submit a 10 CFR 20.203 a) plication or for failure to perform a 10 CFR 50.59(b) evaluation under tiese circumstances is considered an unresolved item.
(Unresolved Item 266/87006-01;301/87006-01).
Longertermmodificationsareplannedinconjunctionwithconstruction of a north side service building and renovation of the south side service building (about a two year project), to route drains from showers and hand washing sinks to the radwaste system instead of to the sanitary system.
It is presumed that this will eliminate or greatly minimize the i
current, albeit small, source of activity.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Effluent Control Instrumentation The inspector reviewed calibration records and set points for the following monitors with no problems being noted:
Unit 1 and Unit 2 containment purge exhausts; drumming area vent stack; auxiliary building CVCS monitor tanks outlet monitor; waste distillate tanks vent stack; tor; and Unit 1 and Unit 2 service water monitors.
outlet moni Calibrations were 3erformed at technical specification required frecuencies.
Cali) rations and alert and alarm setpoint methodologies are as cescribed in the ODCM.
Alert setpoints are normally set to alarm at two times established steady-state readings and are intended to identify changing plant conditions which may need corrective action.
The alarm setpoints of both noble gas and liquid effluent monitors are set to alarm at or below the point where calculated concentrations at the nearest unrestricted area reaches 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II limits.
No violations or deviations were identified.
.
6.
Changes to Equipment and Procedures Changes and additions to equipment since the last gaseous and liquid radwaste inspection include six (versus one previously) desk-top computer terminals connected to a central computer for use by various individuals who may perform effluent release calculations.
Also, a new waste gas analyzer which samples, analyzes, indicates and records oxygen and hydrogen concentrations from 11 plant locations has operated well.
Procedures in the Release Accountability Manual (RAM) have been revised and consolidated where appropriate as of January 1987.
Health physics calibration procedures were revised in March 1986 to reflect the ODCM methodologies.
A selective review of these procedures identified no problems.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Primary and Secondary Coolant Chemistry and Radiochemistry The inspector selectively reviewed the licensee's reactor coolant and secondary coolant chemistry and radiochemistry results for 1986 to determine compliance with technical specification requirements.
On the chloride, fluoride, gross beta gamma activity primary, system,pH, oxygen andiodine-131doseequivalentconcentrationdatawerereviewed.
Surveillances were performed on a timely basis and all remained well within the criteria except the iodine-131 dose equivalent concentration for Unit 1 on two occasion as discussed previously in Section 3.
On the secondary side, no significant leaks have been encountered in the condenser since the condensers were re-tubed with stainless steel tubes in November 1985 and May 1986 for Unit 2 and Unit 1 respectively.
The feedwater beaters and moisture separator reheaters were also refurbished with eainless steel for both units.
Primary to secondary leakage is also smas being about 0.22 gallons per day for Unit 1 which had a steam generator replacement several years ago and about 15.9 gallons per day for Unit 2 which has been sleeved.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Air Cleaning Systems Although technical specifications require only testing of control room filter systems, all systems are tested annually.
These systems, in addition to the control room energency ventilation, include the Technical SupportCenter(TSC),containmentpurge,containmentcleaningfilters, auxiliary building ventilation, drumming area ventilation and combined airejectorvent.
In place testing included D0P testing and freon testing of HEPA filters and charcoal adsorbers, respectively.
Laboratory testing l
involves testing of samples from charcoal adsorbers for methyl iodide l
l I
,
_. _ -
-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l
.
,
removal.
Testing is performed by a vendor.
Although the licensee, by procedure, allows somewhat less stringent criteria for filters not covered by technical specification, test data showed that all filters tested in 1986 met the more stringent technical specification criteria.
Testing was timely.
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Audits The inspector reviewed portions of two reports for audits conducted in 1986 and early 1987.
Only those portions of the audit reports which dealt with the gaseous and liquid radwaste programs were reviewed.
These two audits were Chemistry, Health Physics, and Radwaste Audit No. A-P-8601, conducted March 18-21, 1986, and Secondary System Chemistry Program Audit No. A-P-86-11, conducted December 15, 16, and 23, 1986 and January 9, 1987.
One finding was-identified related to the gaseous and liquid radwaste programs in each audit.
The review indicates that findings are being appropriately addressed on a timely basis.
An audit report was not yet available for an audit of gaseous and liquid radwaste releases conducted by corporate audit personnel the week before the inspection.
No violations or deviations were identified.
10.
Organization and Training One of the four chemistry specialists is responsible for sewage treatment water treatment and releases as well as quantification for the semiannualeffluentreports.
Informal cross training has been provided between this chemistry specialist and the radioactive waste supervisor who is responsible for solid radwaste activities.
Both of these individuals report directly to the radiochemist as do the chemistry technicians who perform analyses of samples of waste.
Actual eguipment operation for both processing and releasing effluent is accomplished by physics.y operators who have been cross trained and qualified in health auxiliar Staffing has been stable and personnel interviewed were knowledgeable of liquid and gaseous radwaste systems, procedures and their assigned responsibilities.
A recently developed lesson plan (in the approval stage) will provide at least eight hours of training to both chemistry specialists and chemistry technicians regarding the radioactive effluent release program.
No violations or deviations were i M ntified.
11.
Unresolved Items An unresolved item is a matter about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether it is an acceptable item, an open item, a deviation, or a violation.
An unresolved item is identified in Section 4.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.-_
-..
,
,
12.
Exit Interview The inspector summarized the scope-and findings of the inspection with licensee representatives (Section 1) at the conclusion of the ins)ection
-
on February 20, 1987, and in followup telephone discussions on Fe)ruary 24 1987.
The inspector discussed the likely informational content and 27, inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed of the by the inspector.during the inspection.
The licensee did not identify such documents or processes as proprietary.
,
t
- - _-.-
_
_-
.__
-..
.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ - _ _ -. -
.
-
.