IR 05000282/1979017
| ML19209A841 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 08/21/1979 |
| From: | Essig T, Oestmann M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19209A835 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-282-79-17, 50-306-79-14, NUDOCS 7910050469 | |
| Download: ML19209A841 (6) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION S
OFFICE OF INSPECTION ANT) ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Repott No. 50-282/79-17; 50-306/79-14 Docket No. 50-282; 50-306 License No. DPR-42; DPR-60 5.i,censee : Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet Hall Minneapolis, MN 55401 Facility Name: Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Prairie Island Site, Red Wing, MN Northern States Power Company Corporate Headquarters, Minneapolis, MN Inspection Conducted: July 12-13 and 17, 1979 8 :fM D Inspector:
1. J. Oestmann A
'
Approved By:
T. H. Essig, hief 8 D Environmental and Special Projects Section Inspection Summarv:
Inspection on July 12-13 and 17, 1979 (Reports No. 50-282/79-17; 50-306/79-14)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of environmental pro-tection for Units 1 and 2, including a review of administration and procedural controls; quality assurance and control in sampling and ana-lytical measurements; implementation and results of nonradiological environmental monitoring program; review of Environmental Event Reports.
The inspection involved 14 inspector-hours onsite by one h7C inspector.
Results: Of the five areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in three areas; one apparent item of non-compliance (infraction - neutralizing tank batch release with pH less than 6.5 - Paragraph 5) was identified in one area, and a second apparent item of noncompliance (infraction - failure to count and report the fish lost due to impingement - Paragraph 6) was identified in a second area.
.
1127 114 7910050(fQ(
(
.
.
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
- F.
P. Tierney, Jr., Plant Manager
- A. Hunstad, Staf f Engineer
- J.
Linville, Plant Chemist
_
- D. Schuelhe, Superintendent, Radiation Protection R. Lindsey, Operations Supervisor
.
- J.
Bechthold, Administrator, Environmental Sciences, Environmental and Regulatory Activities Department (ERAD)
L. Eberley, Supervisor, Ecological Studies
- B.
Clark, Administrator, Radiation Environmental Monitoring Program Nuclear Support Services, (NSS)
- L. Mayer, Manager, Nuclear Support Services (NSS)
The inspector also interviewed several other licensee employees including members of the security force, ERAD staff, and general otfice personnel.
- denotes those present at plant exit interview on July 13, 1979.
- denotes those present at corporate exit interview on July 13, 1979.
- denotes a phone contact with corporate management on July 17, 1979.
Other Personnel S. Gustafson, Biologist, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2.
Licensee Action on Previous In'pection Findings s
a.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (282/75-16, 77-18, 78-08, 78-22 and 306/75-13, 77-14, 78-10, 78-22): Necessity for the licensee to justify all operations with cooling tower blowdown flow greater than 150 cfs on the basis of monitoring thermal discharges within Environmental Technical Specification limits. The licensee has submitted data to the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) for evaluation in order to determine and clarify blowdown flow rate limits for the plant, and is currently dealing with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA),
under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) concerning these limits.
b.
(Open) Unresolved Item (282/77-02, 77-18, 78-08, 78-22 and 306/77-02, 77-14, 78-10, 78-22):
Inability of the thermal monitoring system to monitor all flow rates. Data have been
.
provided to NRR for evaluation with the blowdown flow rate evaluation.
This item is also being reviewed by the MPCA with respect to the NPDES.
The licensee is considering an alteration-2-1127 115
.
.
.
of the intake design to avoid recycling thermal discharges and
.
other effects.
These two open items remain unresolved at the present time and will be examined during a future inspection.
3.
General
~
This inspection consisted of an examination of the licensee's admini-strative and procedural controls; implementation and results of the nonradiological environmental monitoring and effluent control program;
~
and quality assurance and quality control in sampling and analytical measurements.
The inspector utilized the licensee's Appendix B, Environmental Technical Specifications for the nonradiological environmental program as the primary inspection criteria.
4.
Management and Procedural Control System The licensee's management and procedural controls for conduct of the
.
nonradiological environmental monitoring programs and the nonradio-logical effluent control program were examined during this inspection.
The nonradiological environmental monitoring program is under the responsibility of the licensee's Environmental and Regulatory Activities Department (ERAD).
The Supervisor of the Ecological Studies in ERAD has the responsibility for assuring that samples are collected according to a required frequency.
The frequency of samples collected, sample location, sampling method and data to be used, are contained in the licensee's document "QA/QC for Environ-mental Monitoring and Ecological Studies," dated December 20, 1977.
The inspector noted that the plant staff is responsible for the nonradiological effluent control program.
The plant staff collect fish impinged on the plant travelling screens for analysis by the ERAD field staff, and the Minnesota State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) both collects and performs analyses of the Mississippi River Fishery. A licensee contractor, Texas Instruments, Tnc., has been retained for analysis of benthic macroinvertebrate samples.
Consultants from the University of Wisconsin in River Falls conduct the terrestrial plant community studies and special studies in bird mortality due to striking transmission lines.
Another consultant from the University of Wyoming at Laramie performed the special studies concerning vegetation of the site.
.
-3-112/
116
.
No apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Implementation of the Nonradiological Effluent Control Program The inspector examined the following licensee's plant procedures and corresponding data sheets for CY 1978 and 1979 to date.
a.
PINGP 368 Rev.1
" NPDES Cold Chemistry Laboratory Weekly Data Sheet"
-
b.
PINGP 367 Rev.1
" NPDES Hot Chemistry Laboratory Weekly Data
Sheet" c.
PINGP 404 Rev.0
" Neutralizing Tank Release" d.
PINGP 149 Rev. 10
" Neutralizing Tank Release Permit" e.
PINGP 81 Rev. O
" Neutralizing Tank Discharge, Weekly Report" f.
PINGP 112 Rev. I
" Neutralizing Tank Effluent Report" g.
PINGP 113-A Rev. 1 " Steam Generator Blowdown" h.
PINGP 45 Rev. I
" Environmental Event Log" These procedures were found to be comprehensive and current. Except for the licensee's Environmental Event Reports discussed below.
The data sheets revealed that the effluents were maintained within the required limits in Appendix B, Environmental Technical Specifications.
The inspector reviewed the daily computer printout on thermal dis-charges, Procedure PINGP 45, and thermal effluent reports in order to verify compliance with the limits of temperature differential of 5F of the circulating water, discharge rate of temperature differential of 5F per hour, temperature differential of 35F across the condenser, cooling tower blowdown in excess of 150 cfs, and Environmental Event Reports (EER).
The inspector reviewed environmental event logs which verified that the licensee had reported properly.
No missing data were noted in this examination.
Review of data sheets for chlorination pH, suspended solids, corrosion inhibitors and other chemicals revealed no unusual results or trends except for one occasion on March 25, 1979, in which the pH of a neutralizing tank batch discharge was out of specification. The licensee inadvertently discharged the neutralizing tank batch with a pH of 3.34 due to improper operation of the pH monitor on the effluent.
The inspector discussed this problem with licensee representatives and found during a plant tour that the licensee had taken adequate corrective action to prevent recurrence of this event and submitted the required EER-79-02. This event represents normompliance with Appendix B Technical Specification 2.4.3.
.
-4-112/ Ii7
.
.
.
6.
Implementation of the Nonradiological Environmental Monitoring
,
Program The inspector examined the licensee's 1978 Annual Report on Environ-mental Monitoring and Ecological Studies Program. This program incorporated changes to the ecological monitoring program made in 1977 based on an evaluation of program results in accordance with Appendix B Technical Specification 4.4.1.
This review of the 1978 program results revealed no unusual trends or anomalous results.
_
In a review of the 1978 fish impingement data and 1978 Annual Report,
'
the inspector observed that the licensee did not count the impinged fish collected in the trash basket during the second and fourth weeks of January 1978 as required in Appendix B Technical Specifi-cation 3.3.
The inspector discussed this problem with licensee representatives and determined the licensee had taken prompt cor-rective action. This failure constitutes an apparent item of non-compliance.
7.
Licensee Environmental Event Reports (EER)
The inspector reviewed EER's from 79-01 through 79-05.
EER's 79-01, 79-04, and 79-05 reported daily average blowdown flow rates in excess of 150 cfs for March through June 1979. The inspector selec-tively examined Procedure PINGP 45 data sheets and the daily computer printouts in order to verify compliance with the thermal and blow-down requirements of Appendix B, Technical Specifications. A review of the environmental event logs verified that the licensee reported properly.
In addition, the inspector discussed EER 79-03 with licensee representatives, in which the gate structure at the upstream edge of the discharge canal was under water from April 24 through May 2 making it impossible to control or measure blowdown flow.
This report was properly submitted by the licensee.
Review of EER 79-02 revealed that the licensee discharged a waste neutralizing tank batch with a pH of 3.34 at 27 C on March 25, 1979.
This item was discussed in Paragraph 5.
The licensee reported that the pH of the water discharged at the c"*' 11 did have a value within specification.
Corrective act;
.aken by the licensee was reviewed and appeared to be adequate. The inspector has no further questions regarding this item.
8.
Control of Quality in Analytical Measurements The inspection included a review of licensee activities to control quality in analytical meastcements performed pursuant to Appendix B,
-
Technical Specifications in effluent release limits.
Chemical and thermal monitoring instrumentation used were examined, as were-5-1127 118
.-
.
schedules, procedures and results of instrumentation functional
,
checks and calibrations. No apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
Exit Interviews The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at an exit interview at the plant on July 13, 1979, and at the
~
licensee's corporate office on July 13, 1979, and by phone with the licensee's management on July 17, 1979. The inspector discussed the
~
purpose and scope of the inspection and the inspector's findings.
Licensee representatives at the plant and corporate headquarters made the following responses to the items discussed:
Acknowledged that the pH of the neutralizing tank batch was a.
less than 6.5.
(Paragraphs 5 and 7)
b.
Acknowledged that the fish impinged during the second and fourth weeks of January 1978 had not been reported in the 1978 Annual Environmental Monitoring Report.
(Paragraph 6)
.
-6-1127 iI9