ML17053A517

Responds to NRC 781109 Ltr Re Violations Noted in IE Insp Rept 50-220/78-15.Corrective Actions:Operating Procedure Changed for Flow Reversal & Calibr of Environ Radiation Monitors

ML17053A517
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	12/01/1978
From:	Lempges T NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP.
To:	Galen Smith NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
Shared Package
ML17053A513	List: ML17053A514 ML17053A517
References
NMP-1072, NUDOCS 7903220330
Download: ML17053A517 (8)

Text

1

~A 53 7 NIAGARA "UMOHAWK NWP-1072 NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION/300 CRIE BOULEVARD WEST, SYRACUSE, N.Y. 13202/TELEPHONE (315) 474-1511 Secembe/L 1, 1978 A,. Geo/Lge H. smith, chic(

. FueL FaeLLL+ and WatetuaQ Sa)e+ 8/tanch Unu."ed States NucLea/L Regulatory CommQ Ikon Regin I 691 Pmk Avenue G.ng o) Ptuusm, PA. 19406 RE: Bock& No. 50-220 In5pe~on Repo/Lt 78-15 Oea/L A,. SIIIith:

ThLb /Le(e/L5 W Che ~nspe~n conduced by A.. W. Shanbaky o(

yoIdL o)pce on Sepkebe/L 25-29, 1978, at Ae N~e hKLe Po~ NucLeuc S~n Unit >1. The, )oLLoeing /Lupoese5 a/Le submitted Co Ne aLLeged d~ed ~n Appenckx Lethe/L Stems o$ non-compLLance ae A o$ you/L dated November/L 9, 1978:

A. Section 3.2 and Table 3.2 of Appendix B (ETS) require, in part, that water samples from the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 intake, James A. FitzPatrick plant intake, and Oswego City water intake shall be collected and analyzed on a monthly basis for gamma emitters by germanium lithium detector spectroscopic analysis.

Contrary to these requirements, the analyses of the monthly lake water samples from the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 intake, the James A. FitzPatrick intake, and Oswego City water intake were inadequate in that the relatively high radiation background in the sample counting area, resulted in erroneous analytical results for several of months in 1977, including January, February, March, April, May, June, and July.

RESPONSE

Tkh Stem teu LdentLped by Che LLceneee and bubaequeefZy /Lepo/Lted Ln, Ae section o( ~

1977 AnnuaL Env~nme~ Ope/1atLng Repo/Lt. The appkicabLe

/Lepo/Ltks p/Le5ented beLoIo. Co/I/Lectue e)(mtiveLy achieved by Augu54 o$ 1977, We/ce(o/Le, fuLL compMmce hah a~n had been been achieved. TEA um po~ed out by We ~n5pecto/L du/Ling Che cou/L5e o$ We e~ ~que.

v ~gyp QS 3Q']

c4 Q

) t~

1l Age 2 r RESPONSE TO ITEM A (co~ued)

FMm Page, 2 o$ Che AnnuaL Env~nmentaL Oping RepoM:

6) Lake NatW -, TabLu 6, bA, 68 The, gJcoM b~, O~um and hWontium lcehuktb aJce patented Ln TabLe, b.

and pH and aoMh Gamma moWpic au~

data Le paehented me patented in TabLe, ba.

in TabLe, 6A Paepa~on in We pLant Labs and counting o$ aampLee after of,aampLab concent~on aeactoa Natw andean pLant combed auuLtedkn pooc anaLy&caL aeneLtLv~m. (he o$

~ aampLee tvwe tu.gh Ae env~nmenkxL Lab go< dampLe prtepumtion, cocmting on a, cLean GeLi ayaCem, and upgraded management co~oL con-

~buted to mme va4d anaLyau beginning each We Augment compoaMe.

B. Section 6.8.1 of the Technical Specifications requires, in part, that written procedures and administrative policies shall be es-tablished, implemented, and maintained. Plant Operating Procedures No. Nl OP-19 requires in part that, prior to the plant flow reversal, the station load be r'educed to 75/ capacity by adjusting reactor recirculation flow. Section 2.1.5, ETS requires, in part, that following a flow reversal, the discharge temperature shall not exceed the ambient lake temperature by more than 50 F two hours following flow reversal and thereafter.

Contrary to these requirements, prior to a flow reversal on January 3, 1978, the station load was not reduced to 75K capacity and during the flow reversal period on January 3 and 4, 1978, the discharge temperature exceeded the ambient lake temperature by more than 50oF for seven hours during the period from 2300 hours0.0266 days <br />0.639 hours <br />0.0038 weeks <br />8.7515e-4 months <br /> on January 3 through 0500 hours0.00579 days <br />0.139 hours <br />8.267196e-4 weeks <br />1.9025e-4 months <br /> on January 4.

RESPONSE

PLaet Ope/uzting Pmce~e N1-OP-19 addrcuau $ LoN aevetuaL oper>~on o$ Che ~cuLating tvatefc ayatem, efu'.ch ~ med Co prevent Che a~on

$ Mm intervcupted cooking Natn $ LoN, during.~cing at We ~stake a~n a~~e.

The, goto aev~aL opena~n <eq~as trapped opercatoa Co <educe meara poem and to manipuLate gatm in We smeenhouee; Che cedu~on W 75'eactoc pown m a guide. (ore Che opeuu.'oc Ntu.ch give turn a pw-jected heat Load foe elu'.ch Xhe pe aeveteaL ope cation smoo~y and aucmsafuLLy. The. 75'o LeveL mm no4 intended W be, We exact can be, conduced pet Jism etu.ch aLL opef~ons had to i~~e. The main patuvnetm e1u'.ch eQL dMeenure how much poem can be >>educed m She Cgpe o$ ice $ oen~on at We i~ke h~~e. FrcczLLe i.ce forums Imply eLth LittLe mvcning eharcem sLcuh i.ce m mme pae&ctabLe and noenaLEg a(focch mme ~e boa reaction. ~

The Operating Prcocedutce (ALL, be. changed Co rcefLect Mat We aequirced

~

pocus LeveL foe goe aev~aL m a guide vaLue; )uLL comp~nce tvLLL be,

~

~

achi,e.ved bg Jan~ 1, 1979.~

RESPONSE TO ITEh( 8 (co~nued)

~cage

~

~

The by moae Chan 50oF prt.evmueLy aepoMed CempMat'me exceeding Che Lake, ambLeet CempartatcUte a)gn Wo ho~ (oLLomng goe ceveuaL

~n Licensee Event RepoM LER 78-01.

~ been C. Section 5.5.1 of the Appendix 8 (ETS) requires, in part, that detailed written procedures including applicable checklists and instructions be prepared and followed for all activities involved in carrying out the environmental monitoring program. Procedures include sampling, data recording and storage, instrument calibra-tion, measurements, and analyses. Site procedure No. S-RTP-29, "Radiation Protection Technical and Analytical Procedures", requires, in part, that the environmental station radiation monitors shall be calibrated semi-annually. Section 3.2 (Table 3.2) of the ETS re-quires, in part, that gamma dose be continuously monitored by radiation monitors at nine onsite and one offsite locations.

Contrary to the above, one of the required onsite environmental station radiation monitors (location J) was not calibrated semi-annually during the period from July 12, 1977 to March 15, 1978.

RESPONSE

C~b~n og Che envktconmmtaL rue~on moeLtom 4u -been added We muted smveiL6xnce acheduLe. TEA schedule, Ln conjun~on

~ ~ ~

Co ectk Che "~kLe/t, PXe" Med by Che Mech'.caL a4x$ $ , eLM prcevmt ae; ~

occuhAence o$ CkQ Mem. Thee(owe, fuLL compliance has be,en achieved.

~ ~

D. Section 2.1.1 of Appendix 8 (ETS) requires, in part, that maximum gT across the main condenser during normal station operation shall be limited to 32 F. If during normal station operation the main condenser bT exceeds 32oF for a period of eight hours in any given 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period, the cause of this deviation shall be investigated and positive action shall be taken to reduce the LT to within the Specification. The temperatures at the main condenser inlet and in the screenwell bay (upstream from the discharge tunnel) shall be monitored by two RTD's in each location. The difference of these temperatures, F1, shall be computed. A hT~ of 31.2 F corresponds to the bT Specifscation of 32oF, because of the water in the screen-well bays is a mixture of main condenser cooling water and service water.

Contrary to these requirements, the aT> exceeded 31.2 F for nine hours on March 5, 1978, and positive action was not taken to reduce the aT to within the Specification.

RESPONSE

Se~on 2.1.1 foe exceeding

91. 2oF non a ~enioe2 o$ Appendix 8 (ETS) aLLourr4

+o ~elhi; hoon.o in ~an given 24 hovnpeu a,

-od .The'..

AT o$

undyed porn o$ Che speci.Pc~n cLevrZy 6~eh a peru.od o$

)

~

eight: hocuu and noC e01kt one horn peruach. The.

oM shoes holy

~eZanBi ng ~T ups exceeded onLy $ oa a, magnum o$

compMm p~

$ om conserve ho~ and, Chwe$ oce, Che apem.gin un'oC exceeded.

'Page, 4 ~

~

. RESPONSE TO ITEM 9 (continued)

I4 should be, $

specification Co bmng

~w nord toitMn Che bT Chat Che positive a~n aeqcurced by Che Che Limit Nab clearly noC neceeamy on Mph 5, since Ae LT em tvMhkn Che rceq~ed speci geatian Joe 15 o$

Ae 24 ho~ and moaC impo~etCy, aeactoe poem and ele~c output ae; mained co+5~ and Wm Che heat cej e~n to We condense and CheJte$ oae W We ~culling mates em noC changed dufcing CM 24 horn peu,od.

The, deviation )corn Che maxiJnum bT un'corn .1 Co .75oF and Che aveuxge aT Joe Che e~e day wm 30.29oF. A check o( shorn compute data on oWen, days in CRQ Co be consmCent ~ ~e peru'.od at 4he aame ceaeto<

We average foe Mmeh 5th.

poem Che ET

~g IC ~ assumed ~ a. pmblem e~Ced in Ae computation

~

kg~

$ ~n suba~~ed 4kQ pened mfu.ch caused anrconeouely high AT weadinga; by Che (act Chat'hen the Lunging bT'a me mathematieaLLy eaLeulated, She cas~ng i bT's me Loran and n fact only 7 homely bT'a exceed Che 31.2 F Meit. FuLL compLumce hah been

, achieved.

E. Section 5.6-.3 of Appendix B (ETS) requires, in part, that in the

. event a Specification limit or a report level is exceeded, a report shall be made within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> by telephone, telegraph, or facsimile transmission to the Director of the NRC Regional Office, followed by a written report within 10 days to the Director of the Regional Office (with a copy to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation).

Contrary to these requirements, neither a telephone nor a written report were made and submitted to the NRC as required when the Specification thermal discharge limit was exceeded on Harch 5, 1978.

RESPONSE

The aequircement Co submit a tcepoM in accordance eith Se~on 5.6.3 o$

Appendix 8 (ETS) dou noC apply Co Che ChervnaL dQeharcge on Mmeh 5, 1978 since Che speci.+cation Nae noC exceeded (see Patcagmph 9) .

Very ~y you)eh, Genome Supeu.ntendent Nucl~ Generation foe R.R. SchneidW Vic,e Pcuident-ELe~e Production