ML19225D097
| ML19225D097 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 06/22/1979 |
| From: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Burstein S WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| References | |
| TAC-07757, TAC-08173, TAC-7757, TAC-8173, NUDOCS 7908060542 | |
| Download: ML19225D097 (5) | |
Text
- *
- 20&
a *Ec
- p
'o UNITED STATES
[ V ; e.g g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
-[VU iR/~8
" -A, I WA SHINGTO N, D. C. 20555
/
%, ' v
- f June 22, 179 Docket Mos. 50-266 and 50-301 Mr. Sol Burstein Wisconsin Electric Power Company 231 West Michigan Street Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201
Dear Mr. Burstein:
In conducting our review of your September 21, 1978 request relating to changes to the rcn-radiological environmental monitoring Technical Specifications for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units No. I and 2, we have determined that we will need the additional information identified in the enclosure to continue the review.
In order for us to maintain our review schedule, your response is requested within 60 days af your receipt of this letter.
Three signed originals and forty copies are required.
Please contact us if you have any questions concerning this request.
Sincerely,
/
,MVAdd(/V A. Schwencer, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Operating Reactors
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc: w/ enclosure See next pagt I908060syz
>g 41o-Oi.il
.0 G
Mr. Sol Burstein Wisconsin Electric Power Company June 22,1979
- c:
Mr. Bruce Churchill, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Do.ument Department University of Wisconsin Stevens Point Library Stevens Point, Wisconsin 54481 Mr. Glen Reed, Manager Nuclear Power Division Point Beach Nuclear Plant Wisconsin Electric Power Company 231 West Michigan Street Milwaukee, Wisconsin 43201 416 0i2
Request For Additional Information Point Beach Nuclear Plant Proposed Environmental Technical Specification Changes 1.
NRC learned through the et2te of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources '. hat WEPCO plar.1 to redesign and modify the offshore intake crib for. the purposescof alleviating icing problems. Our review of the five-year operational monitoring program conducted at Point Beach will include an evaluation of the planned modifi-c a ti o r.s.
NRC will need tr.e following information relevant to the intake modifications to complete the review:
(a) Detailed plans and design information on the new intake crib, to include drawings, differences from the present intake cri6',
and the estimated intake velocities under normal and maximum water withdrawal conditions.
(b) The schedule of construction activities at the intake crib.
(c) The basis for changing the intake crib design and operation, along with an assessment of the impacts assosciated with con-struction and operation of the new crib.
(d) A description of the monitoring programs which will be under-taken to assess the impacts of construction and operation of the new crib.
2.
Examination of the impingement data at Point Beach revealed that large specimens of several fish species have been impinged, some on a regular basis.
Specimens as large as a 31 inch, 13.75 pound lake trout have been recorded in impingement samples. This is puzzling in view of the fact that the offshore intake crib 4i6 0i3 O
.. supposedly is designed with 13/16" x 2" bar grating on the intake ports to prevent large fish and debris frcm entering the structure.
Discussions with Wisconsin DNR rey 2aled that this phenomena is probably the result of lcrge spaces Between the rock; in the intake crib. This design and impingement impact potential is not specified.
in the FES and apparently is an unreviewed item by NRC, This design would appear to defeat the purpose of the bar gratings, In order to complete the analysis of the five-year operational monitoring program, NRC will need the following information:
(a) A description of the intake crib structure to include the sizes and extent of the spaces between the rocks through which large fishes pass and subsequently become i.mpinged.
(b) An analysis of the extent to which impingement would be reduced by plugging the spacas between the rocks and'thefefore. Withdrawing water only through the bar grated intake ports.
3.
During the first year of impingement monitoring (1973) WEPCO recognized that collecting impingement samples with a 3/4 inch mesh sluiceway-basket allowed many impir.ged small fishes to pass through the basket unrecorded. This was due to the smaller mesh size (3/8 incal of the traveling screens which caught small fishes. This discrepancy in sampling techniques was recognized by licensee early in the five-year program and by NRC which requested the use' of a 3/8 inch mesh sluiceway basket for sampling impinged fishes. A 3/8 inch mesh basket was not used on a full-time basis until the fif th and final year of impingement sampling. As a resalt, the first four years of sampling could have greatly underestimated the true impingement of fishes at Pcint Beach.
416 0i4
. 'In a letter dated October 14, 1976 i.om WEPC0 to NRC, licensee committed to adjust the first four years of impingement data to estimate what impingement losses would have been i.f the proper mesh size (3/8 inch) collection basket had been used, Licensee also committed to provide thi-. analysis in the five year summary report which was submitted to NRC in 1976. The report did not contain the
~
analysis.
Therefore provide the statistical adjustment of the first four years of impingement data, as requested 3y NRC.
4.
During the five-year study period ~, some species of cisco LCoregonusl considered to be endangered within Wisconsin were captured By gill net at Point Beach.
In response tu inouiries Sy NRC, licensee stated that it was probable that the fishes had been misident 'f#ed.
In a letter dated August 19, 1976 from WEPC0 to NRC, license. tated that the misidentification problem would b'e rectified and that all cisco of goestionable identity from both impingement samples and lake samples would be verified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
However, the results of the 1976-1977 sampling program reported 3 coregonids collected by seine and an estimated 442 impinged, all identified only to the genus level as in previous annual reports.
Provide the requested information on the identification of the core, gonids captured by seine and impingement during 1976-77.
5.
In view of items 1,2, and 3 above, indicate why intake and lake sampling should not be continued in ordar to provide accurate and quantitative data on the impacts of water withdrawal to Lake Michigan fishes in the Point Beach area.
416 0i5 O