ML18348A864

Letter Response to IE Inspection Report 05000255/1977001

ML18348A864
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	03/07/1977
From:	Bixel D Consumers Power Co
To:	James Keppler NRC/IE, NRC/RGN-III
References
IR 1977001
Download: ML18348A864 (2)

Text

consumers

• Power \R\egulatory Docket File company General Offices: 212 West Michigan Avenue, Jackson, Michigan 49201

• Area Code 517 788-0550 March 7, 1977 Mr James G Keppler Office of Inspection & Enforcement Region III US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL . 60137 DOCKET 50-255 - LICENSE DPR PALISADES PLANT - CITATION RESPONSE This letter is written to explain action taken with respect to two apparent infractions reported in your IE Inspection Report 050-255/77-01. This re-port was transmitted by letter dated February 10, 1977. The stated infrac-tion and our response follow below:

• Infraction Contrary to Sections 3.9.9 and S-1.l of the Technical Specifications, plant discharge temperature increases greater than 5°F and/or effluent heat rate greater than 0.5 billion Btu/h were exceeded on fifteen occasions during the period May 7 through December 2, 1976.

Response

On February 23, 1977 we had the opportunity of discussing this problem in detail with members of your staff. In brief, we have had a package of pro-posed Technical Specifications under review by NRR for some time and our recent contacts with them indicate that this package is now receiving a final review. We are confident that this review will find the proposed changes acceptable. We are also confident that the proposed changes will resolve problems we have had with the discharge temperature limit.

Infraction Contrary to Section 3.9.6 of the Technical Specifications, total chlorine discharged to the lake exceeded 0.02 ppm on November 30, 1976.

Response

This event was reported by letter dated December 10, 1976 (ER-76-41)

• Since that time we have conducted a review of the event.

2

• As pa.rt of the review, the actual "chlorine demand 11 of the dilution water was determined. With this information available, the actual chlorine *discharged was recalculated. The results of this calculation demonstrated that the Technical Specifications limit had not been exceeded.

We regret that the review had not been completed at the time the event was reported or at the time of your inspection. This information will be avail-able for your review during your next inspection.

David A Bixel (Signed)

David A Bixel Nuclear Licensing A&ninistrator