ML19322B781
| ML19322B781 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 06/09/1977 |
| From: | Parker W DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | Moseley N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322B776 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912050771 | |
| Download: ML19322B781 (2) | |
Text
y DUKE POWER COMPm
'O r e - ====> - -
422 Socin Cat acu Srazzr, Crunwriz. N. C. 2e242 wi w a
- o. ** aar a.sa.
June 9, 1977 VeCf Pats:0g et Tt6to cat:Asta 704 s
5,s.. peoovction 373 40e3 Mr. Norman C. Moseley, Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sui:e 818 230 Peachtree Street, Northwest Atlanta, - Georgia 30303 Re:
IE:II:CEA 50-269/77-5 50-270/77-5 50-287/77-5
Dear Mr. Moseley:
With regard to your letter of May 18, 1977, Duke Power Company does not consider information contained in IE Inspection Report 50-269, -270,
~287/77-5 to be proprietary.
Please find attached our response to Item I.
With regard to the commitment made in our response of November 16, 1977 to IE Inspection Report 50-269, -270, -287/76-10, the modification which will provide audible alarms to indicate excessive pH releases through the yard drain was implemented on June 1, 1977. The commitment had been inadvertently removed from our program for control of commitments when another modification of a similar nature was completed.
The modifica-tion to install the alarms was being implecented during this period, but due to the lack of a specific commitment date on our listing, a lower priority had been placed on the project.
The conditions leading to the failure to meet the original commitment date have been reviewed with appropriate personnel.
It is felt that this corrective action will prevent future occurrences of this incident.
Very ruly yours,
- o. -
- 40. J, illiam O. Parker, Jr LJB:ge Attachment
')
7
,moso 7
/
I RESPONSE TO IE INSPECTION REPORT 50-269
-270, -287/77-5 f
TD(. I Contrary to the requirements of Appendix 8 Technical Specification 1.2, the licensee failed to submit a written report to the Director of Region II within one week following telephone notification of the March 16, 1977 event in which the pH limit of Technical Specification 1.2.B was exceeded.
RESPONSE
As stated in our letter of April 15, 1977, this incident was initially con-sidered reportable.
The NRC was notified of the event on March 16, 1977 by telephone. Therefore, pursuant to Appendix B Technical Specification 1.2.B, the report should have been submitted by March 23, 1977. However, upon review of this incident, it was not considered to be reportable.
The basis for this determination was that when considering the dilution flow available from Keowee tailrace and the dilution water from the yard drain, the resulting pH in Lake Hartwell was within acceptable limits.
The NRC was appraised of this evaluation on March 23, 1977.
The incident was reviewed further on April 12, 1977. Appendix B Technical Specification 1.2.B stated at that time that all water discharged from the plant site shall have a pH between 6.0 and 8.5.
The plant site boundary is the Highway 183 bridge, and at this point it was determined that the discharge would have been diluted by Keowee tailrace to a pH of approximately 8.3.
However, by consulting the safety evaluation report written on July 19, 1974, which supported the Oconee Appendix B Technical Specification 1.2, it was stablished that the intended pH monitoring point was the yard drain prior to dilution by the Keowee tailrace.
Therefore a report of this incident was subsequently submitted on April 15, 1977.
On March 17, 1977, the NRC issued Amendments 39, 39 and 36 to Oconee Facility Operating License DPR-38, -47, and -55, respectively.
These amendments, in part, revised the common Oconee Nuclear Station Technical Specification to increase the upper limit for pH of water discharged from the station from 8.5 to 9.0.
The amendment specifically states that pH will be monitored at the point of release to Hartwell Reservoir.
It is considered that this revised wording will assure that Keowee tailrace dilution is neither included nor factored into plant discharge determination.
g
.s
-