ML20072L227
| ML20072L227 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 03/25/1983 |
| From: | Fay C WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TAC-7757, TAC-8173, NUDOCS 8303310152 | |
| Download: ML20072L227 (3) | |
Text
,
i 1
Msconsin Electnc mea coupaur 231 W. MICHIGAN, P.O. BOX 2046. MILWAUKEE, WI 53201 March 25, 1983 M
{
~
Mr.
H.
R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, D. C.
20555 Attention:
Mr.
R. A. Clark, Chief Operating Reactors Branch 3
\\
Gentlemen:
DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301 A
WPDES PERMIT INFORMATION POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 i
On March 11, 1983 the NRC issued Amendment Nos. 69 and 74 to Facility Operating Licenses DPR-24 and DPR-27 for the PoinE
'O Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.
These amendments deleted the Appendix B Environmental Technical Specifications which pertain to the nonradiological water quality related requirements.
In that letter, you requested that we confirm in writing' our commitment to provide the NRC with a copy of any changes to-the WPDES discharge permit and any permit violations requiring notification to the permitting agency at the time the information is reported to or received from the permitting agency.
We hereby affirm that commitment.
Copies of this information will be provideds to both the NRC Regional Administrator and to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
1 In accordance with this commitment, we are providing herewith a letter to the State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources which reports on a follow-up investigation concerning a permit violation we reported on February 7, 1983.
Please contact us if you have any questions concerning this matter.
Very truly yo rs, 8303310152 830325 PDR ADOCK 05000266 O
PDR Vice Presid nt uclear Power C. W. Fay Enclosure Copies to NRC Resident Inspector J. G. Keppler, Region III l
0 ;.
3 WISC0nSin'Electnc wcoone
~
231 WEST MICHIGA'f,Ml!$tA'UKEE, WISCONSIN 53201
(
4
(
March 18, 1983 x
3 N
s y
l.
s
\\ ',,
STATE OF WISC0NSIN'
\\
Department of Naturil Resources' WPDES Per: sit Sectica P.O. Box 7921 Madison, Wis'qced.i n 53707 Gent]eraen: Y'1 y
w, s.
e
-s WPDE3 Pern.it No. WI-0000957-2
(
P0 INT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT In a February 7,19330actificationtotheDepartment,the Company reported pH' values at the Point 1 each Nuclear Plant in excess B
q of the WPDES permit limits.~ The retention pond discharge (sample point i
501) had pH value's of.9.2 and 9.1 (s',u.) ~on February 2 and 4,1983,
'.\\
respectively. This will provide the results of our investigations of s
thir incident.
We have determined that the high pH was caused by the pres-9
-ecce of lime in makeup water treatment system filter backwash which t
is routed to the retention pond. We have been experiencing periodic
.p'roLibms with lime softening and clarification equipment used to pro-ce:s fake Michigan water for use as makeup to the plant.
In attempts l
to I'mprove this process, different types of lime were being tested for efficiency in reducing water hardness. Apparently on February 1, the l
lime being tested did not thoroughly dissolve. As a consequence, lime
! Q~
particles were carried'over from the clarifier through the clearwell and into the wattir treatment system pressure filters where they accum-l s.
ulated in the filter beds. When the beds were backwashed on February 2, l
7 the backwash discharge 'containing the lime caused an increase in the pH of the retention pond effluent.
l The' retention, pond was treated on February 2 with 20 gal-
'n lons of sulfuric acit to lower tite pH. On February 3, when the lime was discovered fo be the cause of the pH problem, we discontinued use j,'
of that type of. lime.
The pressure filter, however, had already accum-ulated lime particles and when backwashed on February 4, again raised the pH of the.tetention pond discharge. The pond pH was again adjusted
/
- h.
with 20 gall'ons of sulfuric acid. We have discontinued the use of the type of lime which caused the pH problem.
3 1
l l
s x
t l
-2 O
g It is important to note that the retention pond discharge mixes with the circulating cooling water prior to discharge to Lake Michigan. The pH of the discharge to the lake would have been within the WPDES limitations of 6.0 to 9.0 (s.u.).
Very truly yours hU Vice Presi ent C. W. Fay cc: DNR Lake Michigan District
'h x
-