ML19316A573
| ML19316A573 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 06/12/1974 |
| From: | Peltier I US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001100791 | |
| Download: ML19316A573 (2) | |
Text
'.i
.m.
E' Docket No. 50-287 3g Note to Files:
TELECON WITH DUKE POWER CONCERNING REVISION OF TECH SPEC 4.11 ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE, JUNE 7, 1974 Participants Bill Heller, Duke Power Company Mary Birch, Duke Power Company Tom Cotton, Duke Power Company Joe Graf, AEC/TR Tom Essig, AEC/TR Irv Peltier, AEC/ LPM Summary Duke has taken exception to certain elements of the content of the proposed standard specification for environmental monitoring.
It was agreed that:
1.
Duke will, by June 19, revise the specification 4.11 in accordance with the wording of the proposed standard for surveillance.
2.
Duke will justify deleting any sampling which it feels is impractical for the Oconee station and environment at the time of the submittal.
3.
Duke will not revise Section 6 Reporting Requirements.
4.
The transfer of Rad. Release Specs and Environmental Monitoring Specs from Appendix A to Appendix B of the license will not be done until after Appendix I becomes inforce.
Details Items involving specific sample collections were discussed.
With regard to soil sampling, Duke felt that they could accept the staff's position.
With regard to meat, poultry and egg sampling, Duke felt that they could either include the samples in the program or could provide information showing that a particular sample was unavailable in the area.
The staff agreed that this would be acceptable. With regard to milk sample control stations, Duke proposed and the sti f agreed that milk samples split with the South Carolina State Board of Health could serve as control samples.
With rsjard to ground water samples, Duke felt that the required sampling and analysis was already covered in the program.
The staff agreed.
.oo11oo 77 /
gj
e, f.-
a -
+
Note to Files Routine and non-routine reporting requirements were discussed.
With regard to routine reporting as outlined in Attachment 1 to the AEC letter of May 6, Duke felt that problems would arise because not all samples are taken quarterly ano therefore would not fit in a quarterly summary format.
The staff agreed that the present reporting format for Oconee would be acceptable until a Regulatory guide for Environmental technical specifications is available.
Duke agreed to adopt the non-routine reporting requirements proposed in the May 6, AEC letter.
),f 1
Irving A. Peltier, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch No. 2-3 Directorate of Licensing ccs:
A. Schwencer J. Graf T. Essig
.