ML19345F223
| ML19345F223 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/20/1969 |
| From: | Youngdahl R CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345F222 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102120210 | |
| Download: ML19345F223 (2) | |
Text
l
+
UNITED STATES ATOMIC DIERGY C0! MISSION
-CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY s.
~ DOCKET NO 50-155 APPLICATION FOR NENDMENT No 3 OPERATING LICEISE DPR-6 Consumers Power Comprny, hereby and by the document entitled
" Request of Change to the Technical Specifications," dated February 11, 1969, and filed with the United States Atomic Energy Commission, Division of Reactor Licensing, applies for an amendment to its Operating License DPR-6.
It. is requested that the Operating License be amended by the addition, as Subparagraph 2.H, of the following:
"H.
Pursuant to the Act and Title 10, CFR, Chapter 1, Part 70, 'Special Nuclear Material,' to receive, possess and use at any one time 50 kilograms of
>ntained plutonium as fuel for the operation of reactor."
ihe plutonium t nserted in the reactor pursuant to the present Tech-nical Specificatit
.ange request vill consist of approximately one (1) kilogram' contained.a thirty-two (32) fuel rods.
Based upon this quantity and the information contained in the
" Request for Change in the Technical Specifications," dated February 11, 1969, it is Consumers Power Company's conclusion that the use of Reload "E" or "E-G" fuel bundles containing one or two plutonium-bearing rods each in the Big Rock Point reactor does not present a significant change in the hazards considerations described or implicit in the Final Hazards Summary Report.
/
'I CONSUIERS POWER 01 7 E Dy fkist; 8-Vice President J.
Date:
March 20,1969 '/
Sp,andsubscribedtobeforemethis18th of March, 1969
/ e; f7
{l
y0MO G-O ig Notary Public, Jackson County, Michigan
'c My commission expires December 30, 1972
\\
!. l h
g/M$0df0
)
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMfilSSION
_f 0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT -
~ ~ '
REGION 111 799 ROOSEVELT RO AD GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIL 60137 050-155/75-01 A.
IE Inspection Report No.
. March 14, 1975 Transmittal Date Distribution:
Distribution:
IE Chief, FS&EB IE Chief, FS&EB IE:HQ (5)
IE:HQ (4)
L:D/D for Fuels & Materials DR Central Files Regulatory Standards (3)
DR Central Files IE Files Licensing (13)
IE Chief, M& PPB.
IE Files L:D/D for Reactor Project B.
IE Inquiry Report No.
Transmittal Date Distribution:
Distribution:
IE Chief, FS&EB IE Chief, FS&EB IE:HQ (5)
IE:HQ DR Central Files DR Central Files Regulatory Standards (3)
IE Files Licensing (13)
IE Files C.
Incident Notification From:
(Licensee & Docket No. (or License No.)
Transmittal Date Distribution:
Distribution:
IE Chief, FSSEB IE Chief, FS&EB IE:HQ (4)
IE:HQ (4)
Licensing (4)
L:D/D for Fuels & Materials DR Central Files DR Central Files IE Files IE Files M
i j
- /6 191D 7
g:.- -- -
r ATTACmiENT 1 CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS
' This attachment provides criteria for comparing results of capability-The criteria are based on an tests and. verification measurements.
cmpirical relationship which~ combines prior experience and the accuracy needs of this program.
In these criteria, the7 judgement limits arc variable in' relation to the comparison of the NRC Reference Laboratory's value to its associated As that ratio, referred to in this program as " Resolution",
uncertainty.
increases the acceptability of a licensee's measurement should be more Conversely, poorer agreement must be considered acceptab]c selective.
' as'the resolution decreases.
RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE/NRC-REFERENCE VALUE RESOLUTION Possib]e Possibic Agreement _
Agreement A.
Agreement B 3
0.4 - 2.5 0.3 - 3.0 No Comparison 4 -.7 0.5 - 2.0 0.4 - 2.5 0.3 -
3.0 2.5 8 - 15 0.6 - 1.66 0.5 - 2.0 0.4 16 - 50 0.75 - 1.33 0.6 - 1.66 0.5 -
2.0 51 - 200 0.80 - 1.25 0.75 - 1.33 0.6 - 1.66 200 0.85 - 1.18 0.80 - 1.25 0.75 - 1.33 "A" criteria are applied to the following analyses:
Comma Spectrometry where principal gar.ma energy used for identifi-cation is greater than 250 Kev.
Tritium analyses of liquid sampics.
"B" criteria are applied to the following analyses:
Gamma spectrometry where principal gamma energy used for identification is less than 250 Kev.
89Sr and 90Sr Determinations.
Cross Ecta where. samples are counted on the same date using the same reference nuclide.
e P
I 7-
4
.a.-.
LCs-137 in Liquid Waste
' ^
The licensee's' measurement of Cs-137 in the liquid waste sample was 60% less than the result derived by the NRC' reference' laboratory on a split on the same sample.
If the difference is real (i.e., not the result of a nonrepresentative sample split), the licensee may
~
have under-reported releases of Cs-137 in liquid waste by up to 160% about the time of this sample.
The significance of this disagreement with respect to actual releases of Cs-137 is minor.
was the' licensee reported. releasing less.than 0.025% of the technical specification limit for Cs-137 in liquid releases during'1974.
Review of three ptzvious Cs-137 comparative measurements indicates that the licensee's measurements were within the' limits of acceptability on two of the three occasions.
On the one previous occasion when the licensee's measurements did not fall within the limits of acceptability, the-licensee's measurement was greater than that reported by the NRC reference laboratory.
The licensee is.in' the process of upgrading their gamma spectographic capability through the installation of a LeLi system. Another liquid waste sample will be split subsequent to calibration of the GeLi system.
b.
Xe-133 in Gascous Waste The licensee's measurement of Xe-133 in a gaseous waste sample was 64% less than the result derived by the NRC reference laboratory on a sample of the same gaseous effluent.
If the difference is real (i.e., not the result of an inhomogeneous sample elia), the licensce may have under-reported releases of Xc-133 ir. gaseous waste by up to 64% about the time of this sample.
The significance of this disagreement with respect to actual releases of Xe-133 is minor as the licensee reported releasing Xc-133 at less than 0.04%
and 0.06% of the technical specification limits for maximum ~ release rate and annual average release rate, respectively, during 1974.
Review of two previous Xe-133 comparative measurements indicates that the licensee's measurements were within the limits of acceptability on one of the two occasions. On the one previous occasion, when the licensee's measurement did not fall within the limits of acceptability, the licensee's measurement was greater than that reported by the NRC reference laboratory.
The process of collecting gaseous effluent samples for comparative analysis does not assure complete comparability between the two samples since the effluent media may be inhomogeneous with respect to the small time periods separating collection of the sequential samples.
Improved sample. collection methods for use with the comparative analyses are currently under investigation. The licensee's measurement of gaseous effluents will be re-examined during a subsequent inspection l-
Attachment:
i-t
..y m
_..,