ML20002C747
| ML20002C747 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/30/1974 |
| From: | Sewell R CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20002C744 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101100813 | |
| Download: ML20002C747 (2) | |
Text
.
1 s
N CCHSumSIS n"
f L
D0'.'!GT q
Campany a.n.,.i on e..: ein w.. uicmo.n 4 no.. Jack oa. u6cNo.n domoi
- A,.. coa. sir 7se-osso January 30, 1974 Mr. J. G. Keppler Re: Docket 50-155 Directorate of Regulatory License DPR-6 Operations, Region III US Atomic Energy Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Dear Mr. Keppler:
By letter dated January 7,197h, you stated that certain of our activities at the-Big Rock Point Plant appeared to be in noncompliance with AEC requirements. Specifically, you stated that:
"The code of Federal Regulations,10 CFR Part 20.201(b) requires that licensees make surveys as may be necessary to comply with the regulations. When appropriate, such surveys include measurement of concentration of radio-active material present.
Contrary to the above, since initial identification by Regulatory Operations in June 1971, the licensee had not fully confirmed that radio-act. e halogens and particulates collected by the stack sampler are representative sa=ples."
During the June 1971 inspection, your personnel requested that special samples of stack gas be obtained at the stack-gas sampling probe and analyzed for particulate and halogen activity. The results obtained vere to be compared with the results of routine stack-gas st.:::ples to determine if the stack-gas sampling system was performing as intended.
Equipment was developed and installed and a comprehensive sampling program undertaken such that an accurate comparison could be made. This program was completed in early 1973 and the results were discussed with your Personnel during the May 1973 inspection. Item 23.e of RO Inspection Report No 050-155/73-02 summarized the results of our testing and stated that we were still awaiting the results of related testing that was being performed at the Palisades Plant by a contractor of the AEC. Based on my review of inspection reports, I have concluded that your inspectors were in agreement with this course of action as no objections were indicated.
As of the October 1973 inspection (inspection report transmitted by your letter of January 7,197k), Consumers Power Company was still avaiting (and presently still is) the results of the studies that are i 10E T/OI/002/3
-FEB;
s-r I
(
2 Mr. J. G. K;pplsr Docket 50-155, License DPR-6 January 30,197h being performed at the Palisades Plant. After your indication of concern in this area during the October 1973 inspection, s 3 reevaluated the poten-tial value of the test results from the Palisades Plant and concluded that regardless of the outcome of the Palisades Plant testing similar tests As this type of testing is would have to be performed at Big Rock Point.
beyond the capability of Consumers Power Company, contractual arrangements This testing were made and the testing com=enced in late December 1973 is expected to be completed in about six months.
I have also discussed this matter with a member of your staff.
I believe, from these discussions, that one of the more troublesome areas in this matter was that, when your personnel identified their concerns during the October 1973 inspection, our staff was noncommittal as to what At that time, we should have informed you of our action they would take.
intentions, ie, to reevaluate your concerns within a specified time in-terval and, at the end of that interval, provide a commitment with regard to any action that was deemed necessary. In essence, this is what we have done; however, we did not communicate our actions.
Based on the foregoing, we do not agree that we were in violation of the requirements of 10 CFR 20,201(b). We feel that the special testing that commenced in December 1973 was expeditious in terms of the concerns indicated during the October 1973 inspection. This testing is being per-formed to determine iodine chemical species and establish collection and measurement efficiencies for existing iodine and particulate sampling equipment.
Yours very truly,
/7 94$9D'-
RBS/ map Ralph B. Sewell Nuclear Licensing Administrator I
\\
e