ML19322B834: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) Created page by program invented by StriderTol |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) StriderTol Bot change |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| number = ML19322B834 | | number = ML19322B834 | ||
| issue date = 08/23/1977 | | issue date = 08/23/1977 | ||
| title = Forwards Response to NRC | | title = Forwards Response to NRC Re Violations Noted in IE Insp Repts 50-269/77-13,50-270/77-13 & 50-287/77-13. Corrective Actions:None.Does Not Consider Items Identified to Be in Noncompliance | ||
| author name = Parker W | | author name = Parker W | ||
| author affiliation = DUKE POWER CO. | | author affiliation = DUKE POWER CO. | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| contact person = | | contact person = | ||
| document report number = NUDOCS 7912050813 | | document report number = NUDOCS 7912050813 | ||
| title reference date = 08-03-1977 | |||
| package number = ML19322B831 | | package number = ML19322B831 | ||
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE, UTILITY TO NRC | | document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE, UTILITY TO NRC | ||
| Line 17: | Line 18: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ - - _ _ - - - . | {{#Wiki_filter:_ _ - - _ _ - - -. | ||
O | O DUKE Powra COMPANY Powra Buttorwa l | ||
422 Sourn Caumen Srazzr, CaAntortz, N. C. asa42 wiwa | |||
: o. m a n ca..,n. | |||
August 23, 1977 WCr Patteotest Takte owt:Anta 704 Srtae. P=oowevio 37 3-40 e 3 Mr. J. P. O'Reilly, Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 818 230 Peachtree Street, Northwest Atlanta, Georgia 30303 RE: RII:WP 50-269/77-13 50-270/77-13 50-287/77-13 | |||
==Dear Sir:== | ==Dear Sir:== | ||
Duke Power Company does not consider information contained in the subject inspection report, transmitted by {{letter dated|date=August 3, 1977|text=letter dated August 3, 1977}}, to be proprietary. | |||
Duke Power Company does not consider information contained in the subject inspection report, transmitted by letter dated August 3, 1977, to be proprietary. | Please find attached our response to the apparent item of noncompliance. | ||
Please find attached our response to the apparent item of noncompliance. | j In the subject inspection report, Details I, paragraph 7.a states that a commitment to provide definitive headings on water supply results in the annual environmental report was not met. | ||
In the subject inspection report, Details I, paragraph 7.a states | A review of documentation in OIE Inspection Report 50-269, -270, -287/76-2 has not identified a commitment of this nature. | ||
results in the annual environmental report was not met. A review of | |||
Therefore, it is requested that your staff pursue this matter further with our personnel in order to determine what changes may be appropriate in the data presentations in future annual environmental reports. | Therefore, it is requested that your staff pursue this matter further with our personnel in order to determine what changes may be appropriate in the data presentations in future annual environmental reports. | ||
Veryftruly yours, | Veryftruly yours, | ||
) | |||
pWilliamO | /* | ||
MST:ge Attachment | pWilliamO. Parker,Jr. | ||
% U. | |||
MST:ge Attachment 0 50 | |||
,1912 1 | |||
i | i | ||
RESPONSE TO OIE INSPECTION REPORT 77-13 i | RESPONSE TO OIE INSPECTION REPORT 77-13 i | ||
Item Appendix A Technical Specification 4.11.1 requires that analyses of environmental radiological monitoring program samples shall be performed to the sensitivity listed in Table 4.11-3. | Item Appendix A Technical Specification 4.11.1 requires that analyses of environmental radiological monitoring program samples shall be performed to the sensitivity listed in Table 4.11-3. | ||
Contrary to the above, the 1976 annual environmental monitoring report indicated there were four instances in which the required sensitivities were not met. | Contrary to the above, the 1976 annual environmental monitoring report indicated there were four instances in which the required sensitivities were not met. | ||
===Response=== | ===Response=== | ||
In the apparent iten of non-compliance it was stated that analytical sensitivities had not met the required limits specified in Table 4.11-3 in four instances. It should be noted, however, that the sensitivity limits specified in Table 4.11-3 represent the minimum criteria for objectives for instrumentation and analytical procedure selection. | In the apparent iten of non-compliance it was stated that analytical sensitivities had not met the required limits specified in Table 4.11-3 in four instances. | ||
It should be noted, however, that the sensitivity limits specified in Table 4.11-3 represent the minimum criteria for objectives for instrumentation and analytical procedure selection. | |||
These sensitivities are achievable only under optimal conditions. | These sensitivities are achievable only under optimal conditions. | ||
Indeed, Table 4.11-3 states "The sensitivity of the analyses for various radionuclides in representative samples is typical", | Indeed, Table 4.11-3 states "The sensitivity of the analyses for various radionuclides in representative samples is typical", | ||
That is, the specified sensitivities are typical rather than absolute and will be achievable in the majority of analyses but will not and cannot be achieved for each and every sample. | |||
In the four cases mentioned, the reported sensitivities were generally only marginally in excess of the Table 4.11-3 sensitivities. | |||
It is considered that the radiological monitoring program has been conducted in a responsible manner and that Technical Specification 4.11.1 has been fully complied with. | |||
It is requested that the record be so corrected to indicate that this is not an item of non-compliance. | |||
l | l | ||
.}} | |||
Latest revision as of 01:33, 1 January 2025
| ML19322B834 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 08/23/1977 |
| From: | Parker W DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322B831 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912050813 | |
| Download: ML19322B834 (2) | |
Text
_ _ - - _ _ - - -.
O DUKE Powra COMPANY Powra Buttorwa l
422 Sourn Caumen Srazzr, CaAntortz, N. C. asa42 wiwa
- o. m a n ca..,n.
August 23, 1977 WCr Patteotest Takte owt:Anta 704 Srtae. P=oowevio 37 3-40 e 3 Mr. J. P. O'Reilly, Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 818 230 Peachtree Street, Northwest Atlanta, Georgia 30303 RE: RII:WP 50-269/77-13 50-270/77-13 50-287/77-13
Dear Sir:
Duke Power Company does not consider information contained in the subject inspection report, transmitted by letter dated August 3, 1977, to be proprietary.
Please find attached our response to the apparent item of noncompliance.
j In the subject inspection report, Details I, paragraph 7.a states that a commitment to provide definitive headings on water supply results in the annual environmental report was not met.
A review of documentation in OIE Inspection Report 50-269, -270, -287/76-2 has not identified a commitment of this nature.
Therefore, it is requested that your staff pursue this matter further with our personnel in order to determine what changes may be appropriate in the data presentations in future annual environmental reports.
Veryftruly yours,
)
/*
pWilliamO. Parker,Jr.
% U.
MST:ge Attachment 0 50
,1912 1
i
RESPONSE TO OIE INSPECTION REPORT 77-13 i
Item Appendix A Technical Specification 4.11.1 requires that analyses of environmental radiological monitoring program samples shall be performed to the sensitivity listed in Table 4.11-3.
Contrary to the above, the 1976 annual environmental monitoring report indicated there were four instances in which the required sensitivities were not met.
Response
In the apparent iten of non-compliance it was stated that analytical sensitivities had not met the required limits specified in Table 4.11-3 in four instances.
It should be noted, however, that the sensitivity limits specified in Table 4.11-3 represent the minimum criteria for objectives for instrumentation and analytical procedure selection.
These sensitivities are achievable only under optimal conditions.
Indeed, Table 4.11-3 states "The sensitivity of the analyses for various radionuclides in representative samples is typical",
That is, the specified sensitivities are typical rather than absolute and will be achievable in the majority of analyses but will not and cannot be achieved for each and every sample.
In the four cases mentioned, the reported sensitivities were generally only marginally in excess of the Table 4.11-3 sensitivities.
It is considered that the radiological monitoring program has been conducted in a responsible manner and that Technical Specification 4.11.1 has been fully complied with.
It is requested that the record be so corrected to indicate that this is not an item of non-compliance.
l
.