ML19259D508

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Submits Interpretation of Reporting Requirements Associated W/Ets Sampling Methods & Comments Re General Organization of TMI-1 Ets,Section 2.0
ML19259D508
Person / Time
Site: Three Mile Island Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 05/22/1974
From: Lawyer L
METROPOLITAN EDISON CO.
To: St Mary F
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 7910240773
Download: ML19259D508 (3)


Text

AEC QTRIEUTION FOR PART 50 DOCKET ' 'ERIAL

~

    • 4663 f -

(TDiPORARY FORM) CONTROL NO:

FILE: ENVIRON FROM: DATE OF DOC DATE REC'D LTR MEMO RPT OTHER

?%tropolitan Edison Company Reading, Penn. 19603 L.L. Lawyer 5-22-74 5-24-74 X TO: ORIG CC OTIER SENT AEC PDR XXX F.A. St. !!ary 1 signed CLASS UNCLASS PROP INFO INPUT NO CYS REC'D DCCKET NO:

XXX 1 50-289 DESCRIPTION: ENCLOSURES:

Ler commenting on the reporting requirements for sampling methods specified in the Environ tech specs.........

MKhT@jrgy PMNT NME . b bk0h0h4 Three Mile Island DO NOT REMOVE FOR ACTION /It"!OP2ATION 3-26"/4 JB BUTLER (L) SCEJENCER(L) ZIDiANN(L) /REGAN(E)

W/ Copics W/ Copies W/ Copies W/(Copies CLARK (L) STOLZ(L) DICKER (E)

W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies PARR(L) VASSALLO(L) KNIGHION(E)

'?/ C:pic:

.  !!/ C:pi:0  !!/ C:pic: "/ C;;ic:

KNIEL(L) PURPLE (L) YOUNGBLOOD(E)

W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies 1459 262 INTEPliAL DISTRIBUTION

[REGFILE) TECH REVIEW DE'; TON A/T It"0

/ AEG PDR HENDRIE GRIMES LIC ASST BRAI7 MAN OGC, ROCM P-506A SCHROEDER CA1011LL SALTEMAN DIGGS (L)

/MUKTZING/ STAFF MACCARY KASTNER U*

CASE GEARIN (L)

KN7GHT / BALLARD /GOULBOURNE (L) PLANS GIMiBUSSO PAWLICKI SPANGLER BOYD SHA0 LEE (L) MCOCNALD

!MIGRET (L) DUBE w/ Input

/ MOORE (L)(BWR) STELLO ENVIRO

/ REED (E)

DEYOUNG(L)(WR) HOUSTON MULLER F0 SERVICE (L)

SKOVROLT (L) NOVAK DICKER SHEPPARD (L) C. MILES GOLLER(L) ROSS KNIGHTON S SLATER (E)

P. COLLINS IPPOLITO YOUNGBLOOD EISENH"T SMITH (L)

DENISE TEDESCO REGAN TEETS (L)

/ REG OPR LONG / PROJECT LDR AOR FILE WADE (E)

FILE & REGION (3) LAINAS St. Marv (2) ,,7tg7ggg

, (3) D. THOMPSCN (2)

MORRIS /BENAROYA /iMRLESS WTTSGN (L) 703024A 7'73 VOLI.MER ,

M EX.~ rAL DISTRI2";T:"

/1 - LOCAL PDR Harrisburn Pa. /

/1 - TIC (A3ERNATHY) /(1)'^ _ SNATICMAL LA3'S ///M 1-PDR-SAN /LA/;;Y

/1 - MSIC(EUCF.L';AN) 1-ASLBF(E/:i 31d t.3= 5 29) 1-GERALD LEL'.CECHE 1 - ASL3 /1-U. PE '.NINGTC:., fc E-201 GT E200KHAVEN AT. LA' 1 - P. R. DAVIS (AEROJET NUCLEAR) 1-CONS ULTA';T' S 1-AGMED(Ruth Gucc r 16 - CYS ACRS HOLDING NEW'L'.R"/ EL'_::E /AG3f.0IAN EM- B-12 7. GT.

1-GERALD ULH K3C:!.. 02'!L 1-RD. .!R'lLE2. . F-2C ? ~

1-3 & M SWINZ3RCAD, Fe: E-201 GT

n _ _. ..

_. . f - m :- .:d 3 __. g

.- a W y $l U

~

Q - ./ %"f7 Y -.-- -

% ig;,4

,=-

=.-

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY

. d,s

  1. Wlic$f#5NPrh5 4v PoOT OFFICE BOX 542 RE ADING, PENNSYLVANI A 19603 929-3601 May 22, 197h x

Mr. F. A. St. Mary Environmental Projects Branch #4 50-289 .r 'O.{.

f!?,'j l; / pJ Directorate of Licensing U. S. Atomic Energy Co= mission W-f W .2 4 ,1g g Washington, D. C. 20545 ~J .

w

~

,a, k.

n

^

Daar Mr. St. Mary: _,',

h(>

The purpose of this letter is to: ,

(1) present my interpretation of the reporting requirements associated with alternate sampling methods specified in the Environmental Technical Specifications for Three Mile Island Unit 1 (ETS-1);

(2) present my comments on the general organization of Section 2.0; and (3) solicit your response to both of the foregoing.

Reportine Recuirements Associated With Alternate Sa=rling Methods The first issue I address is whether, in complying with the ETS-1 environmental monitoring requirements, the use of an alternate method of sampling or use of "similar device" equipment in lieu of the normal sampling method or equipment ccustitutes exceeding a Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) and is, therefore, reportable in accordance with ETS-1 Sections 5.h and 5.6.2.c. I think, clearly, that the use of the alternate sampling method does constitute operation within the LCO and is, therefore, not reportable under the Sections cited above.

As an example of this interpretation (reference: E'IS-1, pcges 27 and 30),

assume the condenser vacuum pump discharge =cnitor vere inoperable (for less than a week) but that grab samples were taken daily and analyzed for gross radioactivity (8,y). This circumstance vould not constitute exceeding an LCO by not " continuously" monitoring fer gross radioactive gas, thereby necessitating submittal of a report within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to the Director of Regulatory Operations in accordance with ETS-1, Sections 5.h and 5.6.2.c since initiation of the alternate monitoring technique complies with the specification.

1459 263

, , y (g )

.s Mr. F. A. St. Mary -

2- May 22, 197h Co=ments Regarding General Organization of ETS-1 Section 2.0 My comment on the general organization of ETS-1, Section 2.0, is that I feel the use of " Limiting Conditions for Operation" has been inappro-priately extended far beyond that required to cceply with commission regulations. 10 CFR 50.36a is less than definitive on the usage of the ter Limiting Conditians for Operation; however, it does specify that ". . . license. . . vill include technical specifications that. . . require. . .

that equipment installed in the radioactive vaste system...be maintained and used." It is my contention that equipment specified in Section 2.0 under LCO--monitoring requirements--goes far beycnd " equipment installed in the radioactive vaste system." In attempting to interpret in this ill-defined area, I have censidered the possibility of utilization of the LCO laid down in Section 50.36.c2. LCO is there defined to be "the lovest functional capability or performance levels of equipment required for safe operation of the facility." By analogy, then, I might, through an admitted over-extension of the regulations, define LCO in ETS-1 as the lowest functional capability or performance levels of equipment required to keep releases of radioactive materials to unrestricted areas during normal reactor operations cs lov as practicable. Had the eccmission included this definition of LCO in Section 50 36a, I would still maintain that ETS-1, Section 2.0, goes far beyond this definition.

I would contend that the left-hand colu=n of Section 2.0 generally provides specifications to limit plant parameters. These limits seem to me te be the appropriate subject of LCO's; however, the right-hand column provides monitoring requirements, the specificatiens of which have the objective of ". .. ensuring compliance with the specifications of [the left-hand colu=n]." It is my contentien that " specifications to limit. . ." (left-hand colu=n) are properly C0's but that "specificatiens to ensure compli-ance with specifications..." are not.

Your patience and anticipated response are much appreciated.

Sincerely '

a p ,/

%w' .j' *4  % , 1

(

LAWRENCE L. LAWYER' Manager-Operational Quality Assurance LLL:sh 1459 264