ML19317E853
| ML19317E853 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 10/24/1974 |
| From: | Kuhlman C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Muller D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317E849 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001031024 | |
| Download: ML19317E853 (2) | |
Text
._
,f-
/- /) (*::
- b. b 4
D.
UNITED STATES
's eg 4 *
'""/ $
'V s
/
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
!N
- l,'
w^smuaron. o.c. zosas
.~.;
\\ '4
. s~~Je(C OCT 2 4 B74 D. R. Iluller, Assistant Director for Environnental Projects, L E:: vin 0;CCTAL Ti'C:!::ICAL SPECIFICATI0:'S DUl;E POU R COMPANY, OCO.':EE Uc recomacnd a revision bc nade to clarify Specificatica 1.4.A of Appendix B Technical Specifications for the Oconce plants.
A copy of that specification, titled " fish inpin3ctent on intake screens and entrainment of fish eggs cnd larvac," is attached for referc nce.
1.
The first sentence imposes a requirement uhich seems inadequate.
That is, it sects that a ucchly visual inspection, nede fron the intake structure through several feet of water, is not adequate for the purpose of identifying the speedes of catrapped fish cnd i
estinating the total nunber and length of each species.
2.
The second sentence cf the specification sects the best nethod of obtaining reasonably accurata fish inpingement infornation.
it must specify a tire interval, hauever, to be an enforceable requirement.
Using this method, there is a cuestica that rennins of the nuuher of fieh.:hich nay be lost f ron the screen as it's recoved frou the water.
3.
The third sentence of the specification which requires the undcruater visual inspection seens a valid requiretent, but the time intervcl secas too infrequent to gather any neaningful information.
We reconmend the specifications be changed to require a deternination of fish impingenent based on counting and analyzing those fish on the screens cs they are rc=oved fron the water.
Include in the require-naut a time frequency or schedule for nahing this deter =ination.
4.
In the second subparagraph of the specification, there is no time interval specified for the reporting level of 100 fish norcalitics.
At the present ti=c, the licensee is naking his count only every other week unen he " pulls" the screens to acet an EPA require ent.
Ue reconcend the' requirement be rowcrded to specify the ti=c intervcl which applies for the report level of 100 fish tortalities; for enarple, 100 per day or 100 per week.
d 6
8 001031 DstlJ-I
.y"
(
. w
'j/'
li.' n.. nullbo
-2 OCT 2 41974 Further, uc reco =cnd sou:
j n.
revicu the "r.ignificance" of the report level of 100 fish mortalitics.
Since July 1974 the count has been in the range of 800 to 3500 cvery two ucchs tihen the licensee
'has pulled the screens, b.
delete-the requirement for the 24-hour reports to the Regional Office of RO, but retain the 10-day uritten reports to Licensing and specify a ce be cent to the Regional Office.
Our Regional Office does not initiate any prompt action es a result of these reports; thurefore,
ese prompt reports from the licensees serve no useful
,crpose to Regulatory.
The Regional Office has, as a natter of routine, been publishing a local neus release on these occurrences since the number reported greatly I
exceeds the 100 value specified as-the report level.
i Uc request your early consideration of these recommendations.
If you have any questions about this request, contact Leo Higginbotham (7413).
n r t.o e./
,N,k$$$$bMl$%
Carl W. Kuhlcan, Assistcnt Director e
for Radiological, Environ: ental and Materials Protection, RO
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
G. Dicker, 1:EPB2 R. Clark, L:T.PB2 G. Gower, RO (H00259H2) s b
O b
g 9 '"
i
~.
_ _,