ML19329A625
| ML19329A625 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 09/07/1972 |
| From: | Peltier I US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001070638 | |
| Download: ML19329A625 (2) | |
Text
-
r Docket No,. 50-269 SEP 7 1372 NOTE FOP FILES TELECON WIDI KIN CANADY, DUKE POWE3 C0!fPA'TY - SEPIE:!BER 1, 1972 OCONEE tmIT 1 TECH SPECS K. Canady called to report that Duke took two exceptions to our approval of the Unit 1 Technical Specifications (August 28, 1972 letter to Duke).
1.
Table 4.11-1.- Duke does not agree that the frequency of milk sampling should be " weekly" instead of " quarterly." It feels that plant releases should be the controlling influence for milk sampling frequency.
2.
Spee 3.1.6.8 - Duke wishes to delete the first sentence of this 1
specification on the basis that it is ambiguous and does not serve a safety purpose. Our rawarding of this first sentence in the August 28, 1972 letter to Duke was an attempt to assure that actions taken on the knowledge of reactor coolant leakage would be based on information available from the control room instrumentation since Specifications 3.1.6.1 and 3.1.6.2 refer only to " reactor coolant leakage" without specific reference to " actual" or " indicated" leakage. The philosophy here is that the operator must believe the instruments first. However, it is not inconceivable that the nature and the quantity of the actual leakage saw be different than the indicated leakage and the operator should have no doubts with regard to the basis upon which he takes action.
t Duke argues that the operator will believe the instruments first i
i and therefore the sentence is superfluous and only adds confusion for the operator.
f However, instruments can read too high or too low.
If they read too high the operator is on the safe side to believe them.
If they read too low or the nature of the leak is critical he is on the unsafe side to believe them. Redundancy of indicators protects the plant in the latter case except in the case of critical small
~
leaks.
1 e
)
1 omer >
,q SURNAME >
^
can >
Form AEC-Ste (Rev. 9-33) AECM 0240
- c. s. covraxurNT racema orrier teto o. oos-ne 1070 fJg
2-SEP 71972 It would appear that the safest course of action would be for the operator to believe the instruments provided that all leaks are investigated and evaluated regardless of low indication.
The investigation is implied by Specification 3.1.6.2.
Therefore, I agree with Duke that the sentence in question can be deleted provided that, s.
the operator believes the instruments, b.
all leaks are investigated, evaluated and safe actions are taken.
Original Signed by Irving.( Peltier I. A. Peltier, Project Manager Pressurized Water Reactors Branch No. 4 Directorate of Licensing ec:
R. C. DeYoung A. Schwencer D. Lange J. Kastner J. Graf DISTRIBUTION Docket PWR-4 Reading IAPeltier OmCE >
M'
\\
SURNAME >
el t h,,,,.,,,,p, DATE >..$..... S A......
Form AEC-5te tRev. 9 33) AECM 0240 tr. 3. oovramwENT PRINTING OFFICE 1870 O. 40s.344
- - - -