ML20036C146
| ML20036C146 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 06/08/1993 |
| From: | Dostie P MAINE, STATE OF |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9306140300 | |
| Download: ML20036C146 (2) | |
Text
I
/
h f
,9
+
a lT l
J.4m R. R Krman. Jr.
Jane Sheehan Gm em,or Commissioner c
STATE OF M AIN E DEPARTN1ENT OF HUN 1 AN SERVICES Al'Gl:ST A M AINE W33 June 8, 1993 gg. 50f j
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C.
20555 8
)
Subject:
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company - Proposed Change No. 175 - Instrumentation and Control Gentlemen:
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.91(b) the State of Maine has reviewed the proposed amendment separating the area and the process / effluent monitors into two distinct groups as well as modifying their surveillance functions and frequencies to add flexibility in replacing obsolescent equipment.
The State has no objections to the proposed change, but would like to add the following comments.
In reviewing this proposed change the State noted some inconsistencies when it came to how Maine Yankee was addressing its accident monitoring instrumentation in i
Table 4.1-3 of its Technical Specifications:
q 1)
With this change Maine Yankee proposed to incorporate the Primary Vent Stack High Range Noble Gas Monitor into a new category identified as process and effluent monitors.
Generally, when one refers to process / effluent monitors one usually thinks of normal operating conditions and monitors, and not necessarily accident instrumentation._
2)
When it came to the In-Containment High Range Monitors, Maine Yankee did not include these as part of its proposed revision of the radiation area monitor category, but.
rather lef t them as a separate distinct item in the Table.
3)
Finally, in reviewing Table 4.1-3, the State did not find any listing for the Maine Steam Line (MSL) Radiation I
requiring checks, calibrations and testing.
Monitors as (Upon further_ discussions with Maine Yankee, it'was later i
discovered that the MSL monitors were.being treated as effluent monitors when it came to checks, calibrations r
and testing requirements).
140021 9306140300 930608 I
PDR-ADOCK 05000309 g
5 0
.P-PDR g
r l
1
{
On the surface it would appear that this was a partial effort by Maine Yankee to consolidate the normal operating radiation detectors with their accident counterparts into two broad categories - area and process / effluent monitors.
With two of the three major accident monitoring systems defined as process /ef fluent monitors, it would have seemed appropriate for Maine Yankee to close the loop and incorporate the In-Containment High Range Monitors into their proposed amendment of the area monitor grouping l
in Table 4.1-3.
If this had been done, then all the radiation monitors would have been classified as either area or process / effluent monitors.
This classification would then be consistent with Maine Yankee's current description. of their radiation monitoring system as outlined in their Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).. Since Maine Yankee is required to operate the plant within its design basis as stipulated in their FSAR, the State will adhere to the FSAR descriptions of Maine Yankee's radiation monitoring system so as to eliminate any potential confusion on what constitutes an area or a process / effluent monitor.
/Sih erely,
/
~d hh g$
/
Patrick J.
Destie State Nucleah Safety Inspector office of nuclear Safety Division of Health Engineering i
i f
cc: Clough Toppan, State of Maine Uldis Vanags, State of Maine James Hebert, Maine Yankee Charles Marschall, NRC J
l l
l l
1
, = -
.