ML20128A897
| ML20128A897 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1975 |
| From: | Higginbotham L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Bevan R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9212030492 | |
| Download: ML20128A897 (2) | |
Text
u e uv.4 M
%. Q k
P/3R HUG G 1975
@ws R. Bevan, Environmental Projects Branch No. 4 Division of Reactor Licensing PROPOSED ENVIRONKDTIAL TECHNICAL SPECIPICATIONS - HONTICELID Eegion III received a copy of the proposed changes to Section 2.4 of the proposed Environmental Technical Specifications for Monticello which was submitted to DRh on June 13, 1975.
In their review of the proposed etwnges, they noted the requirements for calibration of the continuous affluent monitors are mot specific enough to correct a problem that has been identified at thia facility during several inspections. Although the specification is identical to the one contained in the proposed Standard Technical Specifications, we agree with the Region that a podification is desirable. We vill tale separate action to request a change in the proposed Standard Technical Specifications, Please consider the following comments in finalizing the Environmental Technical Specifications for Monticello.
Pape 2.4-4, Specification 2.4.2.f. - The specification ne written does not require the licensee to correlate monitor readings with the results of analyses performed on actual samples of the ef fluent stream. We recommend the following phrase be added to the first sentences...and the relationship established botveen concentrations and monitor readings.
Page 2.4-8, Specification 2.4.3.a(1) - We recocunend an additional term be included in the second equation or an czplanation be provided in the Eeneral discussion to provide consistency of units. As presently given, rems and rade are added toEether.
Page 2.4-12, Specification 2.4.3.m. - The justification for this specification is not clear and there is no time frame for the value.
Also, is this consistent with the existing evant reporting requirements?
Page 2.4-13. Specification 2.4.4.d. - See comment for page 2.4-4 l
l Table 2.4. Shouldn't the dischstge canal sampler be inc1hded f.n
(
this table?
g l
\\
I 9212030492 750806 PDR ADOCK 05000263 PDR p
. I._
s)_
- c.
R. Bevan !
If there are any questions concerning these comuments.:please contact L, J. Cunningham on extension 7413.
O J. e.9]P)
Leo B. Rigginbotham, Acting Chief Rsdiolosteal and Eswiroammatal u
1 Protection Branch i
Office of Inspectioni and Enforeamset cc:
C. W. Kuhlman W. L. Fisher J. T. Colline
~
i i,
W
=
L l
v ll.
!~
If TE IE:Rik o,,.c.
LJCd
, ham: urlbli nb ha
.u.N,,
eaes >
_. _.. k!.,..!
~.. !.
' larm MC 318 (Rev. 913) Al-CH 0340 TT u, s. novf RNMENT PRINTING OF FfC&f $974 99914 I;
l
(
l.,.
L