ML19259D488

Forwards Info Requests & Proposed Changes to AEC Standardized ETS Re TMI-1.Changes Will Make ETS More Compatible W/Reactor Design & Not to Be Considered Formal Proposed ETS Changes

ML19259D488
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	06/20/1974
From:	Lawyer L METROPOLITAN EDISON CO.
To:	St Mary F US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 7910240755
Download: ML19259D488 (6)

Text

, .

. AEC D" 3UTIO1 FCR PART 50 20CKET !!!- AL ~

s (TD1PORA*1Y FOPlt) CONTROL NO: 6024 FILE: ENVIRO FROM: DATE OF DOC DATE REC'D LTR TWX RPT O!!ER Metropolitan Edison Company Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 L. L. Lawyer 6-20-74 9-29-74 X TO: ORIG CC OTIER SENT AEC PDR X Mr. St. Mary 1 sistned CLASS UNCLASS PROP IITIO INPUT ' NO CYS REC'D DCCKET NO:

XXXXX XXXX 1 50-289 DESCRIPTION: ENCLOSURES:

Ltr trans the following: Proposed Changes & Requests for Addl or Clarifying Info regarding Proposed Standardized Enviro Tech Specs h*/5*.?,:*:.

mac '

n.1)

Do go. <s PLtdiT NAME: Three Mile Island Unit # 1 emo%

_ FOR ACTIO:!/INFORMATION 7-3-74 AB BUTLER (L) /SCINENCER(L) ZICIANN(L) j AEGAN(E)

W/ Ccpic3 W/2 Copics (Info) W/ Copies W/ ICopies O CLA?J.(L) STOLZ(L) DICKER (E)

U/ Copies U/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies 1459 204 PADR(7 ) UAir?- U.) YdicinO::(:i) [ g

w/ t,opies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies 3 KNIEL(L) PURPLE (L) YOUNGBLOOD(E)

W/ Copies W/ Copies U/ Copies W/ Copics 7 INTERNAL DISTP.!EUTICU " '

G FILE f TECH RSVIE!J y DDITON LIC ASST A /T IND

/ Ar.v run ICNDRIE p GRIMES BRAITRG fGC,ROO'tF-306A SCHROEDER GAMMILL DIGGS (L) SALTZMMi HUNIZING/ STAFF MACCARY y KAS'n:ER GEARIN (L) B. HURT CASE KNIGHT fBALLARD COULBOURNE (L) p m ,3 GIAMBUSSO PAWLICKI SPANGLER KREUTZER (E) ' MCDONALD BOYD SHA0 LEE (L)' CHAPMM

MOORE (L)(3'iR) STELLO ENVIRO MAIGRET (L)

DEYOUNG(L)(I",JR) HOUSTON MULLER REED (E)

SKOVHOLT (L) NOVAK DICKER SERVICE (L)

COLLER(L) ROSS 10TIGHTCN SHEPPARD (L) D. THOMPSON (2)

Ps COLLINS IPPOLITO YOUNGBLCOD SLATER (E) KLECKER DENISE /TEDESC0( 2) REGAN SMITH (L) EISENHUT REC OPR LONG A ROJECT LDR TEETS (L) W CHEMEL LAINAS St. Marv (2)

/ FILE & REGION (2)

MORRIS BEMAROYA HARLESS WILLIAMS (E)

WILS0:i (L) 7910240 8 CTEELE VOLIFEP ,

EXTEE'AL DISTRIJ'JTICh /M

/ 1 - LCCAL PER Harrisburg, Pa.

f f 1 - TIC (AEERN'.!MY) /1)(<2)LWMIA~IONAL LM'S ANL l-PDR-SA'i/LA/:;T A - NSIC(EUCHA';AN) 1.Astap(Ej.; 313 ;,b 329) 1- LIBRARIXi 1 - ASL3 1-W. P n.:INGTC . Em E-201 GT B200KR'.VEN MAT. LA:

1 - P. R. DAVIS (AZROJET NUCLftR) 1-CONSULTA::T' S 1-AGMED(Ruth Gus: --

16 - CYS AC33 ECLDING N?I iARK/DLC: ICABIM: D!- B- 12 7, CT, 1-GZILiLO CL3IESD . 07';L 1.-RD.. MULL 2R..F-20 1-L .v M 5:.IMBh0:4 in E-201 GC

^

negufc.pn-g

/

2274i

%.:::,, n, - ~.m i

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY POOT OFFICE BOX 542 READING, PENNSYLVANI A 19603 TELEPHONE 2'.5 - 921 3601 June 20, 197h GQL 00h2 g &

4 50-289 Ti, Mr. F. A. St. Mary M 29fg74h =

Environmental Projects Manager arc US gMl3S!ffU

'l Directorate of Licensing U. S. Atomic Energy Cc-i ssion c3 k

ha k p Washington, D. C. 205k5 g a \W

Dear Mr. St. Mary:

Metropolitan Edison Ccmpany (Met-Ed) and several censulting organizations contracted by Met-Ed have reviewed the present version of the AEC's proposed standardized Environmental Technical Specifications as they would relate to Met-Ed's Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1. The attached list of information requests and proposed changes regarding these standardized specifications were generated from this review and were voiced earlier at a May 28,197h, meeting with you and some other DOL representatives (P. Stoddard and J. Boegli) .

Met-Ed believes that acceptance of these proposed changes is necessary to make the standardized specificatiens more ecm-patible with the actual design and operational capabilities of the station. Met-Ed also believes that none of these proposed changes vill in any way ecmpromise the health and safety of the public.

Mr. Stoddard of the Effluents Branch of the DOL stated at the May 28 meeting that all of Met-Ed's requests relating to this matter would be answered. It is intended that with this letter and the enclosed list, all of these requests vill be brought more formally to your and Mr. Stoddard's attention.

Please recognize that the recccmended changes to the stan-dardized Environmental Technical Specifications listed en the enclosure with this letter should not be considered cn proposed changes to the Environmental Technical Specifica-bY 6 4$sv @%

1459 205 h '

b ,

W.% "

p f. }.9 Q'(h

,;

fi*'T C U ,:. ':

\7/[T' w Qyy <

Mr. F. A. St. Mary June 20,197h tiens for Three Mile Island Unit 1, nor should they be con-sidered proposed changes to the standardized Environmental Technical Specificatiens once they have been formally issued to Met-Ed.

Sincerely, s.__m t . L.

L. L. Lawyer Manager-Operational Quality Assurance LLL:JFV:sh Attachment ec: J. Ecegli--AEC P. Stoddard--AEC 1459 206

PROPOSED CHANGES AND REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL OR CLARIFYING INFORMATION PROPOSED STANDARDIZED ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

1. 2. 3.c - 2nd line - Licensee requests a change from "the plant" to "all reactors at a site". (Same as request made by DOL representative at May 28th meeting.)

2. 2.3.1.h and 2.3.3.c - The licensee believes that a 30 day reporting period does not allow enough flexibility in the case of radio chemical analyses.

A request is made to extend this period to 60 days to allow for thorough investigation and program definition.

3 2.3.1.h - 2nd line - Licensee requests that "2 5 Ci/ calendar quarter" be changed to "2 5 Ci/ reactor / calendar quarter",

b. 2.3 2a - First two sentences - Licensee requests the first sentence be changed to read, " Records shall be maintained. . .", and the second sentence to read, " Reports and sample analysis results shall be submitted in accor-dance with Section 5.6.1 of these specifications".

5, 2.3.2.c - The licensee requests that DOL review our particular installation with a view tavards reducing the recirculation time.

6. P. 8 - 12th line down - The licensee requests deletion of the words "in conformance with Regulatory Guide 1.21". The reason for the clarifica-tion being that conformance with the Technical Specifications vill mean conformance with Regulatory Guide 1.21 as per DOL interpretation.

7. P. 8 - lines 18 The licensee requests deletion of this paragraph by reason of redundance. The Technical Specifications require explicit monitoring of release points, therefore, this paragraph is unnecessary.

8. 2.3.3a (1) and (2) - Licensee requests that Qv be redefined for Unit 1 plus Unit 2. (Same as request made by DOL representative at May 28th meeting.) Licensee requests deletion of "(ground release)".

o. 2.3.3.a (2); b (3) and (h); e (2) - Licensee requests verification of the constants used in the equation in light of depletion and grazing factors.

10. 2.3.3.b (2), (h), and (6) - Licensee requests clarification of ".. 12 consecutive months...".

11. ,2 3 3.b (51 - Licensee requests that "...shall not exceed 2 Ci" be changed to read "...shall not exceed 2 Ci/ reactor".

12. 2. 3. 3.b (b) - Licensee requests that ". . .shall not exceed h Ci" be changed to read "...shall not exceed h Ci/ reactor".

13 2.3. 3.c ( 3) - Licensee requests that ". . . greater than 0 5 Ci" be changed to read " . . . greater than 0 5 Ci/ reactor".

1459 207

. ,. m

. lb. 2 3 3.e - Licensee requests clarification of "(considered as Xe-133)".

15 P.15 - 2nd line un from bottom - and P.16 - 2nd line down from top -

Licensee requests that the X/Q values be verified.

Licensee also questions why the X/Q values are different from existing Unit #1 Technical Specifications.

L6. P.17 - Line 17 - Similar comment to Item #6.

17 P.17 - Last Paragraph - Similar comment to Item #7

18. 2. 3. 5.c - Licensee requests that ". . . major radionuclides as determined in 2.3.5a".

19 2.3.5.c - Licensee reports that Section 5.6.1 in the Technical Specifi-cations Appendix B contains no reference to solid vaste reporting requirements.

20. Table 2.3 Licensee requests deletion of the requirements for the one batch / month dissolved gas analysis and the monthly composite for Ba-La lh0, I-131 analysis. The ga=ma spectral analysis performed on each batch is a more restrictive analysis than the two analyses mentioned. The gamma spectral analysis vill identify the dissolved gases and Ba-La-lh0, I-131 on a batch basis.

21. Table 2.3 1 - Licensee requests that the Sr-89 analysis be conducted on a quarterly vice weekly composite. The Sr-89 and 90 analyses are normally conducted in sequence and, therefore, the Sr-89 and Sr-90 analyses should be performed at the same frequency.

22. Table 2. 3 Licensee requests that Item B, Primary Coolant analysis ,

be moved to the appropriate section in Appendix A of the Technical Speci-fications.

23 Table 2. 3-1, Note (1) - Licensee requests a wording change to eliminate the term " . . . from the plant".

24. Table 2. 3-1, Note (h) - Licensee requests that the last word in the sentence " . . . reported" be changed to read ". . . recorded".

25 Table 2.3 Licensee points out that items A and B should refer to Note (3) vice note (2).

26. Table 2 3-2.D - Licensee requests that " Environmental Release Points" be changed to read "Auxiliery and Fuel Handling Building Exhaust Vent and Reactor Building Purge Vent".

27 Table 2. 3.-2.D - Licensee requests that the frequency of analysis for I-133, 135 be changed from monthly (Charcoal Sample) to one week per month (Charcoal Sa=ple).

28. Table 2.3-2.D - Licensee requests that the frequency of the Sr-89 analysis be changed from a Monthly Composite (Particulates) to a Quarterly Cct-posite (Particulates). Justification is similar to Item #21.

1459 208

29 Table 2. 3-2.D - Licensee requests clarification of the requirement to do a Monthly Composite (Particulates) for gross alpha. Clarification of methodology for a monthly composite alpha analysis of four weekly filters is necessary.

30. Table 2. 3 Notes (2), (3), and (h) - Licensee requests that DOL review the applicability of these notes to a station discharging on a batch ba=is. Note (h) needs particular attention.

1459 209