ML19199A466
| ML19199A466 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/21/1977 |
| From: | Cleary D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Regan W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7905020501 | |
| Download: ML19199A466 (3) | |
Text
- n 0
~.
.n 1.-
March 21, lE77
!IliCRAhCLM FCR: Willica H. Regan, Jr., Chief, Envirdnnental Frejects Branch No. 2, DSE FROM:
Ocnald F. Cicary, Secticn I.eader, F.egional I:cact Analysis section, Ccst-2er.cfit Analysis Granca, ET, CR SLBJECT:
RJISED DRAFT TESTIP.0:iY FCR THREE MILE ISL;20, L;!IT Z PLA;iT tiA:!E: Ti:ree Mile Island, Unit 2 LICENSIt;G STAGE: OL CCCY.ET ht+!3ER: 50-320 P.ESPONSIBLE EG!iCH: Envirennental Projects I?o. 2 FROJECT WJ4 AGE 2: Jan iiorris CESCRIPTIC;4 0F RESP 0iiSE: Revised Craft Testitony Attached is the revised draft testitcny in relation to Contention 3 dcal-ing with ecoling towers design adequacy related to earthquakes and tornadoer.
The attactnent was prepared by Louis Bykoski, Cost-Benefit Analysis Cranen, 492-7906.
Donald P. Cleary, Section Leacer Regicnal Impact Inalysis Section Cost-Benefit Analysis Brancn Division of Site Safety and Envirorsnental Analysis Attachc:ent: As state DISTRIBUTION Central Files B N. cu.gblood NRR r/f G. Fess DSE r/f L. Bykoski CBAB r/f 7905ogago, P-T DSE:ET:CBAB O g :CSAB DSE.;..EL;_CBAB o,
LBhM_Ilme.CCleary BJYounghlnod
....w.
3-N-Z7___
. 3-%t-7L
. 3.
-ZL..
om I, ~
NEC PORM 313 &76) NI.CM 0240 W u. a. eav.nawrw?,mumme orric.a im - eas.e 4
\\t t 's e
=
gJ t i 4.. t Y *i L ".i
~, U.-
- n. "T N ?
^~ ***
', 9 *. * ~i L <.
..;,p,-., X T ;;i La. -a n., C v,.,,. 'e c - r p e.
... n i.. i Li..
i u.~. r
.. A i e.
..gie9 -
e-.-,nsi
^
Ty r. --..d;1 i. 4 L L
..y, - e q,L ta i ;J i n..i t - -
..-n
- i J L wa. g-D i r. i i v. 8,
L li 1.
CCCKET NC. ST% 50-220 c-. r2 m.-
i:ci,m~p.,( R,eit, 1 0 ;,.-r.c 3
-u i
t n.
LCSS OF CCCLING TCWERS FROM..ATLP.'t PHE:;C".E.SA BY LCUIS EY"CSKI
,,,,,J....
-..1..,-...e.,-,Ks..c..u i n
--,..-.,..e-Kou l i.ist ti.s tLu:.v. t.a :
This testiceny addresses Contention 3 which reads:
"The design for the cooling to,.ers is inadequate to withstand the earthcuake or tornaco that the rest cf the plant is built to withstand.
As a result, if this earthquaka cr tornaco dces occur and the main plant does withstanc it, it is highly probable that the ccoling tcwers will r.ot.
Then, either the plant. vill shut d:.in for two or three years wnile the tcwers are rebuilt or repaired, or the plant will continue to ocerate withcut cooling tcuers using once-thrcugh cooling.
In tnis latter event, it is hignly likely that state water quality criteria wculd be violatec anc severe environmental impacts would ensue.
Therefore, no acerating license shculd be granted until the entire plant is rendered cacable of withstanding the maximum anticipated eartncuake or tornado or until an adecuate cost-benefit analysis pursuant to.1EFA is concuctc0 tar.ing into account the impact of possible loss of
.'e cccling to'..ers."
,i
,1 l
g' N
jU
2 This tes timony res;cnds to Contention 3 i.1;cfar as it allag;. tr.at no
.1 d
i-.,
-s
. 1 e,,i a n a...uc,iear qtati:n,, unit -a s..i.-c) operating license r.or ;nree should be issuec until an adecuate cost-benefit analysis is con:ucted which ::kes into account the impact of ;cssibla Icss of tha c cling tc;.ers.
Resocnse At cutset, it shcuid be noted that the plant, as it is designed, is physically incapable cf operating a ence-through c cling syster.
There-fora, contrary to a portion of the contention, the piant will r.ct operate in violation of state water quality criteria as a result of the loss cf the cooling tcc.ers fecm natural chencmena.
Thus, it is unnecessary to prepare a cost-benefit analysis which takes into acccunt the envircnmental impacts f rcm operation withcut cooling : '.zers.
A second particn c# the contentica maintains that the entire plant should be rendered c;;able of withstanding the maximum anticipated earthquake or tornado.
presen tly,
only those plant systems and structures which are necessary to shut the plant down safely and maintain it in a safe shutdcwn condition are designed to withstand tornadoes and a level of seismic shaking called the Safe Shutccwn Earthquake.
a These strigent design requirements against the effects of natural ;nenc ena are required by NRC to protect the health and safety of the public. The remaining systems and structures, including the ccoling to..ers, are not specified by "RC regulations ith regard to effects of natural ;nencmena.
Plant features not included in the health and safety category are designed by the Applicant to be cost. effective and to meet any building codes as may be recuired by state and local regulations.
Furthermore, any additional upgrading of the design of the cooling towers with respect to natural phencmena.:culd not result in reducing the environmental im: acts associated with tne cceraticn of the cooling to.;ers.
4
/
1
>2
-