ML19220C313
| ML19220C313 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/24/1974 |
| From: | Washburn B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904300168 | |
| Download: ML19220C313 (5) | |
Text
9
[] "'.,
UNITED STATES
[NN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION e
t-
-d h
- WAsHINGTCed. O.C.
20545 x 3~
i.,,,, #
Docket No. 50-320 APPLICANTS: Metropolitan Edison Co=pany Jersey Central Power & Light Company Pennsylvania Electric Cc=pany FACII.ITY:
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2
SUMMARY
OF CCTOBER 10, 1974 MEETING IN BETHESDA WI~~d INTERVE*ERS' REPRESE'iTATIVES TO DISCUSS INTERVENERS' CONTEiTIONS Cn October 10, 1974 Mr. Chauncey Kepf ord and Mrs. Elizabe th Northa=,
representatives of Citizens for a Safe Environ =ent and York Co==ittee f or a Safe Environ =ent, =et with the Regulatcry staff to discuss the contentions as stated in their Petition for Intervention, June 20, 1974 (Attach =ent 1).
A list of attendees is attached (Attach =ent 2).
Mr. Kepford objected to the presence of the applicants' representative, Mr. D. Reppert, GPUSC, as an observer at this =ecting partially because he had not been previously infor:ed of the applicants attendance.
Mr. Reppert agreed to withdraw.
Significant points discussed are su==arized below. The order and nu=erical designations in this su==ary follor that used in Attach =ent 1.
No additional contentions were introduced in this discussion.
1.
Co=bined ther al releases frc= facilities on the icwer Sus wehena River The interveners concern is the cumulative effect of all heat release and the potential for resultant cli=atic change due to a concentration of power plants in a relatively small area. The interveners indicated that this total heat rejection is a significant fraction of the incident solar radiation over an area of the order of fifteen square =iles.
2.
Biological survev and studv The interveners stated that the Environ = ental Report (ER) is incomplete, as pert:ining to fanna and aves, in that 1* contains no pcpulation es ti=ates and does not reflect any actual fiel;!
surveys. The interveners believe that the ER does not conform to NF.?A require =ents.
^'
(,). r, no n1 (,
j{
<; j m. v
}90430014B d
9 The staff indicated their understanding that the applicants '
censultants are conducting a nore comprehensive study than was indicated by the old ER and that the results should be reflected in the ER up-date which is presently scheduled for filing on February 28, 1975.
3.
Plant coeration using once-throuch cooling The interveners stated that this is one of their pri=e concerns.
They indicated that shutting the plant down following loss of the cooling tcwers during the course of an earthquake or tornado would be an econc=ic penalty.
The staff indicated that cooling tower design and construction to withstand tornado and earthquake loadings would also be an econesic penalty and that the detailed review of these structures is not a part of the safety review. The plant design needs to be examined to determine if the installed intake and pu= ping capacities are adequate to permit operation using once-through ecoling.
4.
Cacaci ty factor assu=otions as related to cost-benefit fizures The staff indicated that the up-dated ER should contain revised data and that improved AEC data and openness should provide the appropriate f actual infor=atien.
5.
Icoact of aircraft of the 747 and C-5A clas.es on the facility The interveners were referred to Section 3.6 of the TMI-l SER, July 11,1973,(pages 3-4 to 3-9) for our probability analysis relating to i= pact of aircraf t weighing = ore than 200,000 pounds. Our current position is the sa=e as stated in this reference; however, we will reconsider our safety evaluation if there is a significant change in the large aircraf t traffic.
The interveners requested infor=ation on the i= pact probability for aircraft under 200,000 pounds.
This infor=atien was not available at the =eeting.
(From infor ation filed in the TMI-2 PS AR, Supple =ent 4, the applicants' analyses indicate i= pact probabilities of 1 X 10-6/ year for aircraft in the weight range of 40,000 to 200,000 pounds and 5 X 10-5/ year for air-craft of the Cessna, Beechcraft and Piper types. Also see Section 2.2 of the TMI-2 FS AR.)
6.
Environ = ental radioactivity monitorinz orcera:
The contention is based on Governor Shapp's report conce rning the Stetnglass report on Shippingport.
The interveners state that the governor's report indicates the =cnitoring to be in-adequate. The interveners also stated that the State of
^
qi7 n [)
L..
0
i
_3-Pennsylvania =enitoring program, independent of the applicants ',
is very 11=1ted in scope and extent.
They asked why the AEC does not perfor= independant =enitoring.
The staff explained our require =ents and indicated that the expected dose rates off-site during nor=al and accident con-dicions would be difficult to routinely ceasure. The staff vill provide Mr. Kepford with a copy of the TMI-l Environ = ental Technical Specifications for additional detailed infor=ation.
7.
Flood orotection The interveners question the =ethods of flood prediction.
The staf f outlined the plan to initiate safe and orderly shut-down abov-design flood conditions and the need to protect all safety related features up to probable =axi=u= flood conditions.
A portion of this concern is under review and questions have been sub=itted to the applicants.
(A staff hydrolo-ist will discus s the prediction =ethods with Mr. Kepford b) ne.)
8.
Warning and evacuation olans The interveners indicate that local officials, in nearby coc= unities, have little or no concept of what they are expected or need to do in an e=ergency. Outside of the State Bureau of Radiological Health, training and trained personnel for a radiological e=ergency are virtual?.y nonexistent.
Concern was expressed for the practicalities of i=ple=enting the e=ergency and evacuatic n plans.
9.
Gaseous radioactivity releases and ALAP The interveners indicate that Rancho Seco has an incre? sed iodine re= oval capability that could be added to TMI-2 tc
=eet ALAP.
They are concerned about the use of appropriai.e ventilation and filtering syste=s during nor=al operation s,
alar =s and signals used to initiate filtration, periodic vs continuous tse of filtration, and the optional use of filters by the operator.
The interveners =entioned the kidney filter installe d in the contain=ent at=osphere clean-up sys te= in TMI-1.
The staff indicated that Rancho Seco does have a unique capability to. recirculate the contain=ent at=osphere at high flow rates through charcoal filters. This is the pri=ary dif ference be tween TMI-2 and Rancho Seco. The cryogeni.
filter syste= installed at San Onofree processes only a portion of the release fro = the gas hold-up sys te=.
Crogenic treat =ent is not adaptable to other release points.
TMI-2 has a recircu-lation filter syste= like the TMI-1 syate= refereaced (See Figure 6.2-20, TMI-2 FSAR).
n7 91o O2 u iv
_4
. Costs are a consideration in centinuous operation and in providing increased filtration ef fectiveness.
Sc=e filters are needed only at particular ti=es.
(The inte rveners were previously supplied with general infor=ation on filters and filtration require =ents.)
10.
Pressure vessel failure or ructure The staff will eend Mr. Kepford a copy of a generic report on pressure vessel integrity.
11.
Che=ical dischar2es and water cuality The interveners are concerned about the effect of discharges on downstrea= sport fishing and would like to have continuous chlorine discharges li=ited to 0.1 parts per =illion.
The staff suggested that the ER up-date filing precede additional discussion.
12.
Indirect costs and cost-benefit analvsis Deferred for later discussion with the EPM.
13.
Interactions be tween coolin2 tower clu=es and the g aseous releases of radioactivity The interveners asked if this ef fect had been taken into acco un t, how can an individual, if he so desires, protect hi=self fro: doses less than 5 =re= to the thyroid, what are reporting requirements and reporting ti=es for releases and are these adequate to infor: people who ma; wish to avoid exposure.
The.sraff explained our approach and will send Mr. Kepford a copy of Regulatory Guide 1.42 for additional information. The ple=e-gaseous release interaction was not considerad separately when we set the iodine limit. We are using four dairies which have the highest potential dose and take =cathly sa ples for iodine =enitoring.
The frequency of sa=pling depends upon the calculated expected level. The interaction effect is accounted for indirectly by =onitoring; there are too =any uncertainties in the =odeling to calculate this contribution. There is an ongoing AEC-EPA effort to verify the =odels used; however, the sa=pling of the =11k is the =os t confident procedure. All tech spec limits are set at the effluent release point.
Radioactive effluents are continuously =onitored at the release point and the releases are i==ediately known. Releases =ust be reported to Co=pliance.
Definition of the dose li=it of interest for short ti=e exposures is needed.
he h O '7[ b
. W. Washburn, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch 2-2 At tach =en ts :
Directorate of Licensing As stated
- O n
a -)
6 '
u O
-4 Costs are a ec ideraticn in centinuous operat..a and in providing f acreased filtration effectiveness.
Sc=e filters are needed cnly at particular times.
(The interveners were previously supplied with general info:- atica en filters and filtratica require =ents.)
10.
Pressure vessel failure or ructure The staff will send Mr. Kepford a copy of a generic report en pressure vessel p e s 11.
Chemical dischar:;es and water quality The interveners are concerned abcut the effect of discharges on dcwnstrea= sport fishing and would like to have continuous chlorine discharges limited to 0.1 parts per million.
The staff suggested that the ER up-date filing precede additional discussion.
12.
Indirect ceses and cest-benefit analvsis Deferred for lated discussion with the EPM.
/
13.
Interactions between coolina tewer ele =es and the gaseous releases of radioactivity The interveners asked if this effect had been taken into account, how can an individual, if he so desires, protect bi=self frc= doses less than 5 =re= to the thyroid, what are reporting requirements and reporting times for releases and are these adequate to infor= people who =ay wish to avoid exposure.
The staff explained our approach and will send Mr. Kepford a copy of Regulatory Guide 1.42 for additional infor=atien. The plu=e-gaseous release interaction was not considered separately when we set the iodine limit. We are using four dairies which havs the highest potential dose and take conthly samples for lodine =enitoring. The frequency of sa=pling depends upcn the calculated expected level. The interaction effect is acccunted for indirectly by =cnitoring; there are too many uncertainties in the modeling to calculate this ccaribution. There is an ongoing AEC-E?A effort to verify the =cdels used; however, the sampling of the = ilk is the cost ecnfident procedure. All tech spec li=its are set at the effluent release point.
Radioactive effluents are centinuously monitored at the release point and the releases are i==ediately known. Releases must be reported to Compliance. Definiticn of the dose limit of interest for shor ti=e exposures is needed.
- 3. W. Washburn, Project Manager nmn L12ht Water Reactors Branch 2-2 bq u t_ b Attach =en ts :
~
'/
Directorate of Licensing As stated RP_:.WR2-. __ EP__f;.f
@:k
._'3 :AAB7 TRCS3[
.-s*
3Was F
f___
F_
C Ferrell P Stoddirt
/C/n 2Y WMW d.Congel_u k t A W M i G!l&?l _
K~ Knie.
.u..-=+-
V9W
,e n O
h 4PC.418 (Rev. M )) A2 Od 0240
- 7 u. s. eovelow n sa.t 'emme GPFtGRA 1974 449664
\\