ML19221A007
| ML19221A007 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/06/1976 |
| From: | Vollmer R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Deyoung R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7905160483 | |
| Download: ML19221A007 (5) | |
Text
.
w qrwa T s s_
MAY I 3 Wo Docket No. : 50-320 Richard C. DeYoung, Assistant Oirector for Light Water "eactors, "F:1 TEPZE MILE ISLAND U'iIT NC. 2 SER I?!PUT PLAET NA'IE: Th ree Mile Island Unit No. 2 LICE"SI"G S* AGE: OL DCCKET NUMEER: 50-320 MILESTC"E 'C2ER: 24-31 RESPCMSISLE SPJL'IC11: LkR 82; H. Silver, LF" RECUESTD CC:!PLETION DATE: April 20,19 76 RO.'IEW STAWS: AAB Review Complete Attached is additional Accident Analysis Branch SER input on Section 2.2 and Section 6.2.3 by J. Read and W. Pasedag respectively. Ce bave also included a LOCA de's evaluation based on the present desL:n for inclusion in Section 15, whica was transtitted in our neuo of Nove:2ber 25,19 75.
We vill require, as part of the technical specifications, that the appli-cant perform periodic nenitoring and reporting to us of usage at Harrisbur;;
International Airport involving aircraf t in encess of 200,000 recad s.
We have concluded, based upon actual tests of the equivalent systcc 1.-
Un it Fo. 1, t ha t the present containnent spray additive syste i does not achieve its design criterf a, and is therefore ineffective for renoval of iodine in one event of a design basis LCCA.
"e have indicated system rod-ifications that would meet our requirenents.
Ce have perfer7.ed an evaluation of the offsite doses c'ue te a postulated loss of coolant accident based on the current containment spray additive systen and conclude that the doses are in excess of the lic.its of 1G C N
? art 100. We believe, using the current meteorology values as supplied by staf f :seteorologists, that with a reduced centainment leak rate of 01.12/ day and an overall iodine spray reduction faccor of 6.25, the ""hrec lile Island Unit !!o. 2 can meet the guideline dose of 10 C"R Fart 10 0.
We have reviewed and approved containnent spray additive systens in the past which have achieved such a dose reduction factor and believe that this is feasible. We will report our LCCA analysis doses in a supciencnt to this report.
120 133 7905160 t/ S$
MAY I 31373 Richard C. DeYoung
- 2 This input was coordinated by Charlas Ferrell, Sita Analyst, Accident Analysis 3 ranch.
l*\\
Richard H. Vollmer, Assistant Director for Site Analysis Division of Site Safety and Envirountental Analysis
Enclosure:
Three Mila Island Unit No. 2 SE1 Input p.is t ri__ducion :
S. Hanauer H. Denton D. Crutchfield R. Vollmer J. Miller S. Varga R. Boyd K. Kniel H. Silver D. Bunch L. Soffer C. Ferrell P. Shuttleworth (w/o encleaurc)
W. Mcdonald (w/o enclosure)
J. Panzarella (w/o enclosure)
Docket File NRR Reading File DSE Reading File AAB Reading File AAB File J. Read W. Pasedag i20 W AA3:DSp
,AAB:DSE AA3:DSE AD:SA** _
....i,,..
C.Ferrell:dr L. Soffer D. y.._
d' R
ter 05- @ -76 05-L'-76 05-/ -76 V
O ATE 9" 0 -Q.... 76 4
Forse MC 31 s i Re. 9 5 3 ) MCM 0240 W u. a. eovsmauswv emmwe orrica ieve.eee.ies
O t.
2.2 Nearbv Facilities A conservative esti= ate =ade in 1968 of aircraft risk to Three Mile Island Unit No.1 due to operations at Harrisburg International Airport indicated tha t the risk was acceptably low for that plant, as licensed, provided that less than 2400 operations per year were,by aircraf t in acc ess o f 200,000 pounds (91 =etric tons).
In 1968 there was one scheduled flight per day by an air carrier using a coc=ercial aircraft in excess of 91 =etric tons, and occasional use of the airport by =111tary flights of cargo aircraf t in excess of that weight. At present there is no scheduled coc=ercial air carrier service using aircraf t above that weight, approxi=ately two flights per day by chartered j et air-craft, and approxi=ately once weekly flights by =ilitary arieraf t (Lockheed CSA) in excess of 91 metric tons.
Of the chartered aircraft traffic, approxi-ately one flight per =onth would be expected to be a Boeing 747.
The applicant has =ade a projection of future traffic growth at Earrisburg International Airport using projected national rates of increased de=and for air travel. Using these rates, the applicant finds that about 2400 operations per year involving aircraft in excess of 91 =etric tons would be reached by about 1990. While there is no reliable =ethod of predicting future travel de=and at a particular airport, we believe that the use of a national projected growth rate of air travel may overestimate the growth to be expected at a r= aller, regional airport such as Harrisburg International Airpo rt. We conclude that the present risk fro aircraft operations at the airpo rt to the nuclear power plants on Three Mile Island is acceptably low.
Nevertheless, we will require the applicant to continue periodic conitoring
-C i20 1JJ
- t. and reporting to us of airport usage, and we will reanalyce the adequacy of plant protection of traffic by heavy aircraf t is reliably proj ected to exceed 2400 per year. This requirement will be included in the technical specifications.
6.2.3 Containment Air Cleanuo Syste=
The containment spray syste= is designed to inj ect sodium hydroxide and thiosulfate into the containment to reduce the airborne iodine concentrations following a postulated LOCA. We have previously reviewed this iodine removal concept and found it acceptable as described and documented in several B&W topical reports (3AW-10017 and HAW-10022 and their revisions). Ecwever, the =ethod chosen for additive inj ection, i.e.,
gravity feed addition of the chemicals to the BWST solution, has been shown by tests to produce additive concentrations which do not meet the original design criteria. The applicant has stated that the syste= perfor=ance will be deconstrated by preoperational testing. However, such testing of the equivalent systen in Unit No. 1 has demonstrated that this syste= does not achieve its design criteria. Therefore, we will require that the applicant redesign the syste= so that the additive concentrations fall within the limits of the design criteria, even for a single active failure anywhere in the syste= or its support systa=s.
We believe that a syste= which e= ploys positive control over the additive inj ection rates provides an acceptable =ethod of achieving this.
We will require a verification of the revised syste= by preoperational tests, and we will report our evaluation of the revised systen in a future supplement.
7 /
)20 13o 4
1 15.1 Radiological Consecuences of Accidents We have perfor:ed an evaluation of the offsite doses resulting from a postulated design basis LOCA, and conclude that, based upon the present containment leak rate of 0.2% per day and upon our present evaluation of the contain=ent spray additive system (see section 6.2.3),
the offsite doses exceed the guideline values of 10 CFR Part 100.
We will require that the applicant reduce his present containment design leak rate and provide a revised spray additive system which is effective in removal of iodine in order to meet the guideline values of Part 100.
We believe that, with a reduced contain=ent leak rate of 0.1% per day, an overall iodine dose reduction factor of at least 6.25 would be re-quired of the spray additive system to have the offsite doses =eet the guideline values of Part 100. We have reviewed and approved contain=ent spray additive systems in the past that have achieved such a dose re-duction factor and believe that this is feasible. We will review proposed changes to these syste=s mad we will provide our evaluations, as well as revised offsite doses, as appropriate, in a supple =ent to this report.
l20 137
_..