ML19296D259
| ML19296D259 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/28/1980 |
| From: | Reid R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19296D258 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003030099 | |
| Download: ML19296D259 (8) | |
Text
.o.
cotussPo#
p.gm
[D'D
[g anok'*
UNITED STATES
.Q, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/'
q
"?
W ASHINGTON. D. C. 20666
,. E METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
'O N q,p
~,
g.v j.
D (S
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY q
d PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY Q
g c
~
DOCKET NO. 50-289 THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO.1 AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 51 License No. DPR-50 1.' The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) has found that:
A.
The application for amendment by Metropolitan Edison Company, Jersey Central Power and Light Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company (the licensees), dated April 14, 1977, and July 8, 1977, as revised February 24, 1978, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Comission's rules and regula-tions set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; B.
The facility will operate in confomity with the applicat'on, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the C mnission; C.
There is reasonable assurance (1) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations; D.
The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E.
The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 Cf7 Part 51 of the Comission's regulations and all applicable naquirements have been satisfied.
=
-.2-Accordingly, the license is amended by changes to the Technical 2.
Specifications as indicated in the attacheent to this license amendment, and paragraph 2.c.(2) of Facility Operating License No. OpR-50 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(2) Technical Specifications The Technical Specifications contained in Appendices A and B, as revised through Amendment No.
are hereby incorporated in the license. The licensee shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications.
3.
This license amendment is effective as of the date of its issuance.
r;R THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION P
Robert W. Reid, Chief Operating Reactors Branch !4 Division of Operating Reactors
Attachment:
Changes to the Technical Specifications Date of Issuance: January 28, 1980 e
ATTACHMENT TO LICENSE AMENDMENT NO. 51 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-50 DOCKET NO. 50-289 Revise Appendix B as follows:
Remove Pages Insert Paces i & 11 i & ii y
V 39-40 39 49 The changes on the revised pages are shown by marginal lines, o
i ENVIRONMENTAL TL naICAL SPECIFICATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS Pace List of Tab 1es...............................................
iv List of Figures..............................................
v 1.0 DEFINITIONS..................................................
1 2.0 LIMITING CONDITIONS FOR OPERATI.0N............................
2 2.1 Ther..a1.................................................
2
' 2. 2 Che=ica1................................................
T 2.2.1 Chlorine.........................................
7 2.2.2 Suspended and Dissolved Solids...................
10 2.2.3 pH...............................................
13 2.3 Radioactive Discharges..................................
Ik 2.3.1 Liquid Effluents.................................
1h 2.32 Gaseous Effluents................................
23 3.0 DESIGN FEAWRES AND OPERATING FRACTICES........'..............
35 3.1 Operation of Mechanical Draft cooling Tower.............
35 3.2 Chemical Us~ age..........................................
36 3.2.1 Water Treatment..................................
36-3.2.2 Sulfuric Acid for Cooling Tover Circuits.........
37 3.2 3 Concentration of Naturally Occurring Salts.......
37 3.2.4 Chlo rin at i on.....................................
37 3.2.5 Sanitary vastes..................................
38 3.2.6 Solid Wastes.....................................
38 h.O ENVIRONMEITAL SURVEILLANCE AND SPECIAL STUDIES...............
39 Amendment No. 51
11 TABLE OF CONTBITS (eent'd) h.h Environmental Radiological Monitoring...................
49 5.0 AEMINIS*RATIVE CONTR0IS......................................
58 5.1 Responsibility...........................................
58 3
5.2 organization............................................
60 5.3 Audit and Reviev........................................
60 5.4 Action to be Taken if a Li=iting Ccndition for Ope rati on i s Exc e ede d...................................
61 55 Procedures..........................
61 5.5.1 Written Procedures for Activities................
61 5.5 2 Plant Operating Procedures.......................
62 553 Review of Procedures.............................
63 c
A=endnent No.
51
i ENVIRO?O4 ENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS LIST OF FIGURES No.
Pare 1
3 Radiological Environ = ental Monitoring Stations..........
50 h
Fish, Air and Precipitation Sa=pling Staticus...........
53' 5
TLD Indicator Stations..................................
sh 6
TLD Background Stations.................................
55 7
Milk and Vegetable Sampling Stations....................
56-8 organization for I=ple=entation of Environmental Technical Specifications................................
59 e
At:aament No. g 51
- '.N. VIROKKEN"E' SURVIILLECE AND SPECIAL STUIIIS b.0 I
Pages LO h8 deleted Amendment No. 51
49 -
k.k ET. /IRONMD.'TAL RADIGIKICAL MONITORING Cb*ective An environ = ental radiological monitoring program shall be conducted to verify that radioactive releases are within allovable
'd
'ts and that station operations hare no detrimental effect on the environment, s
Snecificatiens Environ = ental samples shall be collected and analyzed according to a.
Table 3 at the 3ccations presented in Figures 3, k, 5, 6, and T.
b.
Reports shall be sut=itted in accordance with the require =ents of Section 5.6 (Plant Reporting Requirements).
During the seasccs that' ani-als producing milk for hu=an consu=ption c.
are on pasture, sa=ples of fresh milk vill be obtained monthly from these animals at locations presented in Table 3 and analyzed for their radioiodine content, calculated as iodine-131.
Analysis vill be carried cut within eight days (one I-131 half-life) of sampling.
Suitable analytical procedures vill be used to deterr.ine the radiciodine concentration to a sensitivity of 0 5 picoeurie per liter of milk at the time of sa=pling. For activity levels at or above 0.5 picoeurie per liter, the crerall error (one sig=a confidence level) of the analysi8 vill be within +25%.
Results (continued on Page 57)
Amendment No. 51
DPoy,g,D
[%,
UNITED STATES e i g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
WASHf NGTON,0. C. 20555 * *
%.../ r g,
/
+-
ENVIRON'iENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 51 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-50 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
/.
g 4
PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
'C~v g~o$y
{
+
THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO.1
\\
. g, 11
~
cgy,y
(; c
.g.
,-p DOCKET NO. 50-289 e -
p k,3,, ',N ss Description of Proposed Action By letters dated April 14, 1977, and July 8,1977, as revised February 24, 1978, Metropolitan Edison Company (Met Ed) requested that the Environmental Technical Specifications (ETS) for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1 (TMI-1) be revised to delete certain nonradiological environmental technical specifications as the programs have reached their termination points. The programs proposed for deletion a Specifications 4.1.1, Aquatic Biological Surveillance; 4.1.2, Terrestrial Surveillance, including 4.1.2.1, Bird Impaction on Cooling Towers, and 4.1.2.2, Aquatic Chemical Surveillance; 4.2.2, Ambient Water Quality; and 4.3.1, Thermal Plume Mapping.
Our evalu-ation is based on information in the annual reports from 1974 through 1977.
Evaluation 4.1.1.A Imoinaement During 1974 and 1975 a total of 44 fish impingement surveys were made. A total of 1698 (4.3 kg) fish of 25 species were impin aq.
The aver.s_
. hourly impingement rate was 1.6 fish /hr (4.1 gm/hr).
A very small percentage of these fishes were game fish. Most of them were forage species and trash species.
The results of trapnet and seine sampling during 1974 and 1975 (a total of 18'741 fish were caught in the program) indicate a fairly extensive local fish population, although the exact extent of the population was not deter-mined.
We judge that the impingement rate is small in comparison to the apparent size of the population, and therefore the impact of fish impinge-ment is insignificant.
Based on these findings, we conclude that the impingement numbers are low on a relative basis and no further impingement sampling need be done for this Unit.
4.1.1.B Entrainment of Fish Ecos and Fish Larvae During the spawning period (April - October), egg and larval fish studies were done twice per month. Most of the eggs that were taken were collected 800g;0 ONS
. in May and June.
During the two-year period, a total of 390 eggs, 234 larval fishes, and 13 juveniles were taken in a total of 168 sampling periods.
The amount of water that was filtered during each sampling period was three cubic meters.
These entrainment studies indicate that for most of the spawning period low densities of ichthyoplankton are found in the area and suggest that the impact is acceptable.
Because 3
further sampling in this area will not ' increase the confidence of the impact assessment and the numbers entrained are low in comparison to expected populations, the entrainment studies are no longer necessary.
4.1.1.C Entrainment of Plankton The specification requires that semi-monthly plankton sampling be made at four hour intervals over a 24-hour period. The samples were to be counted and the extent of mortality determined.
Species were to be identified to the lowest possible taxon.
The samples indicate that the differences in abundance were not significant (P=.05) most of the time. As the intake and discharge samples were similar, we judge that the plant is having a neglible impact on these populations.
Ha have concluded that this program may be terminated since the objective has been adequately met.
4.1.1.0 Fish Data were collected during 1975 and 1977.
The specification requirements were met during all three of these years.
The data do not indicate that any significant changes in population are occurring; therefore, we conclude that this specification requirement may be terminated.
4.1.1. E Macroinvertebrates Data were collected during 1975 and 1976. The studies done during these years met the specification requirements.
Termination of the program is acceptable since the sampling requirement has been met, and no significant impacts were expected on these populations according to the Final Environ-mental Staterent (FES).
4.1.2 (4.1.2.1 & 4.1.2.2) Bird Impaction on Cooling Towers and Effects. of Cooling Tower Drift on Crops and Natural Vecetation The data presented fully satisfy the ETS objectives, specifications, and bases..This conclusion agrees with the conclusions presented by the NRC staff in the FES for TMI-2 (December 1976).
In the FES (Section 6.5),
the NRC staff reviewed TMI-l operational data and recommended termination of TMI-l terrestrial monitoring programs and implerentation of TMI-2 terrestrial monitoring programs as they would detect effects from TMI-l operation.
Thus, we find the deletion of this program at TMI-l acceptable.
9
. 4.2.1 Acuatic Chemical Surveillance Met Ed collected data in this area during 1974 and 1975.
The monitoring was required to be done for a period of two years.
The monitoring program that was carried out met the requirements of the specifications.
Our review of the results of the monitoring indicated that no significant change to water quality of the Susquehanna River has occurred that can be attributed to plant operation.
In our judgment the objectives of.the specifications have been met, and therefore we find deletion of this program acceptable.
4.2.2 Ambient Water Ouality Met Ed collected data in this area from 1974 through 1976, which appears in their annual reports. The monitoring program performed by Met'Ed met the objectives of the specifications both in content and in duration.
The data indicate that no significant change in water quality has occurred in the river; thus, we find the deletion of this program acceptable.
4.3.1 Thermal Plume Macoing The objective of this specification is to provide data for defining the discharge plume and to check the accuracy of the analytical plume model.
Thernal plume data have been collected under various river flow and ambient temperature conditions in compliance with the monitoring require-ments.
The ETS contained a requirement that Met Ed locate the 5*F aT isotherm during the first planned winter cooldown in which the effluent AT is greater than 10*F.
The only planned winter cooldown in over four years resulted in a AT of less than 10*F (8.3 F).
Met Ed stated that the "the thermal plume during this cooldown was confined to the area of the discharge and had a width less than 20 meters from shore and a length less than 25 meters downstream from the discharge." We do not anticipate that the effect of a 2*F AT increase would significantly increase the size of the plume.
As predicted in the FES, based on the analytical plume model, the plumes are srall or nonexistent in most cases.
No unusual thermal effects that would warrant further monitoring were detected.
Based on the above, we conclude that the requirement for monitoring during winter cooldown is no longer necessary and that Met Ed has met the intent of Section 4.3.1.
Therefore, we find the deletion of Section 4.3.1~ acceptable.
L 4-Conclusion and Basis for Necative Declaration On the basis of the foregoing analysis of the results of the test program, it is concluded that there will be no significant environmental impact attributable to the proposed action.
Having made this conclusion, the Commission has further concluded that no environmental impact statement for the proposed action need be prepared and that a negative declaration 3
to this effect is appropriate.
The test programs deleted by this amend-ment were required by the technical specification to be continued for a period of two years and based on the above analysis there is no need for continuation.
Therefore this arendment merely deletes these test programs that are no longer in effect and which will not have an impact on the environ-ment.
The test programs did meet the objectives of the technical speciff-cation and the results confirmed the earlier assumptions.
Dated:.lanuhry 28, 1980
t 7590-01.
CORRr m D?v ep UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIC'l DOCKET NO. 50-239 C.
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
- v%,,. p,C JERSEY CENTRAL PO'GR AND LIGHT COMPA1Y ac
~
PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY 4;
N q
g u--
' NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY g OPERATING LICENSE d
8 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
/
N..:, t 9 The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Conr:ission) has issued Amendment No. 51 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-50, issued to Metropolitan Edison Company, Jersey Central Power and Light Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company (the :icensees), which revised Technical Specifications for operation of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1 (the facility) located in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.
The amendment is effective as of its date of ;ssuance.
The amendment revises the Technical Specificatio.s for the facility by deleting the requirement to perform limited term e.vironmental studies which have been completed.
This amendment doss not relate to, or affect the Unit No.1 restart which is being consi:ered in a separate proceeding.
The application for the amendment complies with -he standards anC requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as ane-ded (the Act),
and the Comission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Prior public notice of this amendment was not required since the arendment does n:t involve a signi-ficant hazards consideration.
8 0 OQQ
fy 7590-01
. The Commission has prepared an environmental impact appraisal for the revised Technical Specifications and has concluded tht an enviorn-mental impact statement for this particular action is not warranted because there will be no environmental impact attributable to the action other than that which has already been predicted and described in the Cortunission's Final Environmental Statement for the facility.
Forfurtherdetailswithrespecttothisaction,see(1)th[
application for amendment date'd April 14, 1977, and July 8. 1977, as revised February 24,1978,(2) Amendment No. 51 to License No. DPR-50, (3) the Commission's letter to the licensee dated January 28, 1980
,and (4) the Comission's Environmental Impact Appraisal. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D. C.
20555, and at the Government Publications Section, State Library of Pennsylvania. A copy of items (2),
(3), and (4) may be,otained upon request addressed to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C.
20555, Attention:
- Director, Division of Operating Reactors.
Dated at ' e hesda, Maryland, this 28th day of January,1980.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION M. L q
Robert W. Reid, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Operating Reactors
%