ML20009A139
| ML20009A139 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/26/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20009A137 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8107090015 | |
| Download: ML20009A139 (3) | |
Text
-
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-320 THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT N0. 2 Introduction By letter dated June 10, 1981, the Metropolitan Edison Company (licensee) requested amendments to the Technical Specifications of Operating License No. DPR-73 for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (TMI-2).
The requested amendments to Appendix B of Operating License No. DPR-73 would fulfill the requirements as proposed by the NRC staff and contained in Appendix R of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) related to the decontamination and disposal of radioactive wastes resulting from the March 28, 1979 accident at TMI, Unit 2.
The requirements of Appendix R of the PEIS were endorsed by the Commission's Statement of Policy of April 27, 1981.
Evaluation In addition to the existing requirements in the Appendix B Technical Specifications, the proposed amendment would limit the radioactive effluent releases to the environment such that:
(1) The dose or dose commitment to an individual from liquid effluents will not exceed 3 mrem to the total body or 10 mrem to any organ per calerdar year.
(2) The air dose to an individual due to noble gases in gaseous effluents will not exceed 10 mrad for gamma radiation or 20 mrad for beta radiation for the calendar year.
(3) The does to an individual from radionuclides other than noble gases in gaseous effluents will not exceed 15 mrem to any organ for the calendar year.
The 7 posed amendment would also require quarterly reports to be submitted to the hav specifying all radiological releases and the estimated cumulative population dose following the end of each calendar quarter.
The quarterly report shall include:
1 0107090015 810626 PDR ADOCK 05000320 P
Safety Evaluation 2
(1)
Estimates of the amounts and types of radioactivity released each quarter including the time release rate and total activity of each radionuclide.
(2) Estimates of cumulative population and maximum individual esas which occurred during the quarter and during the calendar year. These estimates shall be based on actual hydrological and meteorological conditions occurring at the time of the releases.
'The proposed amendments to the Appendix B Technical Specifications discussed above are identical to those in Appendix R of the PEIS. As stated in the PEIS; "These modifications are proposed for the purpose of implementing the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 and to assure that the offsite doses that may occur are as low as reasonably achievable, while at the same time do not exceed the numerical design objectives of Appendix I....
compliance with the numerical objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 will assure that the radiation doses received by the public during the cleanup operation are sufficiently low to protect the public's health and safety. The permissible doses will be equivalent to or less than those permitted from an operating reactor. These doses, even when added to the doses which occurred during the TMI-2 accident are likely to have negligible health effects to individuals of the population." Endorsing the PEIS, the Commission, in its Policy Statement of April 27, 1981, stated that, "The cleanup should be carried out in accordance with the criteria in Appendix R of the PEIS as well as in conformance with the existing operating license (DPR-73) and with previously imposed orders."
The proposed changes to the Appendix B Technical Specifications would establish the design objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 as limits which must be complied with during the cleanup operations at TMI-2 The proposed require-ments are more restrictive than the criteria contained in the existing Technical Specifications and would be in addition to the existing requirements; they would not replace any of the existing requirements. Therefore, there would be no in-crease in the probability or consequences of accidents previously evaluated nor would their addition create the possibility of a different type accident or reduce the margin of safety defined in the basis of any technical specification.
Con-sequently, the addition of these proposed requirements does not involve a signi-ficant hazards consideration.
Environmental Conqideration Based on the evaluation above, the proposed amendment to the Appendix B Technical Specifications would not result in any environmental impact beyond those considered in the Programutic Environmental Impact Statement, NUREG-0683 and the Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement for TMI Unit 2, NUREG-0112.
In fact, the proposed amendment confonns to the radioactivity effluents criteria and proposed Technical Specifications of the PEIS and are more restrictive than those in the existing Technical Specifications.
2-,
- ~
d Safety Evaluation 3
Conclusion Based upon the staff's review of the proposed amendments to the Appendix B Technical Specifications, the staff finds the licensee's proposal to be acceptable and grants the request.
Based on the review, the staff has concluded that:
(1) The modification does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered or a significant reduction in a margin of safety and, therefore, does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
(2) There is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the modified manner.
(3) Such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this modification will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Having made this determination, the staff has further concluded that this amend-ment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(d) (4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
I r
l I