ML20031A887
| ML20031A887 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/23/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20031A879 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8109280353 | |
| Download: ML20031A887 (6) | |
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 NO. 2 Introduction By letter dated August 20, 1981, the Metropolitan Edison Company (licensee) proposed changes to the Recovery Mode technical specifications for Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) dealing with the containment air lock doors. The proposed changes would permit both doors of the containment air locks to be open simul-taneously when necessary to permit the passage of tools and equipment provided these operations are in accordance with procedures approved pursuant to proposed Technica'l Specification 6.8.2 Presently, the Recovery Mode technical specifications require that at least one door of the containment air locks be closed at all times. The requirements of the Recovery Mode technical speci-fications were imposed by the Order of the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation dated February 11,1980 45 F.R.11282 (February 20,1980).
Evaluation The licensee has proposed that both doors of the containment air locks be permitted to be open simultanecusly so that tools and equipment longer than the distance between the air lock doors (approximately 9 feet) could be brought into the reactor building. The present form of proposed Technical Specification 3.6.1.3 requires t'iat at least one door of the air lock be closed at all times.
This restriction precludes bringing items longer than approximately 9 feet into the reactor building thereby requiring assembly _or fabrication of items longer 8109280353 610924 PDR ADOCK OG000320 PDR
. 9 than approximately 9 feet wittsf a the reactor building. Authorization of the proposed change would enable the licensee to utilize additional flexibility '
in the design of items which will be required inside the reactor building during +he planned cleanup operations. Approval of this change would also be in accordance with the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) concept for reducing occupational exposures associated with performing required tasks since i~ will minimize the time required to be spent in high radiation areas within the reactor building by permitting entry of preassembled tools and equipment.
The purpose of the reactor building air locks is to permit transit entry into and exit from the reactor building while maintaining containment integrity, thereby ensuring ne significant releases of radioactive materials via this pa thway. To ensure that there will be no significant releases of radioactive materials from the reactor builo g through the air lock when both of its doors are open simultaneously, we will require as a condition of our approval of procedures pursuant to Specification 6.8.2 that the time both doors are open simultaneously be minimized and that the frequency for simultaneous opening of both docrs be relatively infrequent. Additionally, we will require via these procedures, that whenever both air lock doors are open simultaneously, the reactor building purge system be in operation and exhausting through the HEPA filters. This provision will ensure that the reactor building atmosphere is maintained at a negative pressure relative to the outside atmosphere and therefore the air will flow into the reactor building whenever the air lock doors are open. To initially open the air lock doors, pressure in the ante room (service building compartment adjoining the air lock) and the reactor building will be equalized by securing the reactor building purge. The purge will be restarted after the air lock doors are opened. During the short
interval when the pressures are equalized and the air lock doors are being opened, reactor building air may flow into the ante room, however, air exhausted from the ante room is also filtered by HEPA filters prior to discharge to the environment. Therefore, the door opening sequence will not increase radio-logical hazards.
These actions will preclude the release of unfiltered effluents from the reactor building via the open air lock doors, We also considered the possible consequences of a postulated loss of coolant accident with TMI-2 in its present condition.
Since TMI-2 is currently in cold shutdown with the reactor coolant system being maintained at 90 i 10 psig and with hot leg temperatures of approximately 120 F and cold leg temperatur.3 0
of approximately 75 F, any postulated piping failure with resulting release of fluid to the reactor building atmosphere, would cause only a slight, if any, increase in reactor building atmosphere pressure.
Therefore, we concluded that there would be an adequate response time to close at least one air lock door and thereby re-establish containment integrity, thus preventing any significant release of radioactiv. materials.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the modification does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact.
Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the modification involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR Section 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 the modification.
Conclusion Based upon the foregoing we have concluded that:
(1) conditions that we will require to be incorporated in the implementing procedures will assure that no significant releases of radioactive materials will occur in the event of an accident,(2) the proposed change does notinvolve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered nor a significant reduction in a margin of safety and, therefore, does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (3) there is reasonable assurance that the activities that would be authorized under the changed technical specification can be conducted without endangering the health and safety u. tne public, and in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (4) approval of the proposed change will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the public health and safety.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
Docket No. 50-320 OLA (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF 'l0TICE OF ISSUANCE OF MODIFICATIUN OF ORDER AND POTION TO REVISE PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATI0Nh IN ACCORDANCE THEREWITH" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United states mail, first class or as indicated by an asterisk by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission internal mail system, this 24th day of September,1981:
John F. Wolf, Esq., Chairman, Administrative Judge 3409 Shepherd Street Chevy Chase, Maryland 20015 Mr. William A. Lochstet
- Dr. Oscar H. Paris, Administrative 119 E. Aaron Drive Judge State College, Pennsylvania 16801 At Safety and Licensing Board Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Washington, D.C.
20555 Power 433 Orlando Avenue
- Mr. Frederick J. Shon, Administrative State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge Washington, D.C.
20555 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Karin W. Carter Assistant Attorney General 505 Executive House P. O. Box 2357 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
~
- Atomic Safety and Lice 1 sing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission ATTN:
Chief, Docketing & Service Br.
Washington, D.C.
20555
)
$tephfn H. Lewis Counsel for NRC Staff i
e e
- =,.,..w w
,,--w.e
..w-,
,,e----
,_.g.
..,y,c...-,.,,,.,, _,.,,
_..y,_y.-_,m-,,.,,,.,
_y____,,_
. _.,