ML20072S899
| ML20072S899 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1983 |
| From: | Arnold R GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 5211-83-103, NUDOCS 8304070383 | |
| Download: ML20072S899 (2) | |
Text
.
GPU Nuclear
' NMCIMF 100 Interpace Parkway Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 201 263-6500 TELEX 136-482 Writer's Direct Dial Number:
March 31 1983 5211-83 f03 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attn:
John F. Stolz Operating Reactors Branch No. 4 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
Dear Sir:
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit I (TMI-1)
Operating License No. DPR-50 Docket No. 50-289 Engineered-Safety-Feature (ESF) Filter System Our letter of February 2,1983 on the above subject proposed an alternative to our commitment to install an ESF filter system for the fuel handling building (FHB) at TMI-1. The original commitment to install the system was provided in our Restart Report, found acceptable in the Staff's TMi-1 Restart SER (NUREG-0680), and was addressed by the ASLB in their Partial Initial Decision (PID) on " Plant Design Procedures and Separation issues" dated December 14, 1981. Our proposed alternative to the ESF filter system consisted of utilizing extended decay time on TMl-1 spent fuel to limit of f site doses to within Standard Review Plan (SRP) guidelines in the event of a fuel handling accident on the Unit 1 side of the FHB.
The existing auxiliary & fueI handling butIding ventiIation system, while not fulIy ESF l
grade primarily due to seismic and 1E Power considerations, could be used to l
further reduce offsite doses to well below SRP guidelines. The ALAB has requested that comments on our proposal be filed by parties by April 1,
1983.
In our meeting with the Staf f and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on March 25, we provided additional information to support our proposal, and we i
provided an overview of an analysis which shows that installation of an ESF filter system would not be of significant benefit from an of fsite dose consequences standpoint. Staf f voiced objections to our proposal which we discussed further in a telephone conference call on March 29.
We were unable to reach an agreement on possible alternative approaches.
8304070383 830331 DR ADOCK 05000289 PDR A
h GPU Nuclear is a part of the General Public Utilities System
6 This raises the prospect of a re-opened hearing.
While we have concluded that our proposal would meet the technical requirements of inc Cu.rnission's regulations, and we are confident that litigation of this issue would ultimately demonstrate its technical merits, we believe that the potential for further delays in restart of TMI-1, due to a protracted hearing process, would not serve the best interests of our electric customers. For this reason, we respectfully withdraw our February 2, 1983 proposal.
Given the timing of the situation, and our desire to provide adequate protection prior to the next ref ueling, we are proceeding with detailed design work for an ESF filter system in accordance with our original commitment. However, on a parallel path, we are continuing to study other potential approaches which may be found acceptable by the NRC.
If we are able to develop an approach that we believe could be worked out to the Staff's satisfaction, we Intend to bring it up at that time.
Sincer y,
}
R. C.
rnold President
/mt
.cc:
J. Van Vliet R. C. Haynes