ML20148J842
| ML20148J842 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/22/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148J831 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8803300406 | |
| Download: ML20148J842 (3) | |
Text
.
/p* 58%9[o,,
UNITED STATES v.
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
3
- E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\..../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF hl: CLEAR REACTOR REGULATION PELATED TO APENEPENT NO.137 TC FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OFR-50 METROPOL11AN EDIS0N COMPANY JERSET tlMD7L F0kER A LIGHT COMPANY PEfIhM lVAh R ttTR)D'(DRPAhT
~ ]W hhtllAYigD[A]}f THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 1 DOCKET NO.: 50-E89
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated July 28, 1987, GPU W clear Corporation (GPU) submitted a request for changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for Three Mile Island Nuclear Statior, l' nit No.1.
In response to a staff request, supplenental information was provided in a letter dated December 21, 1987. This infornation did not alter the statf's initial determination of no significcnt hazards censideration.
This arrendrent revises the Rad 4togical Effluent Technical Specifications (RETS) to improve clarity, make the RETS more specific to TMI-1 without changing intent or substance, and to improve consistency with Standard Technical Specifications (STS). The systems covered by the RETS do not include erergency systems intended to protect against core-frelt accidents or their consequences.
Rather, the RETS are intended to help control the normal and routine operation of Pad Waste Systems and the norral and routine releases of small artcunts of radicactivity to the environnent.
2.0 EVALUATION The changes can be divided into two categories:
(1)administrativechangesand (2) changes that would make the TS n. ore consistent with the STS.
The following types of administrative changes are proposed:
(1) capitalizing some words in the TS (e.g., see pages 1-3, 1-4, 3-13, 3-22, 3-96, 6-18, and 6-19) that are already defined in Section 1, "Definitions"; (2) correcting typographical errors and updating references (e.g., see pages 1-3, 3-13, 3-99, 4-91, 4-98, 4-99, 4-101, and 5-1); and (3) clarifications (e.g., see pages 1-6, 3-96, 3-99, 3-102, 3-103, 3-105, 4-7a, 4-87, 4-90 through 4-95, 4-98 through 4-102, 4-104, 4-106, 4-107, 4-108, and 5-1).
The staff has reviewed these changes and has found them acceptable.
The following changes would trake the TS for Three Mile Island Unit i nore consistent with the STS:
(1) the definition of "channel check" (TS 1.5.3 on page 1-4); (2) the definition of "members of the public" (TS 1.22 on page 1-7),
and its subsequent use (TS 3.22.1 on pages 3-106 through 3-108, TS 3.22.2 on
$$k3 SOON D
P
s 1
.?.
pages 2-111 through 3-113, TS 3.22.P.6 on page 3-117 TS 6.9.4.3.3 on pace 6-19); (3) the use of thyroid dose conversion factors from Regulatory Guide 1.109 (TS 1.12 on page 1-6) in calculating "dose equivalent 1-131"; (4) a change in notations for conducting sarious nonitoring and surveillarce requirements (Table 1.2 on page 1-8); and (5) the definition of the "lower limit of detection " as it is used in Tables 4.22-1 and 4.22-2.
The staff has reviewed these changes, as well as the supplenental information provided in the GPU letter of December 21, 1987, and finds that these change
- are consistent with the STS and are therefore acceptable.
GPU proposes to eliminate some of the limits associated with the instruments listed in TS Tables 3.21-1 and 3.21-? (pages 3-99, 3-100, 3-105, 3-10Ea), for releasing radionuclides to the environment.
The instruments listed in the preceding Tables are used to monitor the release of radioactive liquids and airborne radionuclides.
Currently, TS 3.21.1 requires that the radioactive liquid effluent monitoring instrunentation channels listed in Table 3.21-1 shall be operable.
If less than the minimum number of thannels are cperable, then GPU must enter ene of the "ACTION" statenents listed in the TS. TS 3.21.2 contains a similar requirement for the instruments that nenitor releases of airborne radionuclides and the instruments that monitor the plant's processing of airborne radionuclides. Under the current "ACTION" statements, GPU may continue to release radioactive effluents for up to 14 days, 28 days, or 30 days, depending on the type of monitor that is inoperable, provided that grab samples are collected and analyzed within a stated time period.
GPU proposes to eliminate the 14 day, 28 day, and 30 day release limits.
Instead of the specific day limits, GPU would be required to "exert best efforts to return the ii strun.entation to ' operable' status within 30 days and, if unsuccessful, explain in the next Semi-Annual Effluent Release Report why the inoperability was not corrected in a timely manner." Thus, releases would be allowed to continue in the event that less than the minimum number of instru-ments were operable, provided that grab samples were collected and analyzed within a stated timeframe. The staff finds that these proposed changes are consistent with the STS.
GPU proposes to eliminate m nitoring of gross beta activity and phosphorous-32 in samples taken from radioactive liquid releases (i.e., Table 4.22-1 on pages 4-96 and 4-97), and monitoring of iodine-133 in samples taken frcm radioactive airborne releases (i.e., Table 4.22-2 on page 4-103). Other types of activity analyses will continue to be perforned and these analyses will be sufficient to n'aintain releases within the appropriate regulatory limits. The staff finds that these proposed changes are consistent with the STS.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of.
facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. We have determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant i
increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Conmission has previously issued a proposed finding that this anendment
involves no significant hazards consideraticn and there has been no public ccmment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendnent neets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusien set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(91 Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact staten.ent or environnental 4
assessnent reed be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed n'anner, and (2) such activities will be ccnducted in conipliarce with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this an.endnent will nct be inimical to the comnon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated:
March 22, 1988 Principal Contributor:
Edward F. Branagan, Jr.
F
.