ML20202H310
| ML20202H310 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/17/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202H307 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8604150225 | |
| Download: ML20202H310 (2) | |
Text
I am noo E
o,'n 4
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7;
- y WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
~s.,...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0. 115 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-M METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET N0. 50-289 INTRODUCTION By letter dated August 20, 1985, GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPU or the licensee) requested changes to Appendix A of Facility Operating License No. DPR-50 for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1 (TMI-1). The changes would modify existing Technical Specification 3.13, Secondary Coolant System Activity, by (1) decreasing the specification for I-131 activity from 1.0 uCi/cc to 0.1 uCi/ gram DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131, (2) describing actions to be taken if the limit is exceeded, (3) eliminating the weekly gross activity determination in favor of isotopic analysis for DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131 once per every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, and (4) deleting the requirement to determine the I-131 condenser partition factor if primary to secondary leakage develops.
EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION The requested changes to Technical Specification 3.13 incorporate more conservative limiting conditions for operation than currently imposed.and conform with the provisions of the applicable Standard Technical Specifications for Babcock and Wilcox Pressurized Water Reactors.
By performing isotopic analysis for DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131 in the secondary coolant system every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, the need for weekly gross beta-gamma analysis i
is effectively eliminated.
Further, reducing the allowable DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131 to 0.1 uCi/ gram and restricting plant operations if the limit is exceeded, eliminates any need or purpose to determine an I-131 partition factor in the condenser for normal operations since the plant is required to be in hot standby within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and cold shutdown in the following 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> when the limit is exceeded; and the condenser off-gas is continually monitored. Additionally, by limiting the DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131 to 0.1 uti/ gram in the secondary coolant system, the dose resulting at the site boundary will be limited to a small fraction (i.e., less than 10%) of the 10 CFR Part 100 limits.
8604150225 860317 PDR ADOCK 05000289 P
, The incorporation of these changes provides for more conservative and restrictive limits on plant operation and reduces the dose to the environment in the event of a steam line rupture or release via the main steam relief valves in a loss of load condition. Therefore, we find this change to be acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and a change in surveillance requirements. 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 increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
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 manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated:
March 17,1986 Principal Contributor: John R. White a