ML16130A154

TMI Fhar Volume 1 (004) Chapter 1

ML16130A154
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	04/11/2016
From:	Exelon Generation Co
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML16127A520	List: ML16127A469 ML16127A471 ML16127A474 ML16127A476 ML16127A477 ML16127A479 ML16127A480 ML16127A481 ML16127A483 ML16127A484 ML16127A485 ML16127A486 ML16127A491 ML16127A492 ML16127A493 ML16127A494 ML16127A495 ML16127A496 ML16127A498 ML16127A499 ML16127A500 ML16127A501 ML16127A502 ML16127A503 ML16127A504 ML16127A506 ML16127A507 ML16127A508 ML16127A510 ML16127A511 ML16127A512 ML16127A513 ML16127A514 ML16127A516 ML16127A517 ML16127A518 ML16127A519 ML16127A521 ML16130A150 ML16130A151 ML16130A152 ML16130A153 ML16130A154 ML16130A155 ML16130A156 ML16130A157 ML16130A158 ML16130A159 ML16130A161 ML16130A162 ... further results
References
TMI-16-035
Download: ML16130A154 (8)

Text

1-1fhar1.tmi/Rev.2

71.0INTRODUCTION

1.1Background and PurposeThe Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in a letter dated May 11, 1976, requestedthat Metropolitan Edison Company conduct an examination of the Three Mile IslandNuclear Station Unit 1 (TMI-1). The purposeof the investigation was to compareexisting fire protection provisions with the guidelines presented in Standard ReviewPlan (SRP) 9.5.1, "Fire Protection", dated May 1, 1976, which includes BranchTechnical Position APCSB 9.5-1. Metropolitan Edison wasspecifically requested to:a.Identify and discuss those guidelines, which are satisfied.b.Identify those guidelines for which modifications, procedural changes, orenhanced training of personnel are required, indicating those that are beingdeveloped or planned.c.Identify those guidelines, which are not satisfied and provide a basis ofjustification for this position.In a subsequent letter dated September 30, 1976, the NRC transmitted Appendix A toAPCSB 9.5-1, which provides certain acceptable alternatives to the positions given inAPCSB 9.5-1 for plants already in operation. Therefore, an evaluation was performedand the point-by-point comparisons were made with respect to those guidelines inAppendix A identified as applicable to "plants under construction or operating plants."In addition, the NRC stressed that for purposes of evaluation, a fire hazards analysismust be performed to the level of detail indicated by Enclosure 2 to the NRC's letter,"Supplementary Guidance on Information Needed for Fire Protection ProgramEvaluation." It was requested that the analysis be conducted under the technicaldirection of a qualified fire protection engineer. In addition to the fire hazards analysis,proposed technical specifications for the existing fire protection systems wererequested to be submitted. These were transmitted by Metropolitan Edison to theNRC on February 10, 1977.On November 19, 1980, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued Appendix R to10CFR50 entitled "Fire Protection Program for Nuclear Power Facilities OperatingPrior to January 1, 1979", thus clarifying its regulations which require certain provisionsfor fire protection in operating nuclear power plants, in particular, those provisionswhich a nuclear plant must incorporate to retain the capability to safely shutdown thereactor in the event of fire. This action was taken to upgrade nuclear power plant fireprotection features by requiring resolution of contested generic issues in fire protectionsafety evaluation reports.

1-1fhar1.tmi/Rev.2

71.0INTRODUCTION

1.1Background and PurposeThe Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in a letter dated May 11, 1976, requestedthat Metropolitan Edison Company conduct an examination of the Three Mile IslandNuclear Station Unit 1 (TMI-1). The purposeof the investigation was to compareexisting fire protection provisions with the guidelines presented in Standard ReviewPlan (SRP) 9.5.1, "Fire Protection", dated May 1, 1976, which includes BranchTechnical Position APCSB 9.5-1. Metropolitan Edison wasspecifically requested to:a.Identify and discuss those guidelines, which are satisfied.b.Identify those guidelines for which modifications, procedural changes, orenhanced training of personnel are required, indicating those that are beingdeveloped or planned.c.Identify those guidelines, which are not satisfied and provide a basis ofjustification for this position.In a subsequent letter dated September 30, 1976, the NRC transmitted Appendix A toAPCSB 9.5-1, which provides certain acceptable alternatives to the positions given inAPCSB 9.5-1 for plants already in operation. Therefore, an evaluation was performedand the point-by-point comparisons were made with respect to those guidelines inAppendix A identified as applicable to "plants under construction or operating plants."In addition, the NRC stressed that for purposes of evaluation, a fire hazards analysismust be performed to the level of detail indicated by Enclosure 2 to the NRC's letter,"Supplementary Guidance on Information Needed for Fire Protection ProgramEvaluation." It was requested that the analysis be conducted under the technicaldirection of a qualified fire protection engineer. In addition to the fire hazards analysis,proposed technical specifications for the existing fire protection systems wererequested to be submitted. These were transmitted by Metropolitan Edison to theNRC on February 10, 1977.On November 19, 1980, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued Appendix R to10CFR50 entitled "Fire Protection Program for Nuclear Power Facilities OperatingPrior to January 1, 1979", thus clarifying its regulations which require certain provisionsfor fire protection in operating nuclear power plants, in particular, those provisionswhich a nuclear plant must incorporate to retain the capability to safely shutdown thereactor in the event of fire. This action was taken to upgrade nuclear power plant fireprotection features by requiring resolution of contested generic issues in fire protectionsafety evaluation reports.