ML19256D755
| ML19256D755 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/19/1978 |
| From: | Stello V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910220683 | |
| Download: ML19256D755 (10) | |
Text
/p
'%'o, DISTRIBUTION:
3%
5 I## !.5 rinckod '
UNITED STATES
^
- o 4 E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ORB:4 Reading
%,'b'
,.e#
WASH:NGTON. D C. 20555 RIngran Pay 22, 1978 Docket No. 50-289 Docketing and Ser/ ice Section Office of the Secretary of the Commission
SUBJECT:
TUREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, U?!IT NG. 1 Two signed originals of the Federal Register Notice identified below are enclosed foryour transmittal to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. Additional conformed copies ( 12 ) of the Nctice are enc!osed for your use.
O Notice of Receipt of Application for Construction Permit (s) and Operating License (s).
O Notice of Receipt of Partial Application for Construction Permit (s) and Facility License (s): Time for Submission of Views on Antitrust Matters.
O Notice of Availability of Applicant's Environmental Report.
O Notice of Proposed issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License.
O Notice of Receipt of Application for Facility License (s): Notice of Availabi!ity of Applicant's Environmental Report; and Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility License (s) and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing.
O Notice of Availability of NRC DraftFinal Environmental Statement.
O Notice of Limited Work Authorization.
O Notice of Availability of Safety Evaluation Repcrt.
O Notice of Issuance of Construction Permit (s).
O Notice of Issuance of Facility Operating License (s) or Amendment (s).
@ Other: Modification of Conditions of Exemption.
1453 291 Division of Operating Reactors, ORB!l Office of Nuc! ear Reactor Regulat:on As Stated 0RBd4: DOR l
once--
0220 N 3 RIngram:dn 7 91 3.,, _
D A TE -e-NRC FCAM N2 it36)
7590-C1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY,
)
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT
)
COMPANY, AND
)
DOCKET NO. S0-289 PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station )
Unit No. 1)
)
1 MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS OF EXEMPTION I.
Metropolitan Edison Company, Jersey Central Power and Light Company, and the Pennsylvania Electric Conpany (the licensees), are the holders of Facility Operating License No. DPR-50 which authorizes the operation of the nuclear power reactor known as Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1 (TMI-l or the facility), at steady state power levels not in excess of 2535 regawatts thermal (rated power).
The facility consists of a Babcock & Wilcox Company (B&W) designed pressurized water reactor (PWR) located at the licensees' site in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. '
II.
On April 27, 1978, the Connission granted the licensees of TMI-l an Exemptien frcm the requirement of 10 CFR 50.46(a) that Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) performance be calculated in accordance with an acceptable calculational redel which conforms to the provisions in Appendix K.
This E>enption added license conditions requiring limitation 1453 292
7590-01 of operating power level,' adherence to certain operating procedures, and submission of additional analyses of ECCS performance.
The need for this Exemption arose from the recent identification of certain errors in the ECCS performance calculations submitted by Metropolitan Edison Company (l'et Ed) in accordance with the require-ments of the Comission's regulations,10 CFR %50.46.
Following discover-af these errors, Met Ed, by letter dated April 27, i978, requested such an exemption to permit operation of Ti1I-l at 1005 of full power (2535 !?at).
In support of their request, Met Ed submitted calculations which addressed these errors assuning specified operator actions were completed within a defined period of time following the postulated accident.
In their submittal of April 27, 1978, Met Ed also stated that they had modified certain plant procedures to provide the necessary operator actions on a time scale consistent with that assumed in the analysis, and that they nad conducted a drill to verify that the assumed operator response time was achievable.
Met Ed ccmmitted to submit as soon as possible a request for amendment of the TMI-l Technical Specifications as appropriate to reflect adoption of these procedures, and comitted to submit a proposal for a perranent solution to this problen by July 24, 1978.
By letter dated liay 3, 1978, Met Ed verified that the necessary modifica-tions to plant procedures had been fully implemented.
This submittal also described the tests that had been conducted.
1453 293
Based on our review of the Met Ed submittal of April 27, 1978, we found that the calculations did not clearly support the conclusion that the most limiting break size had been identified.
Accordingly, we could not conclude that operation of TMI-l at 100!' of full power (2535 iMt) would be fully"in conformance with 10 CFR 50.46.
On the other hand, for operaticn at power levels up to 91?s of full power (2311 ISt), ECCS performance calculations for a range of small breaks indicated that the limiting break would r.ot result in core uncovery, if appropriate operator action (equivalen', to that assuned in the calculations) were properly taken, thus prov ding a very substantial margin on peak clad tencerature belo.s the limits of 10 CFR 50.46(b).
Therefore, on April 27, 1978, we granted T"I-l an exemption from the provisions of 10 CFR 50.46 subject to the conditions that power would be limited to 91?' of full power (2311 tnt); that additional analyses, as specified by the ! RC staff, would be subnitted as scon as possible; and that the facility would be operated in accordance " tith the precedures described in the Met Ed letter of April 27, 1978.
By letter dated :'.cy 3,1978, Met Ed verified that the modifications of plant procedures necessary to assure proper operator action in the event of a small break had been implemented cn April 27, 1978.
In this submittal met Ed also described the tests that had been conducted to verify the accaptability of the procedures.
Based on cur review of this submittal, supplemented by discussions with Met Ed we have concluded that the proce-dures applicable i.o smail breaks impic: tented by Met Ed are acceptable.
1453 294
h.
The l'et Ed submittal of l'ay 3,1978, also presented the results of analyses performed by the reactor vendor (Babcock and !!ilcox) for reactor coolant pump discharge line break sizes of 0,17, 0.15, 0.13, 0.1 and 0.04 ft2 at a reactor power level of 25631:'!t. This power level is representative of the full power ratina of similar Babcock and Milcox - designed reactors and encompasses the 2535 MWt full power iating of T'iI-1.
Based on these results, B&M states that with operator action consis. tent with that modeled in the analysis, a 0.13 f t2 discharge line break is the most limiting case.
In this case, core uncovery occurs for about 350 seconds and the conservatively calculated peak clad temperature is approximately 15500F.
This temperature is well below the limit specified in l'0 CFR 50.46(b).
Based on our review of these analyses, we find that the calculations support the conclusion that a.13 ft.2 discharce line break is the most limiting case.
However, the analyses do not demonstrate that the assuraptions employed in supplying heat inputs to the F0?" portion of the calculations were consen ative.
L are also reviewing whether use of simplified input in the FOM1 calculations satisfies the recuirement for calculation usino an approved model.
Accordingly, we cannot conclude at this time that operation of T;!I-l at 100" of licensed power would be fully in conformance with 10 CFR 50.45.
On the other hand, for operation of this facility at power levels up to 1005 of full pcwer (2535 l"dt),
ECCS performance calculations for the limiting small break indicate that 1453 295
7590-01.
thisbreakhasaverysubbtantialmarginonpeakcladtemperaturebelow the limits of 10 CF9 50.46(b) if operator action consistent with that assumed in the analyses is properly taken.
However, until the licensee provides additional analyses to juttify that the s#.aitted calculations are suitably conservative, the llRC staff cannot determine that operation of TMI-l at full power under the conditions of the revised calculations applicable to this facility conforms fully to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46.
fievertheless, because of the very substantial margin on peak clad temperature below the limits of 10 CFR 50.46(b), the f:RC staff believes that cr oivn of TMI-l at power levels of up to 2535 TOlt in accordance with appropriate operating procedures identified herein will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and the conditions which were a part of the Exemption of April 27,1978, may be modified accordingly.
In the course of our review of this natter, two related issues arose:
(1) the need to apply areater uncertainties to the measured values of neutron flux in each quadrant of the reactor core and (2) a discrepancy between measured and predicted pcaer distributions which exceeded previously established acceptance criteria.
With respect to the-first of these issues, BSW recently reported to Met Ed that on the basis of operational experience and a reevaluaticn of measurement error statistics and error pronagation, greater uncertainties should be applied to the measured values of quadrant flux tilt.
This ter uncertainty was necessary to assure that the actual flux tilt did
- r..
exceed the limiting value assm ed in the evaluacion of postulated 1453 296
accidents including a LOCA (including evaluation of ECCS performance for large break LOCAs).
A description of the reevaluation and recommended reduced limits on allowable measured flux tilt were presented in a BSW report submitted to the staff on May 11, 1978.
By letter dated May 10, 1978, Met Ed requested amendment of the TMI-l Technical Specifications to reflect the more conservative limits.
We have reviewed the B&W report and the Met Ed request relative to this matter and have concluded that the limits requested for Till-l are acceptable for full power operation.
Use of these limits is authorized this date by Amendment No. 40 to the TMI-l Operating License I:o. DpR-50 issued concurrently with this Modification of Conditions cf Exemption.
With respect to the second issue, recent measurements of power distribution within the TMI-1 core indicated that the measured power peaking values exceeded the predicted values by more than the previously established acceptance criteria.
Because Met Ed was unable to identify any errors in calculation or measurement that would account for this discrepancy, they have concluded that greater uncertainties are associated with their calculational methods than previously believed.
Accordingly, Met Ed has evaluated the effect of this added uncertainty on plant operating limits and has reduced the allowable axial power icbalance and the allowable position limits for the Axial Power Shaping Rods (ASPRs) to account for the greater uncertainty.
By applying an additional uncertainty of 63, which is greater than the observed deviation above'the acceptance critecia, Met Ed developed more rest'ictive limits on axial power imbalance and ApSP position to account for the added uncertainty and, by letter of Mn if, IE, 1453 297 b
recuested amendment of the TiiI-l Technic 1 Specifications to reflect these proposed limits.
The staf'f has reviewed the I;et Ed submittal ahich requested these revised limits and concluded that they are acceptable provided i:et Ed compcres predicted and measured po.ter distributions after about 25 EFPD cf core exposure and reports the results to the !!RC.
Su'aj ect to this condition, use of these limits is being authorized this date by Amendment i!o. 40 to the Till-1 Operating License I o. DPR-50.
Therefore, in the absence of any safety problem associated with operation of the facility during the period until revised calculations " holly in conformance with 10 CFP. 50.46 are completed, there apnears to be no public interest consideration favoring undue restriction of the operation of the captioned facility.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that continuation of the Excrption of April 27, 1978 with modified conditions is appropriate.
The Exemption is limited to the period of time necessary to complete and review the revised calculations.
140f P
- F~Jjd/
D*
D d
III.
3 Copies of the follo.;ine documnts are avaiicble for inspection at the Comnission's Public Docunent Pocm at 1717 H Street, E'ashingten, D. C.
20555, and are being placed in the Cccnission's local public dccwent roon at th; S h' e Library cf Pennsylvania, "arris'arg, Pennsylvania.
(1) the application for exemption dated /.pril 27, 1970, (2)
Exemption in the matter of."etropolitan Edison Company, Jersey Central Dover and Light Company, and Pennsylvania Electric 1453 298
_g.
~
Company, Three I ile Island iuclear Station, Unit t'o.1, dated April 27,1978, (3) supplementary information containcd in letter fron J. G. Herbein (l'et Ed) to R.1! Reid (I'RC), dated l:cy 3,1978, and (4) this i:cdification of Conditions of Exemption in the matter of lietropolitar, Edisor Cc.~.pany, Jersey Central Power and Light Company, and Pennsylvania Electric Cor.:pany, Three flile Island fluclear Station, Unit I:0. 1.
(5)
Aacndment I;o. 40, of this date, to Facility Operating License fio. DPR-50, for Three 14ila Island i uclecr Station, Unit I:o.1, Docket lio. 50-289.
D **) *) 3~ { h yy, g
w w Ju o J u dJ 1
m UHEREFORE, in accordance with the Commission's regulations as set fcrth in 10 CFR Part 50, the conditions of the exenption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46(a) granted the licensees on April 27, 1973, are modified so that effective this date the exenption is conditioned as follows.
(1) As soon as pcssible, 'htrcpolitan Edison CcTpany shall sui-.it a reevaluation wholly in ccaformance with 10 CFR 50.46 of ECCS cooling per.Sr ance calculated in accordance uith the Fr.'
Evcluation "-:el for oneration with cperati:.a croccdures described in its letters of April 27, 1970, and i'ay 3, 1973.
(2) The co :er lecel shall not exceed 2535 it!t, and 1453 299
-9_
(3) Until further authorihation by the Cornission,tietropolitan Edison Company shall operate in accordance with the procedures described in its letter of April 27, 1978, supplemented by letter dated liay 3,1978.
FOR THE t;UCLEt,,c,JEATORY COMMISSIO; Vic or Stello,)b Director Division of Operating Reactort Office of t'uclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Bethesda,ilaryland this 19th day of ttay 1978.
1453 300
~
HOTICFS 224C of good cause for failura to fiin on quested such an es 'mption to permit piemented by discussions with M 't F time and af ter con *idarinc 'hme ite-operation of TMI-1 at loa percent of aa ha"e concluded that the pron tors specifiol in 10 CFR ! 2.71FaM1)-
full power (2.531 P!Wti ' support of durrs <tpplicable to small breus umA
( O and i1..*l1 Mrit thair request. Mc t Ed sut"nitted calcu-mented by Met Ed are accep'able.
For further details with respect to lations which nddrer. sed these errers The Met Ed submittal of Mav '
this action. see the appUcation for assuming specifie d operator actions 1978 n *' present ed the errulu c amendment dat ed Apnl 20
- 1978, were completed within a defined analyra P rforn J b/ tb" rt ac which is available for public inspection period of time following the postulat-remi"r @bcu a a W m.,
m r, etc at the Cornmission's Public Documant ed accidert, cochnt v:mp maar.;e lino bu f Doom.1717 II Street NT., Washin?-
In their submittal of April 27.1973
& m of 0.17. 0.15. 0.13. 0.1 and 0.0 4 'f t.
ton, D C. attd at the La Crossa Public Met Ed also stated that they had at a reartor power level of 2.568 !!W Library. 000 f.!ain Straet. 1.a Crow.
modllied certain plant procedurrs to p TIus power level is representathe <
Wis. 54601.
rovile the necessary operator actions the full power rating of sim!!ar UC Dated at Bethesda. Md., this 19th on a tlme neale censistent with that as-cock & Wilcox. designed readors an day of May 1978.
sumed in the analysis, an:1 that they encompares the 2.535 MWt full now had conducted a drill to verify that rating cf TMI-1. Based on thee For the Nuclear Regulatcry Com-the usumed operator respense time sults. B&W states that with eperate rnission.
was achie'.able. Met Ed committed to action consistent with that modeled i:
Donts L. ZrzMun, submit as soon as possible a rerluest the ana!ysis, a 0.13 ft.' discharge lim C'ner Opera th g R : actors for amendment of the TMI-1 Techni-break is the most limiting case. In tPi Smncit No. 2. Dit tston of Op.
cal Specifications as appropriate to re-case. core uncovery eccurs for abou erating Reactors.
flect adoption of these pr vedures, and 350 seconds and the conservative!y er.!
IFR Doc. *18-14652 Filed 5-24 78145 am]
committed to submit a propos11 for a culated peak clad temperature is sp permanent solution to this problem by proximately 1550 F. This temperaturr July 2 4.1978.
is well below the limit specified in U (7590-01)
By letter dated May 3.1978. Met Ed CFR 50 46(b).
verified that the necessary modifica.
Based on our review of these analy tDocket No. W tions to plant procedure 3 had been ses, we find that the calculatictu n a METROPCL!rAN EDisd, ET AL. (THREE fully implemented. This submittal alto port the concluston that a 0.13 f t. ' dL MILE 15LAldD NUCLIAR 37AffCN UNIT NO.1) described the tests that had been con-charge line break is the mort limi'm:
ducted.
case. However, the analysrs do rmi Medmcation of conditions of Exempeian Based on our review of the Met Ed demonstrate that the usumptions em submittal of April 27,1978, we fcund ployed in supplying heat input.s to tha r.
that the calculations did not clearly FOM t portion of the calculat ten ~
Metropolitan Edison Co..
Jersey support the conclusion that the most were conservative. We are also revir Central Power & Light Co.. and the llmiting break size had been identified. ing whether use of simpitf!ed input in Pennsylvania Electric Co. (the licens. Accordingly, we could not conclude the FOAM calculations satisfies tlw ees), are the holders of Facility Oper. that operation of TMI-1 at 100 per-requirement for calculation using m
- ating IJcense No. DPR-50 which au.
cent of full power (2.535 MWt) would approved model. Accordim:1y, we thorizes the operttion of the nuclear be fully in conformance with 10 CFR cannot conclude at this time that cp power reactor known as Three Mlle 50.46. On the other hand, for oper-erat:en of TMI-1 at 100 percent of ti Island Nuclear Station. Unit No. I ation at power IcVels up to 91 percent censed power would be fully in cent:r (TMI-1 or the facility). at steady state of full power (2.311 MWt). ECCS per-mance with 10 CFR 50.46. On th power levels not in excess of 2535 formance calculations for a range of other hand. for operation of this f tr m megawatts thermal f rated power). The small breaks indicated that the Imit-ty at power levels up to 100 percent M f acility consists of a Babcock & WIIcox ing break would not result in ccre un-full power (2.535 MWt). ECCS per-Co. (B&W) designed pressurized water covery, if appropriate operator action formance calculations for the limitinc reactor (PWR) located at the licens. (equivalent to that assumed in the cal-sma'l break indicate that tbts bron ees' site in Dauphin County. Pa.
culations) were prorerly takan, thus ha:; a very substantial margin on pak providing a very substantial margin on cbd temperMure below the limits of II-peak clad temperature belo v the 10 CFR 50.46(b)if operator anion r m-3 On April 27. 1978. the Commission limits of 10 CFR 50.4H b).
sistent with that assumed in the anal tranted the licansees of TMI-I an ex.
Therefore, on April 27. 1978. we yses is properly taken. Howner. Until
.[I
' emption from the requirement of 10 granted TMI-1 an exemption from the the licensee provides additional anaP
' CFR 50.46(a) that Emergency Core provisions of 10 CFR 50.46 subject to ses to justify that the submitted en!rm Cecting System (ECCS) performance the conditions that pewer would be lations are suttably conservative.
'h-l 9 calculated in accordance with an ac-limited to 91 percent of full power NRC staff cannot determine that er-
.}
ceptable calculational model which (2.311 MWt); that additional analyses, cration of TMI-1 at full pow er imder
[,
conforms to the provisions in Appen.
as specified by the NRC staff, would tha conditions of the revised calcuia-y ex K. This exemption added license be submitted as soon as possible; and t;cus appWaMe to this facility ~m y'
cond2tions requiring limitation of op-that the f acility 7.ould be operate 1 in forms ful% to tha requirements of 10 trsting power level, adherence to cer-accordance with the procedures de-CFR 50.16. Neverthelm, hrrau c c f
'An operstmg procedures, and submis-scribed fr; the Met Ed letter of April the very substantial maririn on pro skn of additional analyses of ECCS 27.1973.
c:.;i tem:vra we below the limitr of
?erfermance.
et By letter dated May 3.1978. Met Ed 19 CFR ?? M tn. the NRC staf f be The need for this exemptlon arose verified that the modifications cf IWes tha' operation of Titt-1 1 1 rem the recent identification of cer.
plant procedures necespry to assura powar levels of up to 2.5J5 MWt in v Wn errors in the ECCS pcrformance proper operator action in the event of entdm wit h woropriate 'pe:otir-a: trulattens submitted by Metropoli-a small break had been implemented produres ident:fied herem x31 re-yd
, un Edison Co. (Met Ed) in accordance on April 27 1978. In this submittal cnvanger tif - or property or tPr
[2* 9
' Uth the requirements of the Commis. Met Ed also describad the tests that commen def"nse and secur ty. and tP
.9 l acn s regulations 10 CFR 50.46. Fol-had been conducted to verify the ac-co <t ons which were a par, of th -
'l" y
'Lt by letter dated April 27 enng discovery of these errors. Met ceptabilit y of the precedures. Based excr7tien of April 27,1973. may N
.1978. re-en our review of this submittal, sup-moti;ed acecrdmgly.
d)0oo p
D
} e
,A
( co o 11 k " i t REcistrR. VOL. 43. NO. lobfHUR$ DAY. M 4Y 25.1779 1453 501 S
22461' NOTCS
- In the couree of our review of this able provided Met Ed compares ple-in 10 CFR Part 50. the condi'!cns cf matter, two related issues arose: (1) dleted and measured power detribu-the exemp' ion from the requi o'ro' t
the need to apply greater uncertain, tions af ter about 25 EFPD of core ex-of 10 CFR 50.Ga) granted tt e hea:u ties to the measured valuc3 of neutron posure and reports the results to the ees on April 27, 1978, are rnodifie! S flux in each quadrant of the reactor NRC. Subject to this condition, tre of that effective this date the err"rt"r core and (2) a discrepancy between thesc limita is being authorized this is conditionad es follows:
measured and predicted power distrf, date by amendment No. 40 to the
,g3 g
..e,
?,;ctrr W nr buttons which exceeded previously es.
TMI-1 Operating License No. DPR-50.
mn u ;,;,3,,t g3
,3 co, s re m : n h tabilshed acceptance criteris.
Therefere. In the abJerece of any
.s holly in conform..ce uth 10 Crit M t i cf With respect to the ihst of these safety problem assoclited with oper-ECCS coelinu perfccmance calcul'tM in ac-Irles. B&W recently reported to Met ation of the facility during the period eer hnca with the D&W Evalustien ?.M' Ed that on the basis of operational ex-until revised calculatlens wholly in fer crerstien with operating pro &t ires os perience and a reevaluation of men-e nf rmance with 10 CFR 50.4 3 are scribod !n les letters of April 27. IMS. r 3 surement error statistics and errcr completed, there appears to be no
.tu 3.1978.
propagat greater uncertainties public interest consideration favoring M,g*t.andThe power level shall not excred.. >
f should c. ion, undue restriction of the operatfon of e apphed to the measured the captioned facility. Accort ugly, m Unut further authorization by tha values of quadrant flux tilt. This greater uncertainty was necessary to the Ccmmission has detcrmined that C mimn. Metropolitan Edison C3. MM co nuadon M W enggon og operate in accordance with the twec~!urm aasure that the actual flux tilt did not exceed the limiting value assumed in pril 27,1978 with mcddled coM.
descr! bed in its letter of Aprt127.1473. m2p-riemented by letter dated May 3 HP.
the evaluation of postulated accidents tiens is appropriate. The exerrptfon is including a LOCA (including evalua-limited to the period of time necessary Dated nt Bethesda, Md., this l'"b to complete and revie v the revised enl.
day of May 1978, tion of ECCS performance for large culations.
break LOCAs). A description of the For the Nuclear Regulatory Cm reevaluation and recommended re-duced limits on allowable measured flux tilt were presented in a B&W Ccpies of the following documents Director. Diviston of Opemfine report submitted to the staff on May
.O. h oM u h h Com ion s lic ocu rnt oem 11,1978. By letter dated Msy 10,1978 Met Ed requested amendment of the' at 1717 H Street, Washingtcr. D.C.
"" N# *O
- TMI-1 Technical Specifications to re-20555, and are being placed in the (FH Doc. 78-14654 Filed 5-24-78; 9 45 sm!
flect the more conservative limits. We Commission's local publi? document have reviewed the B&W report and room at the State Library of Pennsyl-gl vania. Harrisburg, Pa.
the Met Ed request relative to this matter and have concluded that the (1) The appilcation for exemption dated NUCLEAR FACIUTIES OR MATERIAtt limits' reouested for TMI-1 are accept. April 27,1978.
Aponcetions for Export Lic.nin able for full power operatio.n. Use of (2)* Exemption in the matter of MetropMI.
these limits is authori.ned this date by tan Edisen Co., Jersey Central Power &
Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.70. "Put!!c Amandment No. 40 to the TMI-1 Op-L:sht Co.. and Pennsylvania Electric Co..
Notice of Receipt of an Applic? tion",
Three Mile Island Nuclear Etation. Unit No.
plcase take notice that the Nuclear ersting License No. DPR-50 issued
- 1. dated April 27.1978, Regulatory Commission has received concurrently with this Modification of (3) surplementary informatten con *a:ned the following applications for ewrt Conditions of Exempt!on.
In letter from J. G. flerbein fMet Ed) to R.
licenses during the period of Mu I With respect to the second issue, W. Reid (NRC), dated Mar 3.1978, and recent measurements of power distrj.
(4) This Modification of Conditions of Ex' thrcugh May 12,1978. A copy of i i noplication is on file in the Nui m i
bution within the TMI-1 core indicat-g,ti " jS ) ey C ntral Po
. j Regulatory Commission's Public Docu.
gn C ed that the measured power peaking values exceeded the predicted values Co., and Pannsylvania Electric Co., Three ment Recm located at 1717 H Straet Mile Island Nuclest Statto t Umt No. t.
NW., Washington, D.C.
by more than the previously estab-f 5) Amendment No. 40 of this date. to Fa-FGr the Nuclear Regulatory Co r.-
lished acceptance criteria. Because ellity Opersting IJeanse No. DPit-50. for Inissic n' Met Ed was unable to identify any Three mie Island Nuc! ear S'.Ptkn. Unit No.
errors in calculation or mea:ntrement
- 1. Docket No. 50-289.
Dated this day May 13,1979. at Da-that would account for this discrepin-thesda, Mtl.
tv*
cy. they have concluded that greater J.ctEs R. Sno..
uncertainties are associated with their Wherefore, in accordance with the Director. Officc o/
calculational methods than previously Commicsion's regulations as set forth InternationclPrce amt believed. Accordingly. Met Ed has evaluated the effect of this added un-certainty on plant operating limits and has reduced the allowable axial poTer imbalcnce and the allowable position sam. cr apri: cant. dee or ust.rist in v!!or-w. 2r ceur.try -r uprumtier. eate r-em-1 r*er twa and rw-r Earttet End.use
&oteam limits for the Axial Power Shaping and acoucauon nu.nd r ter t Rods (ASPRs) to account for the greater uncertainty. By applying an uow interniueemi ca t uss ursemm......
1 55 new-ostarshamn u Fma'i.
additional uncertainty of 6 percent.
Apr. :. Int Mar t. In ruc ar.
x3NM491. amendment St.
which is greater than the obscrved de-Trsnsnucer ine.. Acr. 2s.
14.151 urmmm.
viation above the acceptance criteria, 1sia. Mar 3.1918. XENM.
3 15 Ro sd-Dcrs:cie
"5eres rasctor.
Met Ed develcped more restrictive 1313-limits on axial power imbalance and h tnremsmal co 52.888 a tum in nyvtor.
ad4ssamamn t Nm Apr 27. In8, Mar 1.1978.
APSR position to account for the x3 c.t. t 3 t 4.
added unecrtainty and. by letter of Generst Exrte cm. Mar 2.
2 ts rheum.et N:- cran Mixe r we.
May 16,1978. requested arr.endment of tsia. un 3. tus, m.
nma mum.
n ea:a.
the TMI-1 Technical Specificaticns to uI.M$r $Iraz s m mm in -
? 15 n ew-c,- tami t m.
reflect these proposed limits. The staff corp. Mar s. isia. Mar *.
mr has reviewed tha Met Ed submittal tsia..mu.is t s.
which requested these revised ILn!!a and concluded that ther are accept.
[FP. Doc. 78-145n3 F'le-! M4 78: 3 45 tml FicfR At Rf C?$rf t. VOt. 43, NO.10bi TUR5DM, MM 25.1P3 9o a
3 D
D
. 2.
f 1453 m Tao aj m
_UC