ML19262A308
| ML19262A308 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/13/1976 |
| From: | Arnold R METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| To: | Reid R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| GQL-0190, GQL-190, NUDOCS 7910260635 | |
| Download: ML19262A308 (3) | |
Text
~
l N g g.,a,, 19!s U.G. NUCLE AN HE(.ULATCnv COMMC DOCKET NUMUE R
' u. m 50-R89
- NHC'DICTRIBUTION FOst PART 50 DOCKET MATERIAL TO:
FROM: METRCPOLITAN EDISON CO DATE OF DOCUMENT MR R REID REAPING, pg3N 7 11- %
R C ARNOLD 2-17-76 XLcTTER CNOTORIZE9 PROP INPUT FORM NUMBER OF OPIES RECEIVE D KORIGIN AL UNCLASSIFIED A
CCOPY 1
CESCRIPTICN E NCLOSU R E LTR, RE ThETR 12-11-75 LTR.
FURNISi!ING ADD'L INFO ON CARBON EFFICIENCIES TO THE AIR TREATMENT SYSTEM I A'.s' TECH SPEC.
PLANT NAME:
THREE MILE ISLAND # 1 1485 018 SAFETY FOR ACTION /INFORMATION ENVIR'J 1-20-74 R E-
! l AS35GNEO AD :
ASSIGNED AD.
!@ BRANCit CIIIEF :
( t,,)
RE:A BRANCH CHIEF :
l l Pf0J6CT l'ANAGER:
PROJECT MANAGER.
LIC. ASST. :
G b)
~1.n qR 6 tv\\
LIC. ASST. :
i l
INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
[d REC FILE SYSTEJJS_ SAFETY I PTEIT SY9TFM9 P'!'ITRn T':'Cif M NRC PDR H' INE'!AN T7nF9e'n ERNST 2
F I&E Gd i
ScynCEDER BENAROYA BALLtRD
'W CELD LAINAS.
SPAMCLER M
GOSSICK & STAFF ENGINEERING II'POLITO i
MCC M.ACoA tv SITE TECH i
fI CASE KNIGNT OPERATING REACTORS CAgilLL HANE'FJ SIEUEIL STELLO STF.PP HARLESS PAWLICKI HULMAN OPERATING TECH I
[
PROJECT MANAGSMENT REACTOR SAFETY v
EISENHirI' SITE ANALYSIS
! I BOYD ROSS v
SHAO VOLIlGR
'_ l P. CCLLINS NOVAK W UAER BU'?CH I
HOUSTCN ROSZTCCZY w SC:",;ENCER J. COLLINS l PETERSON CHECK v'i "URII4ES KREGER i
i MELTZ l
RELTEM2S l
AT & I l SITS SAFETY fe Et,"/IRC j
SKOVHGLT I
SALTZMAN ANALYSTS i
RUT 3 ERG I
Di".70ir & MUI.LER l
EXTERN AL DISTRIBUT'ON CONTROL NUA:3ER N LLFOR : % A4Aib4. fA...I NATL LAll ilROW HA'/C!i NATL LG N
]
'/,
)
NSIC LA PDR ASL3 CONS t1LT.\\NTS
~
= _ _ _...........
N910260 b O-
__ACf d Il0LDIN
- n* x')YY i2,,
m.ee sca nocnss METHOPOLI FAN EDISON COMPANY POST OFFICE BOX 542 READING PENNSYLVANI A 19603 TELEPHONE 215 - 929-3601 Febrt:ary 13, 1970 GQL 0190 N
', /
s m j
((.
I(
Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attn:
R.
'4. Reid, Chief Le, i~
Operating Reactors Branch h
!1 d2719/0 % w'l U. S. Nuclear Regulatcry Cc= mission M "8 W:!u L
'4ashington, D. C.
20555 SW[
//!,
m E
h
Dear Mr. Reid:
t6 4,
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1 (2AI-1)
Operat ing License No. DPR-50 Docket No. 50-289 Air Treatment System Technical Specifications
'41th regard to our letter of December 11,1975 (GqL 1799), please be advised that the carbon efficiencies referred to in the first paragraph of Page Two apply to a LOCA from the hot standby condition. These efficiencies were calculated in accordance with Gilbert Associates, Inc.
(GAI) Topical Report GAI-TR-101, "Cc=putation of Radiological Ccnsequences Using the INHEC Cc=puter Program" (Revised 2/11/Th).
Dr. D. Bridges,of your office, has indicated that the above efficiencies were inconsistent with NRC findings. This inconsistency has arisen since our letter did not specify that the carbon efficiencies were applicable only to a LOCA from het standby.
'de find that our calculations predict, as yours do, that for a LCCA f.cn 1005 pcVer, screwhat greater than 805 carbon efficiency is necessary.
You require cold shutdown to be achieved after seven days if one of the redundant air treatment systems is inoperable. Since our concern is that the filter carbcn cannot be replaced and test ampleted in seven days, an unnecessary reactor shutdevn vould result. The logic tehind requiring cold shutdown after seven days when only one filter train is incperable, appears to be single failure criterion per Res;ulatory Guide 1.52.
'de can imagine no credible single failure that would affect the static con-poner.ts of the redundant systen since the system static cc=penents would have previously been demonstrated to be operable by surveillance.
'de main-tain that operation Leyond seven days, up to 30 days, is reasonable as long as it can be demonstrated that the active conpenents Of the redundant system are operable.
'4e vill ccc~it to cold shutdown within h8 hours af ter seven days provided that the seven-day period can te extended to 30 da's by demen-y strating the operability of the active cc=ponents of the redundant system daily.
1485 019 1sL1
Air Treatment System 2
Tech Specification In any event, we require at least 90 days in which to implement the air treatment specifications since our air treatment systems must be extensively modified to perform the in-place DCP and freon tests. The system modifica-tiens to perform these tests are in prorress; however, any less than a 90-day implementation schedule would result in unjustified hardships for such a small ceasure of protection, given the unlikelihood of an accident wherein these systems would be needed at such high efficency.
Sincerely, nP
~
R. C. Arnold Vice President RCA:CWS:eg i485 020