ML19276H417
| ML19276H417 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/27/1978 |
| From: | Stello V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19276H416 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910220520 | |
| Download: ML19276H417 (8) | |
Text
.
U::ITED STrJES OF A:' ERICA fUCLEAR REGULATORY CC:'.:ISSIO!;
4n the ?btter of
)
)
l'ETROPOLITA'; EDIS0!; COMPANY,
)
t JERSEY CE!; TRAL PC'.;ER & LIGHT
)
DOCKET f;0. 50-289 COMPANY, AND
)
PET.llSYL'/A!;I A ELECTRIC C0"?A!;Y
)
)
(Three itile Island l'uclear Station
)
Unit flo. 1)
)
am a
.q-o J u
, 2. k ffu._,
o o Ju EXEM? TION I.
Metropolitan Edison Company, Jersey Central Power and Light Company, and the Pennsylvania Electric Company (the licensees), are the holders of Facility Operating License flo. DPR-50 which authorizes the operation of the nuclear pcwer reactor known as Three Mile Island fluclear Station, Unit No.1 (TMI-1 or the facility), at steady reactor poner levels not in excess of 2535 megawatts thernal (rated pcwer).
The facility consists of a Babcock & h*ilcox Company (BD!) designed pressurized water reactor (P',!R) located at the licensees' site in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.
II.
~
In accordance with the requirwents of the Conmission's Emergency Core Cooling Systen (ECCS) A:ceptance Criteria,10 CFR 50.46, Metropolitan Edison Company (l'et Ed) submitted on July 9,1975, as supplemented 7910sso p o
. f August 8,1975, an ECCS evaluation for the facility.
The ECCS per-formance submitted by Met Ed was bared upon an ECCS Evaluation !'edel developed by the B&',l, the designer of the fiuclear Steam Suppl, System for this facility.
The B&W ECCS Evaluation Model had been previously found to conform to the requirements of the Commission's ECCS Acceptance Criteria,10 CFR Part 50.46, and Appendix K.
The evaluation indicated that with the limit-set forth in the facility's Technical Specifications, the ECCS cooling performance for the facility would conform with the criteria contained in 10 CFR 50.46(b) which govern calculated peak clad temperature, maximum cladding oxidation, maximum hydrogen generation, cool-able geometry and long-term cooling.
On April 12, 1978, B&W informed the.fiRC that it had determined that in the event of a small break Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) on the dis-charge side of a reactor coolant _ pump, high pressure injection (HPI) flow to the core could be reduced somcahat.
Subsequent calculations indicated that in such a case the calculated peak clad temperature might exceed 2200F.
Previous small break analyses for SS'.-l 177 fuel assembly (FA) Icwered loop plants had identified the limiting small break to he in the suction line of the reactor coolant pump.
Recent analyses have shewn that the discharge line break is rore limiting than the suction line break.
- D * ]A
" lD
' T
} h@L D
e A\\ J1 X o
TMI-l has an ECCS configuratien which consists of two high pressure injection (HPI) trains.
Each train has a HPI pump and the train injects into two of the four reactor coolant syste : (RCS) cold ' legs on the discharge side of the RCS pump.
(There is also a third HPI pump installed.) The two parallel HPI trains are connected but are kept isolated by manual valves (knowr. as the cross-over valves) that are nor= ally closed.
Upon receiving a safety injection signal tF2 HPI pumps are started and valves in the four injection lines are ocened.
Assuming loss of offsite power and the worst single failure (failure of diesel to start) only one HPI pump would be available and two of the four injection valves would fail to open.
If a small break is postulated to occur in the RCS piping between the RCS pump discharge and the reactor vessel, the high pressure inje: tion flow injected into this line (about half of the output of one high pressure pump) could flow out the break.
Therefore, for the worst combination of break location and single failure, only one-half of the fica rate of a single high pressure ECCS pump trould centribute to maintaining the coolant inventory in the reactor vessel.
This situation had not been previously analyzed and B&W had indicated that the limits specified in 10 CFR 50.46 may be exceeded.
B&W has stated that they have analyzed a spectrum of small breaks in the pcp discharge line and have determined that to meet the limits of 10 CFR 50.45, cperator action is required to open the two manual crerated crcssover valves and to manually open the tvio motcr driven isolation valves v.hich had failed to open and align all four isolaticn
D "" *^ D
"] D "D
' )1[f oo c>
2.
m valves.
This would allow the flow from the one HPI pump to feed all four reactor coolant legs.
B&W has assuned that 30% of the flow would be lost through the break and 70?; would refill the core.
B&W has prepared a summary entitled " Analysis of Small Breaks in the Reactor Coolant Pump Discharge Piping for the B&W LJwered Loop 177 FA Plants", April 24, 1978 (the B&W Summary), which describes the rethods used and the results obtained in the above analysis.
The analysis models operator action by assuming a step increase in flow to the reactor vessel (with balanced flow in the three intact loops) ten minutes after the LOCA reactor protection system trip signal occurs.
By letter dated April 27, 1978, het Ed submitted a copy of the B&W Summary for our review.
In their submittal Met Ed stated that they had reviewed the S&W Summary and determined that the results were applicable to TMI-l and that operation of TMI-l at 100% of full power
'2535 Mwt} would be in full conformance with 10 CFR 50.45.
Recognizing, however, that there was insufficient tire available to the NRC staf T to fully review the B&W Sumrary and make a similar determination prior to the scheduled startup of TNI-l in Cycle 4 (estimated.startup date of April 27, 1978), Met Ed recuested an exemption from 10 CFR 50./6, until such time as the NRC staff had completed their review.
The
4
- D""
D'9'}
- j k c&u a_
requested exemption vrould authorize startup and power operation of Tf I-1 up te 100L of full po.ter (2535 fLt).
In their submittal of April 27, 1978, l'et Ed ala stated that tiey 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 had conducted a drill to verify that the assu:ed operator response time was achievabic.
l'et Ed also committed to submit as soon as possible a request for amendnent of the Tril-1 Technical Specifications as appropriate to reflect adoption of these procedures, and committed to submit a proposal for a permanent solution to this problem by July 24, 1978.
We have completed a preliminary review of the B&W Summary.
In the Sumary, B&W states that a.15 ft.2 discharge lir.e break, with operator actions consistent with that modeled in the analysis, is the nost limiting case.
To arrive at this conclusion, B&W has per-formed analyses at break sizes of
.3,
.2,.15,.1, and.04 ft.2 The results, which were obtained using an approved Appendix K model for bicwdown, indicate core uncovery for about 500 seconds for the 0.15 ft.2 break.
For this break size B&W has conservatively calculated the peak clad temperature to be approxinately 1760 F; wel' below the limits of 10 CFR 50.4E(b).
- }D D
f }k fru D h
, dj o o Ju o
o Bascd on review of the BSW Surrary, however, we find that the calculations do not clearly support the conclusion thct a.15 ft.2 discharge line break is the most limiting case.
In addition, the Sumary does not denonstrate that the assumptions e.T. ployed in supplying heat inputs to the F0A! portion of the calculations were conservative.
We are also reviewing whether use of simplified input in the FOAM calculations satisfies the requirement for calculation using an approved model.
Accordingly, we cannot conclude at this time that operation of TMI-1 at 100% of licensed power would be fully in conformance with 10 CFR 50.46.
On the other hand, for operation of this facility at power levels up to 91% of full power (23i1 ft!t), ECCS performance calculations for the i;miting small break indicate that this break does not result in core uncovering, if appropriate operator action is properly taken (as described above), thus providing a very substantial margin on peak clad temperature below the limits of 10 CFR 50.46(b).
Therefore, until we have had the opportunity to fully assess the B&W calcu-lations, supplenented as required, operation of T?1!-l at 100: of licensed power (2535 fixt) would be technically in nonconfomance with the require-ments of 50.46 in that revised calculations by B&W applicable to this facility are not yet complete.
Hcwever, operation of TMI-l at power levels of up 2311 litt and in accordance with appropriate operating procedures, will assure that the ECCS system will confom to the performance criteria cf 50.46.
Accordingly, while B&W calculations applicable to this facility are ccepleted to achieve ful' compliance with 10 CFR 50.46, operation of the facility at po,.or levels up to 2311 tht wi'.. appropriate operating procedures will not endanger life or property or the ccrron defense and security.
mm a
wo o
.a In the absence of any safety problen associated with operation of the facility during the period until the E&U calculations, as sup.plemented, are completed, there appears to be no public interest consideration favcring undue restriction of the operaticn of the captioned facility.
Accordingly, the Comission has determined that an exemption in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12 is appropriate.
The specific exemption is limited to the period of tire necessary to complete computer calculations.
III.
Copies of the following docurents are available for inspection at the Commission's Public Documant Room at 1717 H Street, Washington, D.C.
20555, and are being placed in the Commission's local public document room at the State Library of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
(1) the application for exemption dated April 27,1978, and (2) this Exenption in the matter of l'etropolitan Edison Company, Jersey Central Power and Light Corpany, and Pennsylvania Electric Company, Three Iile Island fluclear Station', Unit f;o. 1 Wherefore, in accordance with the Commission's regulations as set forth in 10 CFR Part 50, the licensees are hereby granted an exemption from the requirenants of 10 CFR 50.46(a)(i) that ECCS performsnce be calculated in accordance with an acceptable calculational nodel which conforrcs to the provisiens in Appendix K.
This exemption is conditioned as follows:
D**D "D'9~ [a ooM oL SJ (1) l'etropolitan Edison Company shall submit supplemntary ana yses o.
ECCS cooling perforrance calculated in accord:nce with the B&'d Evaluation !bdel, as requested by tne Comissien, as soon as possible.
i (2)
Until further authorization by the Comission, the pcwer level shall not exceed 2311 l4st, and (3)
Until further authorization by the Conmission,14tropolitan Edison Company shall operatethe facility in accordance with the procedures described in its letter of April 27, 1978.
FOR THE liUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'^
y}:
Wp,L: -) A
/Ap; f u c:
Victor Stello, Jr., Direc/tor Division of Operating Reactors Office of i;uclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Bethesda, Ibryland, this 27th day of April 1978.
t e
20574 WKU supplements thereto, and the Draft to 10 CFR 151.5(dx41 an environmm-Steam Supply System for thir f.vC Enytrontmental Statement and Early tal imract statement, or r,reative dec-The D&W ECCS EvMuation W Site Review Report, are available for laration and enviionmental impact ap-had been previously found to emfc public inspection at the Commivien's prahal need not be prepared in con-to the requirements of the Cmr Public Document Room 1717 H St.' i nectMn with issuance of this amend-ston ECCS Acceptance Crit nin.
NW., Washington, D.C. between t ment.
CFR Part 50.46, and Aerendiv. K.1 hours1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> of 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on we.o Fcr further detnils with reweet to evalur;tf on Inotested the WS days. Copics of these docum*nts are this action. see (1) the 'grp!! cation for limit s u t f u t.,
r also available at the Newton County amendment dtted January 9.1978, as r; tral Spes.eu Ubrary, Newton, Tex. 77034. When supplemented April 3.10,17 and 20, performance for tne facility wm available, the Final Site Environmen-1978. (2) Amendment No. 39 to License conform with the cr:teria contained tal Statement, the transcriptr of tl.a No. DPR-50, and (3) the Commission's 10 CFR 50.46(b) which govern ca.
prehearing conferences and of the related Safety Evaluation. All of these lated peak clad temperature, e hearing and other rc!crant documents items are available for public inspcc-rnum cladding oxidation, ma.um-will also be available at the above lora. tion at the Commission's Public Decu-hydrocen generaticn coolable rem tions. Cepics of the Office of Nuclear ment Room. 1717 H Street NW.,
try and long.tcrm cooling.
Reactor Regulation's Final Site Envi. Washington, D C. and at the Govern-On Aps!! 12,1978, DMV inv roruaental Statement, when available, ment Publications Section, State Li-the NRC that it had determined t:
may be purchased at current rates brary of Pennsylvania, Box 1601 (Edu-in the event of a small break Is from the National Technical Informa. cation Building), Harrisburg, Pa. A Coolant Accident (LOCA) on the r tion Service, S;ningfield, Va. 22161.
copy of items (2) and (3) may be ob-charge side of a reactor contant pm tained upcn request addressed to the high pressure injection (HPI) fion Dated at Bethesda, Md. this 'Ird day U.S. Nucicar Regulatory Commission, the core could be reduced semc" b of May 1978.
Washington. D.C. 20555, Attention: Di-Subsequent calculations ind!cated t' For the Atomic Safety and Ucensing rector, Division of Operating Reactors. in such a case the calculated peak i Board.
l Dated at Bethesda, Marylmd. this temperature m!ght exceed SOF.
MansnAtt, E. Mst.LER, 27th day of April 1978' Previous small break ant.lysrs
'h Chairman.
B&W 177 fuel assembly (FA) lowe (FTt Doc. 7810934 Filed 5-11-78; 8 ($ unl For the Nuclear Regulatory Com-loop phnts had identified the limit
- mission, small break to be in the suction lin lj; ROBERT W. Rrin.
the reactor coolant pump. Hec (7590-01]
- Chief, Operating Reccfors analyses have show that the <
(Dockn No. 50-2391 Branch No. #, Dirisinn of Op.
charge line break is more limit crating Recetors.
than the suction line break.
METacPOLITAH EDISCN CO. ET AL.
TMI-1 has an ECCS configurat
[FTL Doc. 78-12938 Filed 5-11-78; 8:45 unl which consists of two high presaure j
leiuem of Ameedmont te Focility operating jection (HPI) trains. Each train h.n 4
[7590-01]
HPI pump and the tram injects 1 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com.
two of the four reactor coolant syst mission (the Commission) haa issued NH No. so:W (RCS) cold legs on the dischar;:e s
'{
Amendment No. 39 to Facility Operat.
psitorot: TAN ED($CN CO., ET AL (THtig of the RCS pump. (There is ah Ing License No. DPR-50, issued to Mit! L3 LAND NUCtfAlt STANON UNIT NO.1) third HP1 pump installed.) The t O
Metropolitan Edison Co., Jersey Cen.
parallel HPI trains are connec&d
')
tral Power and Ught Co. and Pennsyl.
Exemp%
are kept isolated by manual VC vania Electric Co. (the licensees),
(known as the cross-over vahes) y*
I which revised the Technical Specifica.
are normally closed. Uren receivin tions for operation of the.Three Mile Metropolitan Edison Co..
Jersey safety injection signal the HPt rm Island Nuclear Station. Unit No.1 (the Central Power and Ught Co. and the are started and valves in the four facility) located in Dauphin County, Pennsylvams Electric Co. (the licens. jecticn lines are opened. Arunh;'
Pa. The amendment is effeettre as of eest are the holders of Fvtlity Oper. of offsite power and the worst sir its date of issuance.
ating Ucense No. DPR.5o which au.
failure (failure of diesel to rtart) r This smendment revises the Technl. thorizes the operation of the nuclear one HPf pump would be avnilat'!c.
cal Spr<'f! cations to rafleat plant oper. power reactor knovin u Three Mile two of the four injection vahh wr
,1, ating limitstions for the first 130 ef.
Island Nuclear Station Unit No. 1 fall to open.
I fective full power days of operation in CIMI-1 or the facility), at steady reac-If a small break is pc-tWate 1 l
Cycle 4.
tor power levels not in excess of 2535 occur Jn the RCS pipine ten
',t The application for the amendment megnatts thermol (rated power). The RCS pump. dischar:;e and the tem complies with the standards and re.
facility consists of a Dabcock & Wticox vessci, the high presrur? in9ctM I
quirementa of the Atomic Energy Act Co. (BJ-W) designed pr^ssurtzed water injected into this line tabout ha:f of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the reactor (PWR) located at the !!cens-the output of one high rres Commission's rules and traulations.
ees' site in Dauphin County, Pa.
pump) could flow out the Fr:
The Commission has made appropri.
Derh. for me wcM coMW g g*
ate f!ndings as required by the Act and of break Iccation and rincte fe the Commission's rules and regula.
In accordance with the requirements en'y one half of the ' low rW c tions in 10 CFR Chapter I. which nre of the Commission's Emercency Ccre sir.gle hich pressura ECC3 r set forth in the liceme wrtenent. Ceeling Spten 'ECCP Acceptance wcuid ernTrue to T ur* r. -
Prer pubtle netice cf th!s nmeedmont Crtteria.10 CFR 50 46. Wtrepetitan codant mventor7 in the r=&
ut twt recuired since the nmendment Ed!sen Co. (Mct EP submit ed on This eituatten had not b-n prM
,l does ret inre!ve a stenificant ha:ntd3 July 9.1975, as suppkmented Aurust rsnaiyr.ed and B&W hc.d inWt ' '
.r conside ration.
8,1975, an ECC3 enlaation for the fa.
the limi's sreci'V W InCFD
's The Comminien Pas de* ermined ci!!ty. The ECC3 pt.rformsnca submit. may t'e exco led.
that the issuance of this amendment ted by Met Ed was Im. sed upon an B/Cl hu stated the 'hU h rc -
will not result in any significant envi. ECCS Evaluation Model develeped by ly7ed a srectrum of smul br, r i
ronmental impact and that. pursuant the B&W. the desfrner of the Nuclear tha pump discharge lire an't tmi i
Ftpt9 At RIGl$Tta. VOt. 43. NO 91 f PO AY. MM 12.19:9 0]F F
]D %[Q D
[p1 "E
dJE L
flOHCES
. 05 T h*
ter:nsted that to meet the limits or 10 sult.s. which were obtained using an III-CFR 50.16. operster action is required approve l Appendix K model for blow-Copies of the followinz riccumen' to open the t710 marually cperated down. indicate core uncovery for about crossover valves and to manually open 500 seconds for the 0.15 f t.' brcak. For are atallable for inspection at th-Commission s Public Document floc-the two rnotor driven isolation valves this break size B&W has conserystive-at 1717 H Street. Washincen. D C wh!ch had failed to open and align all ly calculated the peak clad temnera-m,.tnd
~.ra
- r7 * ' * ' "'
four isolation valves. This would allow ture to be approx!mately 17GO F: well Cc mmi. r n;* n.
the flow from the one IIPI pump to belo'a the limit.s of 10 CFR 50.4&b).
feed all four reacter coolant ! cgs.
Based on review of the B&W Sum-room at th = dts L s ri et re uni)1 vania. Itantatwrg Pa.
D&# ha.1 assumed that 30 percent of mary, however, we find that the cMcu-(1) The application for examrtit" the flow would be lost thrcut;h the littoru do not clear'y support the cen-dated April 27,1978. and break and 70 percent would refill the clusien that a.15 ft.' dircharge line (2) This Exemption in the mat'er e core. B&W has prersted a summary break is the most limiting case. In ad-Metropolitan Edison Co., Jmey Ccn entitled " Analysis of Small Breaks in dition, the Summary does not demen-tral Power and Light Co.. and Peruryl the Resetor Coolant Pump Dischstre strate that the assumptions employed vania Electric Co.. Three Mile 1stm Piping for the B&W Lowered Loop 171 in supplying heat input.s to the FOAM Nuclear Station. Unit No.1 FA Planta", April 24,1978 (the B&W portion of the calculations were cen.
Summary), which describas the mcth-servative. We are also retlewing Wherefore.,{in accordanc th-ods used and the results obtained in whether use of simplified input in the s n e
at ns set for the abow analysh The analyms EOAM calculations sati:fies the re-g models operator action by assuming a quiremant for eniculation using an op-lieraby granted an' exemptien frE step incrrase in flo"i to the reactor proved model. Accordingly, we cannot the reoutrements of 10 CFR 50.46tav vessel (with balancad flow in the three conclude at this time that operation of t intact loops) ten minutes after the TMI-1 at 100 percent of Ilcensed in acco d nce t
n acceo 1 e LOCA resctor protection system trip power vould be fully in confermance culational model which conform
- t.
signal occurs, with 10 CFR 50.46. On the other hand. the provisions in Appendit I!. This n By letter dated April 27, M8. Met for operation of this facility st power n mnMmed as MW Ed submitted a copy of the B&W 1evels up to 91 percent of full po'ver (1) Metrepo11 tan Edaon (;o. shMt ubn-Summary for o'tr raiew. In their sub- (2311 Mwt).1:CCS performance ca!cu. supplementary analyses of Ecc9 cconc mittal Mct E ! stated that they l'ad re-lations fer the limiting small break in.
p"'omance calculated 'n accord.mee vte viewed the D&W Summary and deter-d!cate that this break does not result the D&W Eveuauon M. del. ss rmemd t-mined thst the results were applicable in core uncovering, if appropriate op-th a fs so to TMI-1 and that operatton of TMI-1 erator action is properly taken (as de-
, ut or ton by th" Comm *= the power level sh a'l nc
. at 100 pereant of full power (2535 scribed above), thus providing a verY w
exceed 2311 Mn ima Mwt) would be in full conforrmance substantial margin on peak clad tem-(3) Untti further auturu.ation by tb a
with 10 CFR 50.46. Recognizing, hcT-perature below the limits of 10 CFR Commimton, Metropolitan Edbon Co..&.
ever, that there was insufflent time
- 50. 46(b).
operate the fact 11ty in accorthnee with th-available to the NRC staff to fully Therefore, until we have had the op.
procedures desertbed in its letter of Aorti 7 review the B&W Summary and make portunity to fully assess the B&W cal-1978-a similar determination prior to the cutations, supplemented as required, Dated at Bethesda, Md.. this 27th scheduled startup of TMI-1 in Cycle 4 operation of TMI-1 at 100 percent of day of April 1978.
testimsted startup date of April 27, licensed power (2535 Mwt) would be 1978). Met Ed requested an exemption technically in nonconformance with For the Nuclear Regulstory Cem from 10 CFR 50.46, until such time as the requirements of 50.46 in th st re.
"#U"'
the NRC sta!! had completed their vised calculations by B&W applicable review. The requested exemption to this fac!!!ty are not yet complete.
Director, Df on of p rat 'no would authorize startup end power op-However, oper stfon of TMI-1 at power
&acWs. owe omch M era' ion of TMI-1 up to 100 percent of levels of up to 2311 Mwt and in accord.
ador Made.
full power (2535 Mwt).
ance with appropriate operating proce.
[FR Dec. 75-12933 FCed 5-11-73; M5 aml In their submittal of April 27,1978, dures. Will a.saure the the ECCS Met Ed also stated that they had system will conform to the perform-
{7590-01]
modified certain plant procedures to ance criteria of 50.46. Accordingly,
- provide the necessary operator actions v;hi!e B&W calculations appl! cab!e to MtKID OXtDE FUtt en a time scale consistent with th tt as-this facdity are completed to ach! eve sumed in the analysis, and that they full comp!!ance with 10 CFR 50.46 op-
- """" d D d "
- had conducted a drill to verify that eration of the facility at power levels On December 23, 1977, the Commim the assumed operator response time up to 2311 Mwt with appropriate oper-sion issued an order concernine lu was achlevable. Met Ed also commit-ating procedures will not endanger life proceedings on the Generic Emiren.
ted to submit as soon as possible a re-or property or the common defense mental Statement on Mixe4 Oxide
- quest for amendment of the TMI-1 and security.
Fuel (GESMO). pending licente appli.
, Technical Specifications as approprl-In the absence of any safety problem cations, and other matters related te
' ate to reflect adoption of these proce-associated with operation of the facili-the reprocessing of spent light wa9s dures, and committed to submit a pro-ty during the period until the B&W nuclear reactor fuel and the recychre pessl for a permanent solution to this calculations, as supplernented, are of urantum and plutenium in miw' problem by July 21.1978.
completed, there appears to be no oxide fuel. 42 FR 65334 (December 31
- We have completed a prel!minary public Interest consideration favcring 1977). In that order the Commisen rettew of the B&W Summary. In the undue restriction of the operation of announced its decision-Summary. B&W states that a.15 ft.'
the captloned facility. Accordingly.
(1) To terminate the GESMO pro-discharge !!ne break. with operatcr ac-the Commission has determined that ccedinc; tions consistent with that modeled in an exemption in accorda' ice with 10 (2) To terminate the proceedings en the analysis. is the most !!miting case. CFR 50.12 is appropriate. The specific pending or future plutonium recycle-t,. To arrive at this conclusion. B&W has exemption is limited to the period of related license applications. except fer; je performed analyses at break sizes of time necessary to complete computer (a) Proceedings on licenses for the
%, 0.3. 0.2. 0.15, 0.1, and 0.04 ft. '. The re-calculations, fabrication or use of small quant l tic FEDttAt REGnitt, VOL. 43, NO. 93-sa! DAY, M AY 13, 1979 p'L D**D "D NTM' d
S $lnb co
20574 FIOT!CES supplements thereto. and the Drsft to 10 CFR } 51.5(d)t 41 an environmen. Steam Supply Svstem f >r this fel" Environmental Statement and Estly tai impact statrment, or nc7ative dec.
The B&W ECCS Evalus'ico W Si'e Peview Report, are aval!able for laration and environmental impact ap-had been previevsly found to ccefc' public Ir 'ection at the Commis-fen's prtisal need not be prepared in con-to the reautrements of the Ccm."
Public Decument Room.1717 II Street nection Sith 1suance of thia amend-sion's ECCS Acceptance Critt rn.
NW., Washington. D.C. bet' een the ment.
CFIt Part 50.46, and ArranJ!x K. ~
hours of S:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on week.
For further detalls vith respect to evawtion irdicated tMr -Ith days. Copies of thtse documrnts are this a91Sn. sea (1) the app!! ration for I'miu 3.e t ;.
I also svallable at the Newton County amendment dated January 9.1W. u rdcal Sp.C t.
Library. Newton. Tex. 7703L When supplemented April 3. I'). 17. and 20 performance fu a.e f aciut :. m available. the Final Site Env!ronmen.
1978. (2) An endment No. 39 to License conform with the enteria contained tal Statement, the transcripts of the No. DPR.53 and (3) the Conuninion's 10 CFR 50.46(b) which govern ca!
prehearing conferences and of the related Safety Evaluation. All of these lated peak clad temperature, m2 hearing and other reletant dccument.s items fire available for public inspec-murn cladding oxidatien, mwm will a'so be avaihble at the sbcVe lcca. tion at the Commisslan's Putilic Docu-hydrogen generation. coolable Ucr tions. Ceples of the Office of Nuclear ment Rocm. 1717 II Street NW..
try and long. term cooling.
Reactor Regulation's Final Site Entt.
Washirgton D.C. a..d at the Govern-On April 12. 1978. B&Winorr c
ronmental Statement. Then available, mant Publications Section. State L1-the NRC that it had determirro tt rnay be purcha. sed at current rates brary of Pennsylvania. Box 1601 (Edu-in the event of a small break Im' from the National Technical Informa. cation Building). Harrtsburg. P2. A Coolant Accident (LOCA) on the a tion Service. Springfield. Va. 02161.
copy of it(ms (2) and (3) may be ob.
charre side of a reactor coolart pm tained upon requert addressed to the high pressure injection (HPI) fles Dated at Bethesda Md. this 3rd day U.S. Nuclear Reguiory Conuniraion, the core could be reduced somcM of May 1978.
Washington, D.C. 20555. Attention: Dl-Subsequent calculations indicatcJ tl For the Atomic Safety and Licensing rector. Division of Operating Reactors. In such a case the calculated peak d B ard.
Dated at Bethesda. Maryland, this temperature might execed 20t)0F.
MsasitAI.t. E. M!t.r.En.
27th day of April 1978.
Previous small break analpes Chairmun.
B&W 177 fuel assembly (FA) Icwer (FR Doc. 78-12934 FUed 5-1t-78: 8 45 aml For the Nuclear Regulatory Com-loop plants had identified the limit) t mission.
small break to be in the suction line
' 'i!
RoBFJtT W. RE1D.
the reactor coolant pump. Rea
[7590-01]
Chief.
Operating Reactors analyses have shown that the P (Docket No. 50-2891 Branch No. 4. Dirisio : of Op.
charge line break is mere hmP.
ercting Reactors.
than the suction line break.
METRCrotTTAN EDt3CN CO. ET AL.
TMI-1 has an ECCS conffeurah (FT1 Doc. 78-1 938 FUed 5-11-78; 8:45 ami h
towance of Amedment e. Facilley op ee ne Mdm M Mt M Mmu !
n ject!on (llPD trains. Each train ip
[7570-01]
HPI pump and the train infarts in The U.S. Nucletr Regulstory Com.
two of the four reactor contant sv+
mission (the Commission) has issued (Docket No. 50-:M1 (RCS) cold legs on the dircharie r l
Amendment No. 39 to Facility Operat.
MritorctrTAN EDISCN CO.,IT AL (TNEIE of the PCS pump. (There is ah ing License No. DPR-50 issued to WLIISLAND iWCLEAR STAflON UNIT NO.1) third HP1 pump installed.) Tbc
't Metropolitan Edison Co. Jersey Cen.
para'le! HPI trains are connec'ad i l.
tra! Power and Light Co. and Pennsyl.
Exempelen are kept isolated by manual l'1 1
vania Electric Co. (the licensees),
(known as the cross-over val es) tl y*
which revised the Technical Specifica-are nermally closed. Upon receiv%
tions for operation of the.Three Mlle Metrocolttan Ed'm Co..
Jersey safety injection signal the IIFI pur Island Nuclear Station. Cnit No.1 (the Central Power and Light Co.. and the are startet: and valves in the four facilit y) located in D1uchin County. Pennsylvania Electric Co. (the !!cens. jection lines are opened Assumf og 1 Pa. The amendment is effective as of ers), are the holders of Farllity Oper. of offsite power and the worst rin Its date of issuance.
ating License No. DPR-50 which au.
failure (failure of diesel to start) o This amendment revises tha Technl. thorizes the operation of tha nuc!aar one HPI pump would be availal'le r cal Specificat!ans to reflect plant crer. power reactor known as 7 hree Mlle two of the four infection v Wes m ating !!mitations for the first 130 ef.
Ishnd Nucicar Station. Unit No. 1 f all to cpen.
k fcctive full power days of operstion in (T?II-1 or the facility), at steady rear-If a small break is pm.tuhted
' h,.
Cycle 4.
ter power levels not in excess of 2535 cecur in the RCS pipin:: bet %cru 8
The application for the amendment meg' watts thermal (rated power). The RC.9 pump. dischar;;e and the it~
1 complies with the standards and re.
facility censists of a Babcock & Wilcox vessel, the high pressure infacticn 'r 1
quirernanta of the Atomic Enargy Act Co. (B&W) designed prosuri7ed water injected into this line (abec hMr cf 1951, as amended (the Act). nnd the reactor (PWID located st the licens-the output of one blch p:rv Commluton's rules and replations. ecs'stte ln Dauphin County,15.
pumpi could flow out the bri The Comminion has made arprcpri.
Therriora, for the worm combinn';
II-ate findings as required by the Act and of breal Iccation and nf n:;le fa'le the Commission's rules and reguh.
In accordance with the requirements en!y one. half of the 90w rn'r o.
i tions in 10 CFR Chapter L which are of the Commission's Emergency Core single high presure ECCS m'
set forth in the license tmendment. Cccling System ' ECCS) Accept ance would con *ribute to virtaint m
- Prior public notice of th!s amendment Criteria 10 CFR 50.46. Metrepolitan coolant mventory in the reactor v was not required since the amendment Edisen Co. (Met Ed) submitted on This situation had not twn pret te dces not involve a signi!! cant hazards July 9.1975, u surpleinented August analy ed ind B&W had inditv. '
consideration.
8.1975, an ECC3 evaluation for the is.
the limits specified in 10 CFT' ;
The Commissinn has determined cility. The ECCS performance subrnit. may be excretico.
that the issusnee of this amendment ted by Met Ed was based upon an B&'V has stated that they ha v
will not result in any significant enyt.
ECCS Evaluation Model develcred by lyzed a spectrum of s nti bre e ronmental impact and that pursuant the B&W, the desicner of the Nuclear tha pump discharge line and hr.e 3
FECEIAL ttGl5TTR, VOL. 43. NO. %Ft:C Af. MAY 12. Ig?s