ML19322A478
| ML19322A478 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello, Crane  |
| Issue date: | 08/05/1974 |
| From: | Case E US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322A477 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911040141 | |
| Download: ML19322A478 (5) | |
Text
-.
p
/N s
k.j
[.
T 4
- i..
.=
UtilTED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY CO)CIISSION l
I DOCRET No. 50-289 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY JERSEY CENTRAL PO'iER A';D LIGHT COMPANY PE.7ISYLVANIA ELECTRIC CO:IPANY DETEri1 NATION OF REQUEST FOR EXTE'iSION FOR SUBMITTAL OF EVALUATIONS REQUIRED BY ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR EMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTEMS (10 CFR 5 50.46(a)(2)(iii))
As required by 10 CFR 5 50.46(a)(2), certain licensees must achieve compliance with acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems (ECCS) published in Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50, August 5, 1974, unless an extension of time for submission of the required ECCS performance evaluation and proposed Technical Specifications has been approved by the Director of Regulation pursuant to 10 CFR 5 50.46(a)(2)(iii). As required 4
Dy s ' au.40 (a) (i) (111), notice was puo11snec in ene rederal Register on July 10,1974 (39 FR 25416), that the Director of Regulation had received and was.considering'a. request from Met'ropolitan Edison Company for an extension of time until September 16, 1974 of the submittal date for the ECCS evaluation and proposed Technical Specifications for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1.
(The licensee also requested an exemption from the. requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 pursuant to 10 CFR 50.46(a)(2)(VI).
~ Notice of receint of this request for exe=ption was published in the Federal Register on July 10, 1974 (39 FR 25420)).
The Notice also invited the submission of views and co=ments by any l
interested persons on the licensee's request. Comments have been I
received from Friends of the Earth and Consolidated liational Intervenors.
l y9110 D /y/
oz o
3 \\
These groups, question the licensee's statement that'the vendor's schedule could not be expedited.
In addition, these groups question why the licensee could not conduct its evaluation in conjunction with the vendor.
The Regulatory staff has taken into account these. comments in the determination reflected herein.
It has evaluated the vendor's delay in submitting an ECCS evaluation model and analyses to the licensee and finds that this delay is justified. Furthermore,' the Regulatory staff, after determining a minimum review schedule of a vendor's evaluation model and analyses and comparing the licensee's schedule to the staff's independent schedule, believes the licensee has shown good cause for only that extension 6f time which is consistent with the staff's assess-i ment. The staff's assessment of the review time required by licensees for the evaluation model and.the preparation of proposed Technical Spacificaticn; inclu'c.s
....m..Lle lovel of Acuetal involvement hv rhe licensee with the vendor in the development'of the evaluation models.
lhowever,onlyaftercompletionofthemodelandthedetailedcalculation can the. bulk of the licensee's review begin. The staff did not consider in it determination of good'eause the need for additional time in which to file an exemption request.
In support of its request for an extension of time, the licensee states that it expects to receive the ECCS evaluation and analyses from the NSSS vendor, Sabcock & Wilcox (B&L'), by August 5,1974, and that an additional six weeks is requested for the licensee to complete a review of the B&W analyses.
(B&W has now indicated the evaluation model and l
1 l
~
~
/' s-(~T V
\\/
i 3
'~,T j
a l
i analyses could be submitted to the licensee on August 1, 1974.)
In part, the licensee attributes the need for six weeks of internal review
+
to its corporate structure in that 'wo sister subsidiary co=panies--the licensee and General Public Utilities Service Corporation (CPUSC), =ust coordinate the various internal review stages.
It is evident from the licensee's request that the basis for an extension of time is the unavailability of the necessary evaluation codels cnd analyses from B&W.
Since the promulgation of the regulation, the Regulatory staff has been engaged in a continuing effort to develop an AEC evaluation codel which would meet the requirements of Appendix K of 10 CFR Part 50. A similar effort has been underway by the four vendors
~
aii[piyayaram= rnr lioht-water nuclear uuwer te.ccuts.
at
...ri...
.comm including B&W.
As the Regulatory staff recognizes from'its efforts, this develognent work has,inv.olved a considerable amount of time. Based upon,
the Regulatory staff's own efforts and its knowledge of the efforts on the part of BSW to develop adequate evaluation models and analyses, the Regulatory staff believes that the licensee's statements regarding delay by.B&W in co=pleting and submitting to it an evaluation codel and analyses constitutes good cause for an extension of the August 5, 1974 deadline for the submittal of the infor=ation required by 10 CFR 5 50.46. The Regulatory staff, however, does not believe the licensee has justified an extension of time until S,;te=ber 16, 1974. The Regulatory staff has independently developed a schedule of the steps and average times that should be i
i 4
)
i v
0 0)
V l
.- +
r\\
3 l
- s. e l
6
- ]
sufficient for internal review by the licensee af ter transmittal by B&W of the B&W evaluation and analyses to the licensee.
This schedule takes into account the review schedules submitted by all licensees who have requested extensions as well as the Regulatory staff's own views as to the mini =um ti=e which should be required for the licensees to conduct the necessary reviews and to prepare the necessary information for submittal to the Regulatory staff. The Regulatory staff's schedule is as follows:
" 1.
Engfdiering review (including O/A review) of'svaluation codels and analyses.
(7 days) 2.
Preparation of proposed Technical Specifications and revised
_ operating procedures.
(14 days) 3.
Review by plant operations and nuclear safety committee and
'"';- dppropriate company nuclear review committee.
(10 days) 4! Submit (4 days) l Total time: 35 days This schedule estimate is based on work within a single company corporate structure. The Regulatory staff feels that GPUSC and the licensee should be able to work in parallel to whatever degree is necessary.
Based upon the above, the Regulatory staff has concluded that an extension of time of 35 days should be granted to the licensee co=mencing with the date of transmittal by B&W of the B&W model and analyses to the licensee.
It should be noted that this licensee will be required to operate the Three
' Mile Island Unit 1 reactor in accordance uith limitations of tha Interim
~
o.
O
}
" '\\
Acceptance Criteria for ECCS during the period of the time extension granted herein.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing ponsiderations and for good cause shown, the Director of Regulation hereby grants an extension of time to-the~ licensee which extends the date for compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 9 50,46(a)(2)(ii) from August 5,1974 until September 5, 1974.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this s
[
d[ -
ff'-W FO'R THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
$c\\
'W
- , Edren O. Cece -
~
/
Acting Director or Licensing o
e _ **
en e
me>
S i
,m
,/
\\,
N, s'
. 3,
~
1 A'J L2.I
> :.w L*
- a, e O
.,s.
v w.s - t. c..
.,.:s t a 3 e..
n...,.h.:. : F.9
- r. n.d f.\\ :..a
.e. c -.., v. y. :1
- y.
1.
vu m.
s>
Gv.,,..,.
,J. -
s-C C....r. ;,., e v
..,,.. r.,
t s s.
6 w..
v..u e..
a;.a.yIls: se U.% p(,.3 9..T r.'..*.*$* 1C.:.l 1 a
- i. -
w
- 7
.i t' nr..N.'~t f".c.riIO' I:.S t
. i
. wU a sa Enclosed for ycur transmittal to tha Offica of the Federal Rcgistar for oublicatica are tro cigned origiiuls,,ml tciel'.'e co:)ics c:ch of "J:421 ain.; tion of i'.2c"ast fcr Extensten of Ti.a fcr Sunnitti! of Evaluations han. rad by Accaprince,Critaria for Lnargcacy Core
!. 0 t. d. 3 ;.0.e..(c ) u,)( i i i),, i cr t:. e ta l lo:n.ng p,iants:
Ccoling Systca:
].
r.
Plant Dec'mt !.o. (s)
Cooper 50-293
+
....,. _- %u i,.,.
r,.3, i.
... a.,
.f W1:.~at 'U.axce 50-271 Oyster Creek,
50-219 t,.;, :'.r. n )
a,">:
I C
e,., ~ 2., c.i.. :..u.,
n.;-..s
..\\., :
sii il3 CCf.e 8
%-;.o
.s 3
.....i s.
..a.,
a u.a
.o l,z., :4..l i
n., -
,....1
.. ~.
o
..v.. C i s. n.1 1, 0 r, %
- f.
- n s,
'e
.esm.... a
..e l a*
s s,
9
.,c, s a
e l ; n,., I u-c.
mf
.,...- c. a n
w
..v CaiV'rt Cliffs }
G ~
'd 7
- n. I U6 ' 6 sA /,.
. -" * - :. 5 =+
Tr = /. ? 5 ~.
r. 1,..
w'.
2.... 1
_..,,, 9 e
t..
h,.,.,,s...s.3 E
e LOO., }
- Ce a ;,-.)
c'..p.
. ]
i n. e... -
r.
.a-1 s
s$
~
O
\\
o
.m in I
t j
i%s'
%s 4
.a s
i L-
.us.,.
T;i:rc notic:: my tw p2li hti c"cr c ::ariod et M O yo, ;' :nc".cr
..,~.
....a._~..,.,...a.1
.2.
--1
..t.gm.....
. u a
- s...
...,.-t 'iGad ei l'.~.li Sybil !!. ;'ari Dir:ctorate of Licensing c.ncle:ure:
As s;at:;d i
h t
i DISTRIE'JTION:
CMiles Dcchet File (33)
E"Kcri 23 ic13
.l0 u:.ci.
STeets w/o cncl.
SShs,: pard w/o ancl.
EGoulbourne w/o encl.
HSmith w/o encl.
MService w/o encl.
SKari Reading t o.\\
s% #
e 'e s
9 r
y=
Xia.,,,~8 e u,~, - a, a.sart:no l, 8/
/74 I
-m-L:
ca rsis u..:.o;t.
- u.
.u n ~ u -... r
.r. r.. ; -,
,.r..
O O
i
'l n
kq UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION DOCKET NO. 50-289 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY NOTICE OF REOUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM REQUIREMENTS C0flCERillflG EMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE As required by 10 CFR S 50.46(a)(2), certain licensees must achieve compliance with acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems (ECCS) published in Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50, by August 5,1974, unless either (1) an extension of time.for submission of the required ECCS performance evaluation has been approved by the Director of Regulation pursuant to 10 CFR S 50.46(a)(2)(iii), or (2) an exemption from the operating requirements of 10 CFR 5 50.46(a)(2)(iv) has been granted by the Commission for good cause shown. As required by 5 50.46(a)(2)(vi), notice is hereby given that the Com-mission has received and is considering a r_.uest from Metropolitan Edison Company for an exemption from the schedule specified in 5 50.46(a)(2)(vi) for submission of a request for an exemption from the emergency. core cooling system operating requirements of 5 50.46(a)(2)(iv) for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1.
(The Director of Regulation is separately publishing notice of receipt and consideration of a request from Metropolitan Edison Company for an extension until September 16, 1974 of the submittal date for the Three Mile Island Unit 1 ECCS evaluation). The licensee is authorized by Facility Operating License No. DPR-50 to operate the facility located in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania at stead-state power levels up to 2535 megawatts thermal.
In support of its request for an exemption from the schedule prescribed by 5 50.46(a)(2)(vi), Metropolitan Edison Company states that it has not yet h
O O
1,
=
e 2
received from the vendor of the NSSS system and fuel used at Three Mile Island Unit 1 either the core blowdown analysis or the fuel performance analysis; that it will not have. completed its detailed ECCS evaluation until September,1974; and until that time will not have finally determined whether any operating restrictions will be appropriate for Three Mile Island Unit 1.
The Company further states that until it is able to make this threshold determination it will not be able to make a respensible submittal of the type specified in 5 50.46(a)(2)(vi) in support of an ECCS exemption, should such an exemption be desired.
In support of its request, Metropolitan Edison relies on 10 CFR 150.12(a)and10CFR550.46(a).(2)(vi).
The request may be granted upon the findings that good cause has been shown, that it would be in the public interest to allow the licensee a speci-fied additional period of time witnin which to alter the operation of the facility in the manner required by 5 50.46(a)(2)(iv), and that there is reason-able assurance that the granting of the exemption will not adversely affect the health and safety of the public. As an alternative to the present grant or denial of the specific relief requested, the Commission may also consider declining to act on the request at this tim, without prejudice to the sub-mittal.of an exemption request concurrently with the ECCS evaluation.
In the event the Comission determines to follow this course, the order may also pro-vide that, if a request for exemption is submitted along with the ECCS evalua-tion, compliance with the operating requirements of f 50.46 will not be required until the Commission has ruled upon the request or forty-five days
~
have elapsed, whichever shall occur first.
l
=
l l
9 9
ex
. ~3
~
3 The Commission invites the submission of views and comments by interested.
persons concerning the action to be taken on the request for exemption. Such views and comments should be submitted in writing, addressed to the Secretary, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545, not later than July 24, 1974. Pursuant to 10 CFR 5 50.46(a)(2)(vi), the Director of Regulation shall submit his views on the requested exemption not later than July 29, 1974.
A copy of the request for exemption dated June 19, 1974, and related correspondence and documents are available for public inspection at the Com-mission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. and at the Government Publicat. ion Section. State Library of Pennsylvania, Box 1601 (Education Building), Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Dated atWashington,Dc this 8th day of July,1974.
FOR THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION.
, u&
d.
PAUL C. BENDER'-
N Secretary of the Commissih 9
e A
e l
l f
i
-m
_.,,