ML19322C543
| ML19322C543 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/22/1979 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Parler W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001170872 | |
| Download: ML19322C543 (8) | |
Text
-
y
~
+-
Date ROUT!NG AND TRANSMITTAL SUP Q
TO: (Neme, office symbol, room riumber,
' initialf D/te bull Ag
/ Post) 1-l 7
m t
3,is -
2 y
5 h
4 I
4 g,
Action File Note and Return Approval For Clearance Per Conversation As Requested For Correction Prepare Reply Circulate For Your Infomtation See Me Comment Investigato Signature Coordination Justify REMARKS
/
/
La
/b+v-r M6 hw v
0
=
~&
r P
-l s
{',*a
~
.tr -
~ -
+
+
DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of e;provals, concurrences, disposals, 4
l clearances, and simi!ar actions FROM:(Name, org. symbol, Agency / Post)
Room No.-81dg.
?
t-Ph e No.
}
W
~
~
5048-102 OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76) kSIt (YcNIN-11.206 Uc.s.cror ists-og61-64{ sra.,
~. _..
I W
Ui I$.M3 b
~
d 8001170[7] f
L k
SUMMARY
OF POST-OL ACTI0tJS Amendment 1 - 3/3/78 In the interest of minimizing delays, Technical Specification requirements were f-waived which permitted hydrotesting at a lower (180 2600F) temperature. Hydro-4 testing was required to test new pressure boundaries which had not been hydro-statically tested.
- However, Requirements for hydrotesting are set forth in Appendix G to 10 CFR 50.
Appendix G does not address requiremer.ts with fuel in the vessel. Apparently this is addressed in SRP 5.3.2.
Conformance with the Technical Specifications would have required delaying the tests until in operational 4 (hot shutdown).
Amendment 2 - 3/10/78 Amendment Respcnse to Licensee having completed conditions stated in the license.
deleted conditions stated in paragraphs 2.C.(3)b, 2.C.(3)l.1 and 2.C.(3)?.2.
Re-vised license conditions 2.C.(3)l.3 and added paragraph G.12 to Attachment 2.
With the exception of 2.C.(3)b, the other conditions concerned fire protection.
' ~
The implementation of fire protection measures vare not required until start-up f ollowing the refueling outage. The criteria for implementing these measures should be addressed to determine whether TMI-2 received any special considera-tion by the tiRC.
c Amendment 3 - 3/24/78
.1 ~
Response to licensee for having complied to license conditions 2.C.(3),C, 2.C.(3).d and 2.C.(3).e.
It revised paragraphs C.1, C.5 and F.2 of Attachment 2 to license and added paragraph I to Attachment 2.
m r
2 Revision to. paragraph C.1 deleted TP.120/5, 7, 8 and TP 230/3.
IE indicated that purposes of these test procedures could be achieved at a later date.as part of the Surveillance Requirenents for the equipnent involved except for TP 230/3.
C This later testing procedure was delayed becat se part of the Ry waste evaporator was being used in Unit 1.
During this tine the processing of radioactive waste for Unit 2 was being perforced by Unit 1.
Paragraph I was added to complete The postponement of these TP[s TP 230/2 before using the evaporator in Unit 2.
permitted entry into Mode 2 (start-up).
It should be determined if this type of cross-connection is permitted by NRC regulations.
Paragraph C.5 to Attaciment 2 provided an interim fix to prevent hydrogen cover gas being introduced into the RCS during a LOCA. Paragraph F.1 provided for a permanent fix.
Paragraph F.2 exempted the licensee from Technical Specifications for the Hydro-gen Purge Air Cleanup, the Control Room Energency Air Cleanup, and the Fuel Handling Building Air Cleanup Systems.
Evidently, charcoal in certain filters could not be changed to neet RG 1.52, Revision 1.
The exemption permitted opera-tion until the first refueling. Need to determine iif these systems played a negative role in the TMI-2 ac'cident.
Anendment 4 In response to two occurrences where sodium hydroxide was inadvertently and unnecessarily injected into the RCS, the licensee requested and received approval e
, v to change the activation signals to the controlling value.
In addition, the Amendment responded to a B&W finding that the incore nuclear detectors for
~
,~. :.,
L t
m
indicating quadrant tilt and axial inbalance possessed more uncertainty..than initially assumed.
The alarm set points were reduced.
Anendment 5 - 6/5/78 A change to the Technical Specifications which permitted testing of the control rod handling mechanism for loadings within its design specifications.
Amendment 6 - 8/17/78 The license was amended to permit the following:
1.
Alternate procedures for containment air lock. seal leak rate testing.
0 Plant operation with increased ultimate heat sink temperatures (85 to 95 F).
2.
Removal of most orifice rod assemblies and addition to retainers on others.
3.
4.
Replacement of main steam safety valv. s.
e With respect to the ultimate heat sink temperature, it appears that NRC approved the operating condition at the elevated temperature without sufficient margin for the operation of the control building air conditioning equipment? (safety re-
~
l ated).
It appears that this limiting condition for operation should have been ccntingent upon upgrading the control building booster pumps to provide adequate flow for the cooling system.
With regard to removing the ORAs and addition of retainers, core flow had to te increased to compensate for increased flow bypass due to removal of ORAs and reduced core flow due to the addition of the retainers. An,alyses f cr DNBR limits wei e com-c y
z pleted. Amen &rcat "c. O r. miu.eo i-pow uperet.iuri e J f i c, Lo vf Mc lid ting 4
b N 3 n'7-Pet h. simiuded-ite effect r e# "ad"caj4 pre condpinne fnr nnor aH na o
.fJnw_.should he addrogad.
As the result of these changes, the operating margin e
e emm
,mmm.
p
.m k
W"'"
O
".*U-T O
-T
- Nw - wp.$
N ' w., e g we a,
_p.,,-.y.
T
_4_
was reduced from 5 to 3 percent.. The flow instrunentation accuracy is important to assure this operating margin.
The staff approved the flow measurement system and its calibration based on Unit 1 uncertainty. There may be some question (e.g., installation, electronics, etc.) as to the validity of this basis for approval.
The replacement of the steam safety valves was the result of the f ailure of the valves to reseat during a previous transient.
Evidently, these valves had not been used previously on steam conversion systems and were determined to be unacc cpt able. !1eed to determine if other operating plants were alerted to tre potential shortcomings of these valves.
Amendment 7 - 9/5/78 This amendment deleted environmental conditions which had been met by the licensee.
Amendment 8 - 12/15/78 This amendment changed a Technical Specification requirenent which prohibited reduced RCS flow with four pumps operating at a reduced power. This change permitted operation at reduced power levels with specified reduced reactor coolant system flow.
It is not clear that the effects of Annndment 6 (reduced core flow) was taken into account of the BR limits to justify this change.
B&W performed the analyses.
' [.
Anendment 9 - 2/23/79 This amendnunt incorporated Security Plan into the license.
- MW 6 W
e.o.mma.
n
i Orders for Modification to License - 5/26/78 and 10/13/78 Both of these relate to performance of ECCS to small bre.ak at the pump dis-cdexk charge. The 5/26/78 limited power and required re-analyses of ECCS perfor-4 mance. Order of 10/13/78 superceded Order of 5/26/78 and permitted full power afA A w operation. Credit for operator action dififig td within 10 minuts,was approved as an interim measure until a permanent fix is made.
rieed to evaluate consis-
~
tency of staff approvals of operator actions to mitigate off-set operating conditions.
In addition, it may be of some significance that the staff did not perform any independent confirmatory calculations to support their approval of the vendor's analyses. Furthermore, it was the vendor who identified to the staff that a 6 b b'M ' ^ "'
complete spectrum of breaks and locations Iiad not been analyzed:
l s
- W WMN,
.f.
--.. y
_ -, _ Ap
_,,_y,,,.,,
,y
?
i I
-o-I a further finc acceptaolo ti.e licensee's stateraem.s regarain; canfor.ccace of all r..ccifications e:i' h An Ccce and FSAR critaria.
c
.nons tna changas prooosec ny the licensee is a revision of the equatica j
cn page d 3/4 /-l or the Tecnnical Specifications for detenaining riaccc huclear Overpc,,ar Trip 5etpoint for inoperacle safety valves.
The preposed equatica is essentially icentical numrically to the original, and we ce not fina sufficient justification to cake the proposed change.
i Casec on tne aacve, we concluda that the proposec changes in the Technical i
Specifications cavaring the naw aain st m.: safety valves are 2cceptable, 2
exca;t as notec above, and that the facility cperating license can ce a:.mnded by cnansing the Technical 5,cecificaticas as snewn in tne attacnn.ent to thi s license c.end. mat.
r i
Environmantal Ccasideration i
xe have cetermined tnat the acendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in pc er level and will not result in any significant environeental impact. Having cace tnis detend. nation, we have further concluded that the amend.aent involves an action hhich is insi'jnificant from the stancpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 351.S(d)(4), that an envircrcental i:ioact statement or ne.,ative declaration ano environmental impact appraisal ne' d not be e
prepared in connection with the issuance of this esencment.
Conclusion We have concluced, based on the considerations ciscussed accve, that:
(1) cecause the acencment aces not involve a significant increase in the procouility or consequences of accidents previously censidered and cces involve a significant decreas;a in a safety mar;in, tne a :endment does not not in<cive a significant hacards consideration, (2) tnere is reasonable assurar.ce tnat the nealth anc safety of the puclic uill not be endangered cy operation in tne proposed manner, anc (3) such activities will be conducted in coupliance witn the Coi.c.ission's regulations and the issuance of tais amendment will not ce inimical to the corron cefense and security or to the healtn and safety of the public.
~
Od 52! sbrd 3 S*m.i.A. Re,2
- h. Silver, Project Nnegar Steven A. Varga, Chief l
Light ' dater neactors Brancn 30. 4 Light hater Reactors Branch No. 4 I
civisica af Prcject Nna';ement Division of project.9anacement
'w w.m w.u o!
a oresca h k*
!((~ ',
MSilver41b
'Wahza
.. =..
- c n.6/_73.... k..v d
. S.1.._/-.7.. 8. -._... _. _8//I//78- - - - -
mew
.NXC 2001 !!3 ( 9.' 'O
?GCM C:40 D us s sove = = = e <r *=iar =* ca r'e e, w ere -,3 u
s SA r0, d ggdWgng]
7 i
}
7;:e criginal iculations fr,r a ro:
Dc 'ng p;nalty hac been perfur..;c ait..
3.,aW rcc tow.acu tnat we found unaccy Clc.
>.c have verified that tne ravisad rou bo'd moi. as presentaa in Ene cn t
,ac-approved red cow e.., ation f or GaW plants. je request confarms with tne
(
Therefore, we finc tais l
c.
nse acceptacle.
The al
.able valees for cnam. I functiont.1 test reasonably account T in Te-Anical Specification Table 2.2 find tnese c..inges acceptacle.
varicus instru: ent erNes, and s.e ti:erefore In su:.c: cry, we ha evaluatad tr.o propwqc thanses in Technical cecificatica Change daquest Lc. 0 and having foun.i t%ea all acceptaale, we Specifications as snown in 'hetnat tne facility opern. ng license can be a. *ncea gocluu2 t acr's.ent to ti 's icense a.i: enc:::ent.
4.
Main Steam Safety Valves Intr 0GUCtion 4
Sy letter dated July 24, 1978 Request ;io. 015, Metropolitan Edison Ceapany (itet Ed) requested of Appendix A to Fecility Operating License tio. LPR-73 for Three Mile Island Tiuclear Station, Unit 2 (TMI-2).
tha Tecnnical Specifications to perceit replacement of the original 12Tne r dual discharge port ::ain steam safety valvas with 2G soneunat smaller sing discharge port valves.
Discussien uuring a previous event at Tl4I-2, some of N original.aain steen safetr valves failed to close at an appropriate pressure after actuation.
to modify the valves to eliminate the proolem were unsuccessful, and tne Efforts licensee electec to replace the valves.
changes are required to reflect tnis design change.These Tecnnical Specifications
(~
The new safety valves provide a relief capacity of 120 percent of the total secorcery steam flow cu.: pared with 114 percent provideo by the original valves.
The licensee states tnat all systes modifications conform with requirements i
of appropriate sections of the ASF.E Coce and with criteria previously accepted in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAP.).
~
Evalucticn iS he nave evaluated the infonnation proviceo by tne 1icensee and find that
!:f I
since taa relieving capacity of tne new cain steaa safety valves exceeus taat criginally provided, the proposed enange is in the conservative cirection sna is therefore acceptable.
_.m n ra G I*
gppegg p h,
t 4
g
\\.Yb catt >
}
s I.
'GC PCIM 31s yo uCM c2 0
-> v. s. s o v e...
t...
r... s e.ie s, i s t... a w a4 i
~..
Ui41TEu STATES NUCLEAR REGOLATORY COMISSION DOCKET ii0. 50-320 METROPOLITAti EDIS0:1 COMPANY
_ JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPAi4Y NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF Ai.iEN0 MENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coaaission (the Comission), has issued Amendment 6 to Facility Operating License No. 0?P-73, issued to the Metro-politan Edison Company, Jersey Central Power & Light Company, and Pennsylvania Electric Company, for operation of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (the facility), located in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.
The amendment is effective as of its date of issuance.
The license is amended by revising certain Technical Specifications t
to permit the following:
1.
Alternate procedures for containment' air lock seal leak rate testing 2.
Plant operation with increased ultimate heat sink temperatures 3.
Removal of most orifice rod assemblies and addition of retainers on the remaining orifice rod assemolies and on the burnacle poison rod assemolies m
4.
Replacement of the main Neam safety valves.
j ine application for the amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the M
h' Commission's rules and regulations.
The Commission has made appropriate Iit:
findings as required by the Act and the Comission's rulas and regulations i'
in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set fortn in the license amendment.
m i
D a
7 ?OW905?s}
i l:
The Commission has determined that the granting of this amendment will not result in any significant environmental impact and that pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(d)(4) an environmental impact statement or negative declara-tion and environmental impact appraisal need :,ot be prepared in connection
.with this action.
For further details with respect to this action, see (1) Amendment No. 6, to Facility Operating License No. "DPR-73, and (2) the Commission's related safety evaluation :upporting Amendment No. 6 to Facility Operating
-i-License No. OPR-73.
These items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H street, N. W., Washington, 1-D. C. and at the State Library of Pennsylvania, Commonwealth and Walnut k
Streets,-Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17126.
~
Dated at Bethesda, Mary' land this 17th day of August 1978.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
]
ee A a,-
hi f Light Water Reactors qpnch 4 DivisionofProjectM(anagement 4
s
't x
M
..