ML19322C685
| ML19322C685 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/19/1978 |
| From: | Boyd R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Stello V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322C677 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001200008 | |
| Download: ML19322C685 (9) | |
Text
- _ -.
q g as to lvy g
UNITED STATES
[^
k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMis3;ON l
,3 I
,., j WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
,5h l
- s, Docket No: 50-320 j
i j
t, NEMORANDUM FOR:
'Y. Stello, Director, Division of Operating Reactors I
FROM:
R. Boyd, Dircetor, Division of Project Management j
SUBJEhT:
TRANSFER OF THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2 j
(TMI-2) TO OPERATING REACTORS BRANCH NO. 4 I
Effective on the date of this memorandum, the project management responsibility for TMI-2 is transferred from Light Water Branch l
No. 4, DPM, to Operating Reactors Branch No. 4, DOR.
l I
'he licensees, Metropolitan Edison Company (the operating licensee),
Jersey Central Power and Light Company, and Pennsylvania Electric Company received Facility Operating License DPR-73 (the license) on February 8, i
1978 which authorized full power operation, with certain conditions and l
restrictions required to be satisfied before preceeding to various i
operating modes and by stated points in time.
I
~
l A chronology of the amendments to DPR-73 to date is tabulated below, followed by a brief description of each amendment j
Chronoicav Amend. No.
Date i
i 1
March 3, 1978 2
March 10, 1973 3
' March 24, 1978 l
4 May 19, 1978 5
June 5,1978 I
6 August 17, 1978 7
September 5, 1978 Amendment No.1 adds to Attachment 2 of the license a waiver of Technical
- Specification 3.4.9.1 permitting hydrostatic testing of the Reactor 5
i Coolant System at certain pressures and temperatures prior to initial riticality only.
i Amend ent No. 2 revises Technical Specifications, deletes and modifies license conditions, and adds a requirement to Attachment 2,.as follcws:
.' ~ ~
- License condition 2.C.(3).b was deleted and Technical Scecifications i
4.8.1.1.2.1.3 modified to include loac rejection information as required by the license condition.
8001200OM l
i
- Various Technical Specifications were revised to correct typographical i
and editorial errors.
- License conditions 2.C.(3).l.1 and 2.C.(3).1.2 were deleted and 2.C.(3).1.
i j
modified to. cover aspects of the fire protection design.
C 1
Amendment No. 3 d'eleted license conditions 2.C.(3)./, 2.C.(3).d, and 2.C.(3).e related to the reactor building emergencf cooling booster pump capacity, the reactor building spray pump,NPSH, and the containment It also deleted the response to a main steam line break, respectively.
l' requirement from Attachment 2 that certain test procedures be performed prior to initial entry into Mode 2, added a requirement to perform a test procedure prior to use of the RC Waste Evaporater, revised Attachment 2 i
to clarify the details of operation involved in isolating the makeup tank i
after a LOCA, and corrected a typographical error.
Amendment No. 4 revised the Technical Specifications to avoid injection of Na0H into the RCS during inadvertent actuation of the ECCS and to accommodate a revised error analysis for ' quadrant tilt and axial imbalance.
Amerfdment No. 5 revised the Technical Specifications to require appropriate t
testing of the operability of the fuel handling bridge and its associated i
mast assemblies..
Amendment No. 6 revised the Technical Specifications to permit: (1) alternate
/
l c:ethod of containment air lock seal leak rate testing, (2) operation with increased ultimate heat sink temperature, (3) removal of orifice red assemblies and installation of burnable poison rod retainers, and (4) re-I
~
l placement of the main steam safety valves.
Amendment No. 7 revises the environmental technical specifications to delete an unnecessary paragraph in the liquid effluents section, and deletes environmental conditions in the license requiring various detailed program descriptions which have been received and approved.
'I An order for Modification of License amending Facility Operating License 26, 1978. This order, dealing with the DPR-73 was issued effective May small break LOCA, requires suomittal of a reevaluation of ECCS performance l
wholly in confirmance with 10 CFR 50.46, restricts power level to 2563 MWt, and requires plant operation in accordance with procedures in licensee Further discussion of this order may be found in Enclosuure 1.
letters.
l The current status of items requiring further staff action and the organizations responsible for completing these items are iden l.
the licensing review with references to relevant information and/or evaluations are included in Enclosures 2 and 3 respectively.
7
g j
~
6v l
1
.Ji a
- 3..
I i
3
.f is a DSE memorandum summarizing the environmental status of this project and transferring environmental project responsibility I
from DSE to DOR. Enclosure 5 is the service list for this plant, (k -
?
By copy of this memorandum, DSS, IE, ELD, ADM, Regulatory Files, Public 8
Information and Public Proceedings are being notified of the following I
changes in safety personnel effective as the date of transfer. Enclosure 4
.t
- ll l
identifies the environmental personnel changes.-
FROM 3
1 Project Manager H. Silver J. Zwetzig Branch Chief S. Yarga R. Reid i
[
Assistant Director D. Vassallo B. Grimes
[
j Licensing Assistant M. Service t
)l Divisicn of Project Management l
I Roger S. Boyd, Director l
i 1
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l
l Enclosu.res:
+
As stated j.
i
- n i
I l
~
I I
.I
!h i
1 t
y..
a i
l
e_
I ITEMS REOUIRING fur 3 HER STAFF ACTION T
Three Mile Island Nvglear Station, Unit 2 J
Docket No. 50-320 L.
Facility Operating License DPR-73 i
1.
Three Pump Operation l
Paragraph 2.C.(3).a of the Facility Operating License permits operation in Modes 1 and 2 with three reactor coolant pumps.
In our letter to the licensee of May 3, 1978 we requested additional documentation of margins l
l available for longer term operation with three pumps. Metropo'itan Edison respcnded in their letter of May 12, 1978 that since it did not anticipate any situation in which extended operation with three pumps would be required, it did not feel it necessary to respond to cur request.
I t
Further discussions with T. Novak of RSB confirmed that such information
.I should be provided, that it has been provided for all other B&W plants authorized to coerate with three pumps,. and that if this information is ', '
not provided, three pump operation should be restricted as to duration and
?
j Specifications.
power level more severely than presently required by the Technical
- O.
This positiori was transmitted verbally to Roy Harding of Met Ed on August 3, 1
1978, who indicated Met Ed would reconsider its position. No additional 8
information has yet been received.
y>.....
.l'
/
1;
.f.
l The Reactor Systems Branch (DSS) will retain primary review responsibility for this matter; the assigned reviewer is Scott Newberry. Management
.l responsibility will be carried out by Operating Reactors Branch No. 4.
2.
RPS and ESF Instn: mentation Information Paragraph 2.C.(3)f of the Facility Operating License requires./ submittal,
of RPS and ESF trip setpoint values by August 8,1978. This information 6.
had been requested in our letter of March 24, 1977, and was furnished by Met Ed with their letter of August 7,1978.
p.
e-
-t g
7..-
The Division of Ocerating Reactors willenassume primar.y review res;m=4tility e
i for this matter. The Power Systems Branch (assigned reviewer Frank Ashe) i and the Instrumentation and Control Systems Branch will be available for consultation. Management responsibility will be assumed by Operating
}..
Reactors Branch No. 4.
t 3.
Degraded Grid Voltage Section 8.2. of SSER No. 2 and Paragraph 2.C.(3).g cf the Operating License require the licensee to implement various features cesigned to e
- g ee n
~.w h
- GG.
- ~.
.i u
j$ et.e< Q cef." .
,, g. _ g L..
u..f. w i. ' sd'*"*
[.sv... & '
t'.
gj I
f. 4f permit the plant to withstand degrad offsite voltage conditions.
4 I
Implementation is required prior to 'startup following the first refueling >..
M' I
outage. Pages S3-222-45 and 45a of Amendment 61 to the FSAR, dated 12-16-77, briefly describe the design of the planned changes.
i The Power Systems Branch (DSS) will retain primary review responsibility of this matter. The assigned reviewer is Frank Ashe. Management responsibility will be assumed by Operating Reactors Branch No. 4.
i
.s 4.
Environmental Temperature Monitoring System g( ],' ;. _ f,. ', l t.. i.. r, j
Section 7.8.2 of SSER No. 2,p.u-o u 3
y:.
u.
and Paragraph 2.C.(3).h f the Oper,ating License l
require, that, prior to startup following the first' refueling outage, y
Met Ed install an acceptable temperature monitorihg system to assure that the environment at the location of Class IE equipment in buildings outside containment is maintained within the temperature range for which theequipmentisdesign/edtooperate. The planned system is briefly described on pages S3-222-47 and 47a of Amendment 61 to the FSAR, dated 0, 12-16-77.
-t A: /t
,g,, -
The Power. Systems 4 ranch (DSS) will retain primary review responsibility ' -
/
for this matteo( The assigned reviewer is Frank Ashe. Management responsibility will be assumed by Operating Reactors Branch No. 4.
d l
S.
Secondary' Systems Line Breaks Section 15.2.2 of SSER No. 2 and Paragraph 2.C.(3).i of the operating i
license require submittal of analyses and modification of thE main Iteam and feedwater systems to conform with the staff position regarding equipment to be used to mitigate the consequences of a secondary system line break.
The conceptual design is described in Met Ed's letter of November 23, 1977, which also includes their action plan and schedule for completion of this l
effort. gImplementation is scheduled during the first refueling outage.
i Some items. of the schedule may be subject to change due to delays incurred in starting up the plant.
i Th React 5r Systems Bran'clitwill retain primary review responsibility l
3
,-for this/ matter. 7he assigned reviewer is James Watt. Management responsibility will be assumed by Operating Reactors Branch No. 4.
.l i
~
Mr. :
!?. ':
l,, 4 v..
t y ' c-r <
],* "
a><./
^
b...'
t.I
- % [e l
{f $ s s s.-
o, g
r l
l
i V
i i
4-I*
l i:-
0 yS i '
- $ i n r'.~
N*
6.
Response Time Testing Program
.
- g-4 s's S& 't ' pc h 6 F ',,, '.
l
/
.,,.a 7
I Section 7.6.4 of the SER and Paragraph 2.C.(3).f of the gperating 1.icense require submittal of a response time test program or the RPS a.,d -
l' ESF sy/ stems, including sensors,jrior to implementation'during 'the j
first refueling outage.
(W,7 I
~
The Power Systems Branch DSS) will retain primary review resp'onsibility for this matter. The assigned reviewer is Frank Ashe.
Management responsibility will be assumed by Operating Reactors Branch No. 4.
7.
RCS Overpressure Protection System 6,< e -4 r
- 7.,,.
l Section 5.2.2 of SSER No. 2 and Paragraph 2.C.(3).k of the Operating o -"
License require submittal of analyses and implementation of modifications U
,l i : '-
to the RCS Overpressure Protection System meeting the criteria defined f
in the SSER.
Implementation is required prior to startup following the e
,e first refueling outage. -
M4 f.,
.,.1
. --.A g,
The. Reactor Systems _.Bnrgh_._(DSS) will r'etain primary review resoonsibility j
for this'ciatter. The assigned reviewer is James Watt. Management responsibility will be assumed by Operating Reactors Branch No. 4.
8.
Fire Protection l
Section' 9.5 of SSER No. 2 and Paragraph 2.C.(3).1 of the coerating
- license I
require submittal of information and completion of modififations to improve the capability of the plant fire protection systems.
Information required in the License by May 1,1978 has been received but not yet I
reviewed.
Information required after that date has not yet been received. 8'.
i Implementation of items in Paragraph 2.C.(3).1 is required by startup (c d jJ i,
following the first refueling shutccwn.
The Division of Operating Reactors will retain primary review responsibility l
for these matters.
Management responsibility will be assumed by Operating Reactors Branch No. 4.
9.
ISI For Commercial Operation Our letter of April 21, 1978 granted the licensee relief from the requirements of Section XI of the ASME Code for pump and valve testing for the period up to the start of cox.ercial operation, and required performance of pump and valve testing for that period to be in accordance with the licensees letter
- of January 3,1978 and attachements thereto, with minor changes.
"9 I
-h j.f%
o( -
gne I
b
- w i
p, n -
- Our April 21, 1978 letter further required submittal by the licensee of its proposed inservice inspection and pump and yalve test programs for the period of commercial operation, including /any request for relief pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6li). Wt Ed's letter of July 18, 1978 l
transmitted its Inservice Inspection submittal in accordance with these g
requirements.
I t
The Mechanical Engineering and Materials Engineering Branches (DSS) 1 will retain review responsibility for this matter. $The assigned i
i reviewersareDickKiesselandDaveSellars.(MechanicalBranchhas
%' /
i recently noted that their planned effort for the next six montns does F,.!<
L not include review of this material.) Management responsibility r'll 9
p -- -
be carried'out by Operating Reactors Branch No. 4. - 1,,,,
fu l
- 10. Additional Environmental Qualification Information
~
Our letter of May 8,1978 required certain additional informatio.
.o more completely document the analysis assuring that ccmponents inside containment will retain their functional capability in the steam line break environment. The licensee has indicated they will transmit l
the requested information prior to October 31, 1978.
1 3
I The Containment Systems Branch (DSS) will retain primary review responsibility l
for this matter. The assigned reviewer is Farouk Eltawila. Management responsibi, lit'y will be assumed by Operating Reactors Branch No. 4.
- 11. Small Break LOCA t-I On April 12, 1978, B&W informed NRC that in the event of a small break LOCA on the discharge side of a reactor coolant pump, HPI flow to the l
core could be reduced and in such a case the calculated peak clad temperature 0
could exceed 2200 F.
B&W prepared a summary entitled " Analysis of Small i
Breaks in the Reactor Coolant Pump Discharge Piping for the B&W Lcwered j
Loop 177 FA Plants," dated May 1,1978 (the B&W Summary) which includes operator action to mitigate the postulated accident. By letter of May,5, 1978 (supplemented by letter of May 11), Met Ed submitted the B&W Sumary for TMI-2 as justification for operation up to 2568 MW, and promised future analysis up to 2772 MW by June 1, 1978. Het Ed further cc:nnitted to submit a proposal for a permanent solution to the questien of operator action by August 5,1978. By agreement, 00R evaluated the
'i Met Ed submittal and concluded that althougn full compliance witn 10 CFR I
Part 50.46 could not be determined, a very substantial margin exists
'i on peak clad temperature below the limits of 10 CFR Part 50.46.
It was j
further concluded that operating up to 2563 MW in accordance with appropriate t
t
,i i
l, 4
r..
e
.s 1
j
-S-l operating procedures will ensure that the ECCS will conform to the f.
performance criteria of 10 CFR Part 50.46, and that the peak clad temperature margins provides reasonable assurance that such operat.cn will not endanger life or property of the cc:mion defense and security.
l Accordingly, DPM. issued an order for Modification of License on May 26, 1978 requiring operation in accordance with defined procedures at power levels
,[
not exceeding 2568 MW, and required a reevaluation wholly in conformance i
I with 10 CFR Part 50.46.
t t
On July 24, 1978, Met Ed submitted with separate cover letters both their proposed permanent solution (applicable to both Units 1 and 2) and their j
analysis for operation in accordance with procedures covered by the j
Order up to 2772 MW full power.
D0R retains the responsibility for review of the July 24 material and any subsequent information on the small break LOCA. For operational reasons, review of the full-power analysis is recuired as soon as possible to permit issuance of any required additional Order by the end of September.~
Management responsibility for issuance of such order will be retainec l
~~
by DPM, unless transfer of overail project management responsibility occurs before issuance of that order, in which case management responsibility for the order will revert to 00R. Subsequent management responsibility for this entire matter will be carried out by Operating Reactors Branch No. 4, as'will all responsibility for the " permanent solution."
l
- 12. Containment Purge Valves Our letter of August 4,1978 required additional informatien to more ccmpletely document the operability of the containment purge valves 3
in the event they are open at the time of a postulated LOCA. Met Ed's j
letter of August 14, 1978 committed to providing responses by October 14, 1978.
t The Mechanical Engineering Branch (DSS) will retain primary review responsibility for this matter. The assigned reviewer is Dick Kiessel.
Managment responsibility will be assumed by Operating Reactors Branch flo. 4.
- 13. Remanded Hearings The issues of radon from mill tailings and aircraft crash into the plant are still beofre the ASLS and ASLAB respectively.
DSS, DSE, and DPM will retain responsibility for all required testimony on these tratters. Management responsibility will be carried out by DP!!.
~.
.I
-s 1
i
- 14. Auxiliary Transformer 1
In LER 78-35/IT dated May 9,1978, Met Ed identified a potential problem involving the auxiliary transformers at TMI-2.
l 1
If one of the auxiliary transformers were to fail, all station loads would be automatically transferred to the remaining transformer.
With the offsite grid voltage at the lower end of its normal operating I
range, if the full unit load was carried by a s' ingle Auxiliary Tranformer, losses in the system would produce voltage levels low enough to blow I
control fuses on ES components if these components were called on to I
start (as, for example, in the event that a LOCA would occur).
1 i
At that time, Met Ed proposed several possible solutions to the problem, t
including a long term solution (i.e. selective Balance of Plant (BOP) lead j
shedding).
Met Ed provided additional information with their letter of May 30, 1978 regarding both short term and long term fixes.
- On August 29,1978, we met with the licensee,to discuss this situation.
The staff expressed concern over conformance of the long term fix with GD C-17. & Met Ed submitted with their letter of August 31, 1978 their Auxiliary Transformer Report further discussing the problem.
Review of this report and preparation of a staff position is expected during the week of 9-13-78 (00R Concurence was requested during the previous week) so that any required order could be issued prior to exceeding 40% power by the end of September.
I The Power Systems Branch (DSS) will retain primary review responsibility r
for this matter. The assigned reviewer is Frank Ashe. Management responsibility i
up to and including issuance of any required order will be retained by OPM, unless transfer of the overall project management responsibility occurs before issuance of the order, in which case management responsibility l
for the order will revert to DOR. Subsequent management responsibility will be carried out by Operating Reactors Branch No. 4.
r, b.!
. hn bn k
o C.,
.e.,.
r fu e < 5h h e.., !.c S
I e
w*
7
4 GO G
k1 l
E e
C.
b E