ML19350D201
| ML19350D201 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/30/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19350D200 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104130781 | |
| Download: ML19350D201 (5) | |
Text
.
b
'o UNITED STATES g
y %,.(3.g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g 4,/
a WASHINGTON. D. C. 20655 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REbULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 63 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-50 METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION UNIT N0. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-289 Introduction On August 7, 1975 (Reference 1), the NRC requested Metropolitan Edison Company (Met-Ed) to review its containment leakage testing program for Three Mile Island, Unit 1 (TMI-1) and the associated Technical Specifications (TSs),
for compliance with the requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50.
Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 was published on February 14, 1973.
Since by this date there wer.e already many operating nuclear plants and a number more in advanced stages of design or construction, the NRC decided to have these plants re-evaluat2d against the requirements of this new regulation.
Therefore, beginning in August 1975, requests for review of the extent of compliance with the re'quirements of Appendix J were made to each licensee.
Following the initial responses to these requests, NRC staff positions were developqd which would assure that the objectives of the testing requirements of the above cited regulation were satisfied. These sta'f positions have since been applied in our review of the submittals filed by the TMI-l licensee.
The results of our evaluation are provided belot.
Evaluation Our consultant, the Franklin Research Center, has reviewed the licensee's submittals (References 2, 3, 4, and 5) and prepared the attached evaluation of containment tests for TMI, Unit 1 (Reference 6). We have reviewed this evaluation and concur in its bases and findings.
9 (/
- 1041s o ygg
, 1 In its report, the staff's consultant recommended that proposed TS 4.4.1.1.3 be modified in accordance with Reference (5) to include the corrected value of Pt (30 psig) instead of 27.5 psig for the containment integrated leakage rate test as follows:
4.4.1.1.3, Testing at Reduced Pressure The governing criteria for the periodic integrated leakage rate tests to be performed at the reduced test pressure, Pt (at 30 psig), is the max 6num allowable containment test leakage rate, Lt.
Lt is equal to 0.077 weight percent of the building atmosphere per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
The basis for this change is that the Lt value of.077 corresponds to the reduced 30 psig test pressure that will be used for any future test. This change proposed by our consultant was discussed with and agreed to by the licensee.
The staff's consultant reconsnended that proposed T.S. 4.4.1.2.1.b be modi-fied to include valves CA-Vl92, NI-V26, NI-V27, MU-Vll6, CF-V12A and B, DH-V69 and DH-V64 in the local leak rate testing program for isolation valves.
In Reference (5), the licensee stated that valves Mi'-Vil6, CF-V12A and B, DH-V69 and DM-V64 are included in the local leak testing program.
With regard to valves CA-V192, NI-V26 and NI-V27, the staff's consultant took exception to the licensee's interpretation of Appendix J in Reference (2) to exclude the valves from testing. We have discussed this matter with the licensee and he has agreed to the modification of T.S. 4.4.1.2.1.b that includes valves CA-Vl92, NI-V27 in the local leak rate testing program.
The licensee intends to cap the line containing valves NI-V26 and NI-V27 inside of containment in place of leak testing valve NI-V26. We conclude that capping the line inside containment and testing valve NI-V27 outside containment meet the guidelines for local leak testing and meets the intent of Appendix J's requirements. Therefore, the need for not testing valve NI-V26 is acceptable.
By letter dated October 29, 1975 (Reference 3) the licensee requested a change to TS 4.4.1.2.5.b which, at the time the request was made, would have required an exempt. ion to the requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR 50 if the change was found acceptable. However, the portion of Appendix J pertaining to containment building airlock leak testing has been revised (effective October 22,1980), and an exemption to the requirements of Appendix J is no longer necessary in regard to the licensee's request.
Presently, Specification 4.4.1.2.5.b requires the licensee to test the resilient seal of the personnel and emergency air locks' outer to Specification 4.4.1.2.5.b as shown in Referency (3) proposed change door after each use but no more than once daily. The would pennit the airlock door resilient seals to be tested within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> of the first of a series of openings. Based on plant operating experience, requiring an airlock to be leak tested after each opening is impractical when frequent airlock usage is necessary over a short period of time.
Furthennore, the TMI-1 airlock design incorporates dual seals on the airlock doors with the capability to pressurize the volume between the
. J seals. Therefore, the applicant proposes to leak test the airlock door seals within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> after opening an airlock. This will permit door seal integrity to be demonstrated without pressurizing the entire airlock. This is an acceptable test method for these tests.
A second part of the change request addresses the test pressure applied during testing the airlock door resilient seals within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> of the first of a series of openings. TS 4.4.1.2.2a currently requires the licensee to apply a test pressure Pa equal to 50.6 psig when testing airlock door seals after each use. By letter dated October 29, 1975 (Reference 3) the licensee requested a change to TS 4.4.1.2.2a to
. reflect the reduced test pressure of 10 psig. The change will permit the licensee to apply a reduced test pressure of 10 psig when performing the 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> test interval. The lower test pressure of 10 psig is sufficient to verify that door seal integrity is being maintained and that the door seals are free of dirt and foreign objects. The test pressure is reconinended by the air lock manufacturer, and testing at Jower pressure is expected to extend the seal life. This change is also in confonunce with the revised Appendix J.
The staff's consultants have found the reduced test pressure and 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> test interval requirement acceptable, however, the wording in TS 4.4.1.2.5b does not agree with standard specification wording. Applying the standardized wording, TS 4.4.1.2.5b would be modified to road as follows:
The entire personnel and emergency airlocks shall be tested once every six months. When the airlocks are opened during the interim between six month tests, the airlock door resilient seals shall be tested within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> of the first of each of a series of openings. This requirement exists whenever containment integrity is required.
This modified statement being different from the initial proposed statement by the licensee (note Reference 3) has been discussed with and agreed to by the licensee. We have reviewed our consultant's evaluation and the basis (Reference 6) for the airlock test changes.
Based on the above, we conclude that the proposed changes in the testing frequency and lower test pressure for the airlock dcor resilient seals are acceptable.
. Our consultant's report addresses the licensee's request to exempt 19 valves (note Table 3.1-1 Reference 6) from the Type C testing in 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix J.
Our consultant has reviewed the valve list and concluded that an exemption is not required since these valves are not needed in meeting the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix J.
We concur with our consultant that these valves are not needed in meeting the requirements of Appendix J of 10 CFR Part 50 and therefore, the valves need not be subject to Type C testing.
The licensee also requested a TS change concerned with Type A test which is the overall integrated leak rate test of the containment. Specifically, the change addresses repairs or adjustments to valves and components that can be made prior to this periodic integrated leak rate test in TS 4.4.1.4a.
We have issued Amendment No. 27 by letter' dated March 23 1977 providing our evaluation regarding this matter. The amendment finds the change request to TS 4.4.1.4a acceptable which is in agreement with oui consultant's con::lusion.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact.
Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment i
does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reason-able assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be i
endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: March 30,1981 l
[
. REFERENCES 1.
NRC generic letter regarding implementation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, at TMI-1, dated August 7, 1975 2.
Metropolitan Edison Company letter dated September 17, 1975, from Mr. R. C.
Arnold (MEC) to Director, Division of Reactor Licensing, NRC.
3.
Metropolitan Edison Company letter dated October 29, 1975, from Mr. R. C.
Arnold (MEC) to Mr. R. Reid (ORB #4); Technical Specification Change Request No. 48.
4.
Metropolitan Edison Company letter dated February 18, 1977, from Mr. R. C.
Arnold (MEC) to Mr. R. Reid (ORB #4); Technical Specification Change Request No. 48.
5.
Metropolitan Edison Company letter dated May 13, 1980, from Mr. J. G.
Herbein (MEC) to Mr. R. Reid (ORB #4).
6.
Consultant's report, Franklin Research Center letter dated July 3,1980 to E. J. Butcher, Jr., from C. P. Cafagno,
--,e
-.,e