ML20037A609
| ML20037A609 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1980 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML111090060 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-80-515, FOIA-80-555 NUDOCS 8003200261 | |
| Download: ML20037A609 (3) | |
Text
. m:n
' hN.s.i w
Q.
' (-
l h
ENCLOSURE II
~
b s
pfL
'ly i
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE'0FFICE OF NUCLE'AR REACTOR' REGULATION M'T i
SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.
TO LICENSE N0. OPR-50
.JU METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 1
'V DOCKET NO. 50-289 1
.l_
Introduction b.
SL In a letter from G. Lear,' date'd December 6, 1974, NRC requested Metropolitan
[v
{
Edison Ccmpany to submit an application for a license amendment to change the J' 4
'j Technical Specifications related to installed filter systems so as to be in
'y conformance with model,Teennical Specifications on air treatment systems
,;W considered in the accident analyses.
By letters dated January 30, 1975 and Ow 1
October 28, 1975, Metropolitan Edison Company proposed changes to Appendix A
, } 'lil3 of the Facility Operating License DPR-50 for the Three Mile Island Nuclear y
. ff Station, Unit No. 1.
These changes included new Technical Specifications for the emergency control room, reactor building purge, and auxiliary and fuel
.b handling exhaust air treatment systems within new Section 3.15, entitled Air
+
Treatment Systems; revised surveillance requirements for these three systems in Section 4.12, retitled Air Treatment Systems, replacing Section 4.12 and deleting Section 4.14 of the existing Technical Specifications; and necessary changes to the index and Table 4.2-1.
1975 letter are superceded by the changes proposed in the OctoberThe changes p 28, 1975 letter.
The proposed change would modify the limiting canditions of operation and the surveillance requirements in the Technical Specifications for the engineered safety features (ESF) ventilation filter systems at Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1.
s Evaluation We have reviewed and evaluated tt1 pvaposed changes to the Technical Specifica-tions for the Three Mile Island b ' lear Station, Unit No. 1, as submitted by the licensee in his October 28, 19/S letter.
For our evaluation we used model Technical Specifications as applicable to each engineered safety feature (ESF) ventilation filter system.
At the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, the ESF filter systems are the emergency control room air treatment system, the reactor building purge air treatment system, and the auxiliary and fuel handling exhaust air treatment system which are described in the staff's Safety Evaluation report, June 1973.
Since the proposed change was submitted, October 28, 1975, we and the licensee have recommended clarification and edit changes, and agreement was reached by-negotiations with the licensee's repre-sentatives.
These changes are included in the Technical Specifications as written.
In Section 3.15.1, it was intended that the emergency control room air treatment system be operated when the reactor is operating and when irradiated fuel handling operations are in progress and that such operations be terminated in m.
~
'.lp
- c uhl g
ENCLOSUR e-s.
e.
s a
w-
)
e
=
i M
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE'0FFICE OF NUCLE'AR REACTOR REGULATION rl, SUPPORTING AMEN 0 MENT NO.
TO LICENSE NO. OPR-50 g%
5
~ i-i METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 1.
i DOCKET NO. 50-289
- r-
,h 7.g a
Introduction r{
_l In a letter from G. Lear, date'd December 6, 1974, NRC requested Metropolitan A
Edison Corupany to submit an application for a license amendment to change the FQ
- J Technical Specifications related to installed filter systems so as to be in conformance with model Technical Specifications on air treatment systems j
- 4 W
considered in the accident analyses.
By letters dated January.30, 1975 and ff.lis j
October 28, 1975, Metropolitan Edison Company proposed changes to Appendix A
.,Jy' of the Facility Operating License DPR-50 for the Three Mile Island Nuclear
.g ig Station, Unit No. 1.
These changes included new Technical Specifications for I,
6 the emergency control room, reactor building purge, and auxiliary and fuel handling exhaust air treatment systems within new Section 3.15, entitled Air
.,-O
'+
Treatment Systems; revised surveillance requirements for these three systems in Section 4.12, retitled Air Treatment Systems, replacing Section 4.12 and deleting Section 4.14 of the existing Technical Specifications; and necessary changes to the index and Table 4.2-1.
1975 letter are superceded by the changes proposed in the OctoberThe changes p 28, 1975 letter.
The proposed change would modify the limiting conditions of operation and the surveillance requirements in the Technical Specifications for the engineered safety features (ESF) ventilation filter systems at Three Mile s
Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1.
.c t
s Evaluation We have reviewed and evaluated the proposed changes to the Technical Specifica-tions for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1, as submitted by the licensee in his October 28, 1975 letter.
For our evaluation we used model Technical Specifications as applicable to each engineered safety feature (ESF) ventilation filter system.
At the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, the ESF filte systems are the emergency control room air treatment system, the reactor building purge air treatment system, and the auxiliary and fuel handling exhaust air treatment system which are described in the staff's Safety Evaluation report, June 1973.
Since the proposed change was submitted, i
October 28, 1975, we and the licensee have recommended clarification and edit changes, and agreement was reached by negotiations with the licensee's repre-sentatives.
These changes are included in the Technical Specifications as written.
In Section 3.15.1, it was intended that the emergency control room air treatment system be operated when the reactor is operating and when irradiated fuel handling operations are in progress and that such operations be terminated in
~.
5
-- - +-
' = " * " "
' ' " ~
- 33$g f
1 i
p ng
.F d
4.@
af 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> whenever the redundant" emergency Iontrol room air treatment system is d
... jf..
,4 inoperative or whenever either system is inoperative for more than 7 days.
The 6 t
'I licensee provided clarification to Specifications 3.15.1.1,.3.15.1.3,-3.15.1.4,M and the bases which we find to be acceptable and these change the Technical Specifications as, written.
In Section 3.15.2, the licensee intends to perform the D0P and halogenated t
I hydrocarbon test on the reactor building purge air treatment system at the J6 maximum available flow considering physical restrictions, i.e., purge valve
'i i
position, and gaseous radioactive release criteria.
The flow through the I
purge air treatment system is variable from 0 to 50,000 cfm since a makeup air.
a damper is located between the filter bank and the 50,000 cfm fan.
The interim Z
fix on containment purge butterfly valves of limiting the valve to be no more my than 30 to 50 open and the containment radioactivity level will limit the w/
flow through the filter bank.
Operation of the filter system at maximum nr.
I available flow during in place testing is acceptable.
]j In Specification 3.15.3.l', it was intended that the auxiliary and fuel handling ^M s
o exhaust air treatment system be operated whenever irradiated fuel.is in the ed i3 storage pool.
The licensae provided proposed clarification to Specification 3.15!3.1 which we find acceptable and this change is included in the Technical Specifications as written, The licensee has committed to modify the high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter and charcoal adsorbers on the three air treatment systems to meet the guidelines of Regulatory Guide 1.52 (Rev. 2), " Design, Testing and 1
Maintenance Criteria for Post-Accident Engineered-Safety-Feature Atmospheric 4
~
Cleanup System Air Filtration and Adsorption Units of Light-Water-Cooled 1
Nuclear Power Plants," March 1978.
These modifications and the initial testing requirements for the installed HEPA filter and charcoal adsorbers have
'N been reviewed by the staff and the Technical Specifications 3.15.1, 3.15.2 and 3.15,3 have been changed to reflect the licensee's commitment.
In specifications 3.15.1.2a, 3.15.2.2a and 3.15.3.2a, the penetration limit of <1%
for DOP and halogenated hydrocarbon tests has been reduced to <0.05% in agreement ~ ',
t j
with Regulatory Guide 1.52 (Rev. 2).
The modifications to the housings will permit air distribution tests to be performed across the HEPA filters bank and samples of charcoal adsorber to be removed for laboratory testing as addressed 4
in the surveillance Specifications 4.12.1, 4.12.2 and 4.12.3 in agreement with Regulatory Guide 1.52 (Rev. 2).
In addition, agreement was made that testing and sample analysis would be conducted following conditions that could contaminate the HEPA filters or charcoal filters and that tests be performed after maintenance on the system housing that could affect bypass leakage.
The licensee provided proposed
~
clarification to Specifications 4.12.1.2, 4.12.2.2 and 4.12.3.2 which we find U}
acceptable and this change is included in the Technical Specifications as l
- written, i
In Specifications 4.12.1.1, 4.12.1.3, 4.12.2.1 and 4.12.3.1, we recommended a minimum interval of 18 months for demonstrating operability.
By negotiation, the licensee agreed to add the phrase "or once every 18 months, whichever i
l
\\
s.t j
i$[
s.
- wa
- ~..;,,
3-di e
s;p
- wp.
5 comes first" following." refueling interval." We find this changelfor clarifica-1yjg
' VE tion acceptable and included the phrase in the appropriate Technical Specifica ;dfim j-tions as written.
- ih?
4
. y,, d, %
^
The licensee has requested that"the fan numbers "AN-18A and 18B";in
+$
id, Specification 3.15.1.2c be replaced by "AH-E18A and B," and that~the filter "f
numbers "AH-E3A.and B" in the Bases for Specifications 3.15.1 be replaced by
'. r#
"AH-F3A and B"., These proposed changes are to correct typographical errors.
We conclude the proposed edit changes are acceptable, and included the changes in the Technical Specifications as written.
I y;
Based on our review, we also conclude that the proposed changes as written agree with the requirements of our model Technical Specifications for ESF
, J:*
ventilation filter systems for. operating reactors and of Positions C.5 (in place testing criteria) and C.6 (laboratory testing criteria for activated.
l
- /
charcoal) of Regulatory Guide 1.52, Revision 2, " Design, Testing and Maintenance '. "*3 l
Criteria for Post Accident Engineered-Safety-Feature Atmospheric Cleanup E:3 System Air Filtration and Adsorption Units of Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power
}E i
Plants."
a
";p
. : s-Environmental Consideration iSI 2
We have determined that the amendments do not authorize a change in effluent
+
types, an increase in total amounts of effluents or an increase in power level
.f' and will not result in any significant environmental impact.
Having made this-determination, we have further concluJed that the amendments involve an action f
which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and pursuant, 3.
to 10 CFR Sl.5(d)(4), that an. environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
ql Conclusion We conclude, based on the considerations given above, that the proposed changes
..1 to Appendix A, Technical Specifications for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, on the ESF ventilation filter systems are acceptable.
We also conclude that (1)'because the amendments do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and do not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration; (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner; and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulation and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
I
.5
-v e