ML20042C067
| ML20042C067 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/24/1982 |
| From: | Hukill H GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 5211-82-067, 5211-82-67, NUDOCS 8203300135 | |
| Download: ML20042C067 (3) | |
Text
.
{
GPU Nuclear
{"
g g
P.O. Box 480 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 717-944-7621 Writer's Direct Dial Number:
March 24, 1982 5211-8z-067 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attn: John F. Stolz, Chief g
Operating Reactors Branch No. 4 g
Division of Licensing 9
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2
/Z.)
Washington, D.C.
20555 j/
7,
Dear Sir:
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1)
Operating License No. DPR-50 Docket No. 50-289 Environmental Qualification Information Enclosed please find our response to the six items addressed on page 298 of the Partial Initial Decision for Environmental Qualification (para. 1163).
Sincerely, I. D.
lukill Director, TMI-l 11D11: LWil:vj f Enclosure cc:
R. Jacobs R. C. Ilaynes Cyril Crane L. Barrett
..OY b J
/ I l
l 1
8203300135 820324 j
l DR ADOCK 05000
- a part of the General Public Utihties System
- Environmental Qualification PID Items Item 1163.1 Replace materials with a qualified life of 1.5 years prior to restart.
Response
The material identified as having a qualified life of 1.5 years is neoprene (Degradation mode is thermal aging). This material vill be replaced, before restart, with ethylene propylene which has a qualified service life of 10 years.
Item 1163.2 Prior to criticality, put into place a maintenance and replacement program that will assure all materials with a qualified life of less than 40 years will be replaced when needed.
Response
The existing program which assures the replacement of materials with a qualified service life of less than 40 years is either a part of the Preventive Maintenance Program (AP 1027) at TMI-1 or is tracked using some other formal tracking system.
The schedular portion of this program is computerized.
Item 1163.3 Consider aging of the materials during the periods prior to installation, during plant operation, and during the periods the plant is not operating in establishing the material replacement schedules.
Response
For TMI-I it was assumed that aging began at initial criticality since the equipment involved only ages significantly due to high radiation and temper-ature associated with plant operations.
If a material has a known aging degradation at ambient conditions, this was included in the aging evaluation.
For replacement parts, shelf life identification is controlled by GPUN Warehouse Procedure 7231-WHP-6470.0 Item 1163.4 Complete the aging evaluations for the equipment still to be evaluated prior to exceeding 5% power operation and factor the results into the replacement program, if required.
Response
Aging evaluations on all Class IE equipment in a harsh environment have been completed as of now.
The results have been factored into the material replace-ment program described in response to 1163.2 above.
1
e item 1163.5 l
For the Foxboro pressure transmitters, reevaluate the referenced test report to justify the acceptance of the test results for demonstrating Foxboro pressure transmitters are qualifled for the spect fled radiation levels. The failures occurred during a test to radiation levels several thousand times greater than the radiation levels expected as a result of l
a loss of feedwater/SBLOCA event.
Also, provide justification for applying the test results to the transmitter model installed in TMI-1 and provide the results of the above evaluation and justification to the NRC for review prior to exceeding 5% power operation.
Response
See Met Ed letter dated June 12, 1981 (L1L 180) 1 Item 1163.6 t
Evaluate the inf ormation inade available to them prior to criticality, concerning the recent testing on Limitorque mntor operators, and i
determine whether the results of that testing are applicable to the operators in TMl-1 for the event being analyzed. Pr ior to exceeding 5%
power operation, provide the results of this evaluation to the NRC for review.
Response
See Met Ed letter dated October 6, 1981 (L1L 275)
T 4
1 l
1 r-,
-