ML20050W526
| ML20050W526 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/25/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20050W377 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8204150091 | |
| Download: ML20050W526 (2) | |
Text
j
%/
[
- *t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UNITED STATES h
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 E
a
%,'..../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SU'PPORTING AMENDMENT NO.75 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-50 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY GPU NUCLEAR C0KFURATION THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO.1 DOCKET NO. 50-289 Introduction By letter dated April 11,1980 (TLL 167), Metropolitan Edison Company (Met Ed or the licensee) requested a change to the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1 (TMI-1) Technical Specifications (TSs).
This change would revise the locations of temperature detectors used l
to monitor the containment building temperature and would also change l
the number of temperature readouts to be used in computing the average
^
temperature of the containment building.
Discussion and Evaluation The temperature inside the containment building is monitored to assure the temperature assumed in the structural analysis of the containment building is not exceeded during reactor operation. In order to achieve this objective, the TSs require that the average air temperature above containment building elevation of 320 feet shall not excead 130*F, and the average air temperature below this elevation shall not exceed 120*F.
The licensee has located 24 temperature detectors at various elevations throughout the inside of the containment building so that the average temperature can be computed from these measurements. The TSs list these 24 temperature detectors by giving their location at various elevations throughout the containment building.
The licensee proposed this TS change after noting that the elevations of these temperature detectors given in the TSs do not accurately represent the actual location of the temperature detectors existing in the contain-ment building. The location of the temperature detectors, has been verified, and the proposed change correctly describes the actual location of the detectors. These temperature detectors have not been relocated. We agree with the licensee that this change in no way reduces the assurance afforded by the existing TSs in the protection of the structural integrity of the containment building. Furthermore, we have detemined that this l
change provides the degree of specificity which will avoid unnecessary license amendments in the future. Based on the above, we find this portion of the change acceptable.
8204150091 820325 PDR ADOCK 05000289 P
pop
As part of the same request, the licensee proposed to reduce from 15 to 13 the number of temperature readouts used for computing the average temperature above the 320-foot elevation. At the same time, the number of temperature readouts used below the 320-foot elevation would be increased from three to four.
Increasing the number of temperature readouts below the 320-foot elevation provides additional assurance that actual air temperature will be measured with increased accuracy, hence, we find this part of the proposed change acceptable.
In response to our concerns that insufficient technical justification had been provided to support reducing the number of temperature readouts above the 320-foot elevation, the licensee performed a test to verify the acceptability of this part of the proposed change. By letter dated November 13, 1981, the licensee submitted the results of this test. The test consisted of independently measuring the hottest containment air temperatures (between the primary and secondary shield) during hot function testing and comparing these temperatures with those measured by the containment temperature detectors. Based on the test results, the average temperature read by these temperature detectors above the 320-foot elevation will be within 2*F of true bulk containment air temperature at low power and within l'F at full power. We conclude that the test shows that the temperature detectors are sufficiently l
representative of actual containment air temperature to warrant the reduction to 13 detectors above the 320-foot elevation and therefore, find the proposed change to the TSs acceptable.
Environmental Consideration We have detennined 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 impagt. 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 environ-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the l
issuance of this' amendment.
i l
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 does 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 Connission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical I
to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of l
the public.
Dated: March 25,1982 The following NRC personnel have contributed to this Safety Evaluation:
Rick Jacobs, p. Hearn.
.