ML20091D271
| ML20091D271 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1984 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20091D263 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8405310103 | |
| Download: ML20091D271 (3) | |
Text
..
p^ "%,
y 1,
UNITr 0 STATES f }]. - l' ij NUCLEAR REGU.1 TORY COMMISSION wass nc. Ton. o. c. :csss
~
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0.93 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-50 METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET N0. 50-289 Introduction By letter dated April 21, 1982, the licensee proposed certain changes to the facility Technical Specifications concerning containment leakage rate testing, as required by Appendix J to 10 CFR 50.
Specifically, these proposed changes relate to local (Type B and C) leakage rate testing of containment isolation valves and resilient seals in penetrations. The licensee would add several valves to the Type C testing program, delete others, and make certain editorial changes.
Evaluation In an NRC letter dated November 4, 1981, the licensee was requested to include valves IC-V16, V18, and NS-V11 in their Type C testing program.
In &
letter dated January 26, 1982, the licensee concurred and, in addition, committed to include certain recently-installed containment isolation valves associated with the hydrogen recombiner system (valves HR-V2A, 2B, 4A, 48, 22A,228,23A,23B). We consider the addition of these valves to the Type C testing program to be appropriate and acceptable.
In conjunction with the recombiner system rodification, containment isolation valves LR-V2 and LR-V3 will no longer function as containment isolation barriers; instead, blind flanges located downstream fulfill this function.
Therefore, the licensee proposes to remove valves LR-V2 and LR-V3 from the Type C testing program. These valves will remain in place, but will function only to throttle the flow of air from the ccitainment during depressurization following containment integrated leak rate tests. Due to the configuration used during) leak testing (pressurizing between two flanges at either end of penetration, the results of local leak (Type B) tm".9 of blind flanges on penetrations 415 and 416 will include any leakage from packing and bonnet gaskets on valves LR-V2 and LR-V3. We, therefore, conclude that valves LR-V2 and LR-V3 need not be Type C tested and may be removed from the Type C testing program.
8405310103 840518 DR ADOCK 05000289 PDR
l_
i l m
I I ll l
l l I
. The licensee states that since it has been determined that their fluid blocking systems do not meet the Appendix J requirements for a containment isolation valve sealing system, all the valves and penetrations listed in the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications concerning local leakace rate tests (4.2.1.2.1) are either Type B or C tested, as appropriate, in accordance with Appendix J.
The licensee has not taken credit for the fluid blocking systems (menticned in current Technical Specifications) in lieu of Type B and C testing since 1977.
The licensee proposes, therefore, to remove all discussion of these fluid blocking systems from the Technical Specifications. Valves and penetrations currently shown as served by the fluid blocking systems and not requiring Type B and C tests would instead be listed as requiring Type B and C tests. The licensee proposes to rearrange the valve listing into alphabetical order by valve tag number; also, valve tag numoer RB-V2A, which is incorrectly listed in current Technical Specifications as "RC-V2*", would be corrected.
We consider these changes to be appropriate and acceptable.
In conclusion, we find all of the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications contained in the licensee's letter of April 21, 1982, to be acceptable.
Environmental Consideration i
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 environnental impact and, oursuant 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) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) public such activities will be conducted in complianca with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common de'ense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: May 18, 1984 Principal Contributor:
J. Pulsipher m..
REFERENCES:
1.
Letter, J. Stolz (f!RC) to H. Hukill (Metropolitan Edison Company),
" Addition of Valves to Lccal Leak Rate Testing Program for THI-1,"
dated November 4, 1981.
2.
'etter, H. Hukill (Metropolitan Edison Company) to J. Stolz (NRC),
" Type 'C' Testing for Valves NS-Vil, IC-V16 & V18," dated January 26, 1982.
k h