ML20212H910

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 212 to License DPR-50

ML20212H910
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	06/21/1999
From:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20212H904	List: ML20212H899 ML20212H910
References
NUDOCS 9906280198
Download: ML20212H910 (6)

Text

,

s g&#*%.

'g, 4

UNITED STAT.*S L'

S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 L.

\\..../

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 212 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-50 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY

PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY-GPU NUCLEAR. INC.

THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION UNIT NO 1 DOCKET NO. 50-289

1.0 INT _BODUCTION By letter dated February 7,1997, as supplemented October 24,1998, GPU Nuclear, Inc. (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-

1) Technical Specifications (TSs). The requested changes would incorporate changes to more accurately reflect current plant design, adopt changes in surveillance requirements consistent with the Standard Technical Specifications (STS), identify changes to plant systems and e

revisions to Technical Specifications (TS) system descriptions not involving Umiting Conditions

. for Operations (LCOs), and make editorial or typographical corrections. The October 24,1998, letter provided additional clarifying information which did not expand the scope of the Federal Reaister notice. The letter also withdrew the amendment request relating to the hydrogen recombiners.

2.0 EVALUATION The licensee proposed the following changes to the TMI-1 TSs.

2.1.TS 3.7.2.b

~ TS 3.7.2.b currently requires, in part, that in lieu of running a diesel generator, a 4160 volt tie from a Unit 2 transformer shall be placed in service, thus supplying the second of two feeds to the engineered safeguard buses causing no degradation of the system and permitting continued operation indefinitely should one of the auxiliary transformers either be made or found inoperable. The licensee has proposed to delete reference to the tie from the TMl-2 transformer from TS 3.7.2.b. The licensee states that the modification to provide this capability to tie Unit 2 was abandoned prior to its completion, and the Unit 2 transformers have been L

removed from.the site. The staff finds the proposed change to be acceptable since no tie from L;

the Unit 2 transformer was ever installed and the Unit 2 transformer has been removed from the site. Additionally, all other TS related to electrical power supplies remains the same.

E o

l ' 2.2 TS 3.7.2.d L TS 3.7.2.d currently requires, in part, that if one of the TMI-1 Unit Auxiliary transformers is inoperable and a 4160-volt tie from the Unit 2 transformer cannot be placed in service and a diesel generator becomes inoperable, the unit will be placed in hot shutdown within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.

The licenses has proposed to delete reference to the 4160-volt tie from the Unit 2 transformer.

The staff finds the proposed change to be acceptable since no tie from the Unit 2 transformer was ever installed, the requirements related to the diesel generators remains the same and tne Unit 2 transformer has been removed from the site.

2.3 Surveillance Requirement 4.5.1.1.b L Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.5.1.1.a requires demonstration of the "as designed" operation of the diesel generators during the loss of the offsite power source. The "as designed" operations include all actions resulting from the loss of offsite power source, including the shedding of non-essentialloads and energizing of emergency buses and respective loads from the diesel generator. SR 4.5.1.1.b currently requires that the test will be satisfactory if the pumps and fans have been successfully started and the valves have completed their travel on preferred power and transferred to emergency power as evidence by the control board component operatirig lights, and a second means of verification, such as: the station computer,

- verification of pressure / flow, or control board indicating lights initiated by separate limit switch contacts. The licensee has proposed to delete the requirement to verify component operability by control board operating lights and a second means, from the SR.

- The licensee states that the SR is demonstrated through the performance of Surveillance Procedure 1303-11.10, entitled "ES System Emergency Sequence and Power Transfer Test."

Specific steps in this procedure direct operators to test, obtain evidence, and docurnent that the

_ requirements were met. The staff finds the above change to be acceptable because the specific wording to evidence the successful starting of pumps, fans, and completion of valve

)

. travel need not be included in the TS as they are included in plant specific procedures.

R 2.4 SR 4.5.1.2.b l

The licensee has proposed to revise SR 4.5.1.2.b to delete the specific wording to evidence the

_. equipment operability in the same manner as 4.5.1.1.b above. The staff finds the proposed

• change to be acceptable for the same reasons, as the plant specific procedures adequately demonstrate the performance of the SR and, therefore, it does not need to be included in the

TS.

2.5 SR 4.5.3.1.a.1 SR 4.5.3.1.a.1 corrently requires, in part, that at each refueling interval and simultaneously with the test of the emergency loading sequence, a Reactor Building (RB) 30 psi high-pressure test signal will start the spray pump. Except for the spray pump suction valves, all engineered safeguards spray valves will be closed. The test will be considered satisfactory if the spray pumps have been successfully started as evidenced by the control board component operating

m

.x

-3.

lights, and' either the station computer or pressure / flow indication. The licensee has proposed to delete both the requirements to perform the tests simultaneously and the need to evidence I

the successful starting of the spray pump and the completion of expected travel of affected

valves.

' The licensee states that the requirement to test the RB spray pump simultaneously with the test

- of the emergency loading sequence is ' onsidered unnecessary and overly prescriptive. The ~

c staff finds there is no technical requirement to perform both tests simultaneously, and agrees that the requirement could be considered overly prescriptive, therefore, the proposed revised wording to eliminate the requirement for simultaneous performance of the tests is acceptable.

2.6 SR 4.5.3.1.a.1 and SR 4.5.3.1.b.2 SRs 4.5.3.1.a.1 and 4.5.3.1.b.1 require a system test during the refueling period to demonstrate proper operation of the Reactor Building Emergency Cooling Systeins. Both SRs currently

- state that the test will be considered satisfactory if the spray pump (SR 4.5.3.1.a.1) and the valves have completed their expected travel (SR 4.5.3.1.b.2) as evidenced by the control board component operating lights and a second means of verification, such as: the station computer,

)

verification of pressure / flow, or control board indicating lights initiated by separate limit switch contacts. The licensee has proposed to delete the requirement to verify component operability by control board operating lights and a second means, from both SRs. The licensee provided a safety analysis for 4.5.3.1.a.1 but did not include a safety analysis for the identical request for SR 4.5.3.1.b.2. Both SRs were included in the request and were appropriately noticed,

therefore, the staff did evaluate the request.' The licensee's safety analysis for 4.5.3.1.a.1 l equally applies to 4.5.3.1.b.2. The ' staff finds the request acceptable based on the fact that

~ both SRs are demonstrated by' performance of procedures with specific steps that obtain evidence and document that the requirements were met. Therefore, the specific wording and additional verification does not need to be in the TSs.

2.7 Strong Motion Accelerometer The licensee has proposed to delete item 36, Strong Motion Accelerometer, from Table 4.1-1 and its associated SR. The request is based on Generic Letter (GL) 95-10 " Relocation of 7 Selected Technical Specifications Requirements Related to Instrumentation," incorporation of the battery check and calibration requirements into the plant's preventive program, and the

' absence of the requirements in the STSs. The GL included the seismic monitoring

Instrumentation as one of the candidates that met the criteria in 10 CFR 50.36 for relocation in a plant specific procedure and deletion from TSs.

The staff has reviewed their proposal and the additional information provided and determined

' that the deletion of the TS based on the inclusion of the plant-specific procedure 1302-3.2,

" Strong Motion Accelsrometer Battery and Calibration"in the preventive maintenance program is acceptable. This item does not meet the criteria for inclusion in TSs pursuant to 10 CFR 50.36. Additionally, though not required, the licensee indicated that it will implement the j

recommendations contained in the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) document EPRI-NP-6695, " Guidelines for Nuclear Plant Response to an Earthquake."

i 1

i IV

e

.g.

l 4..

12.8 Section 5.5 AThe licensee requested deletion of the TS requirement for section 5.5 and relocation of it to the final safety analysis report (FSAR). ~ The description of the equipment contained in section 5.5 will be relocated to FSAR Section 9.9.2c The staff has reviewed Section 9.9 of the FSAR and finds the_ description of the Air intake Tunnel Fire Protection System complete with respect to the description in Section 5.5 of the TSs. The staff finds it acceptable to remove the descriptive information from the TSs based on it already being incorporated into the FSAR. According to the information submitted by the licensee, the current testing methodology and frequency are

)

unaffected by the proposed change since the implementation of surveillance testing is required to be maintained by the fire protection program and accomplished under administrative procedure 1001J, " Technical Specification Surveillance Testing Program."

l Amendment No.146 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-50 for Three Mile Island, Unit 1

. dated November 30,1988, incorporated and satisfied the five elements of the guidance contained in GL 88-12, " Removal of Fire Protection Requirements from Technical Specifications." The NRC-approved changes relocated requirements for fire detection systems, fire suppressions systems, fire barriers, and fire brigade staffing requirements as recommended by GL 86-10, " Implementation of Fire Protection Requirements." At that time, the licensee did not relocate the requirements from TS section 5.5, " Air Intake and Tunnel Fire Protection Systems." -

The staff reviewed the licensee's amendment request against the guidance provided in GLs 86-10,88-12, and Amendment No.146. On the basis of its review, the staff concludes that the proposed deletion of TS section 5.5 meets the guidance of GLs 86-10 and 88-12, and is

~ consistent with the staff's approval of Amendment No.146.' The section to be eliminated does not meet the criteria for inclusion in the TSs pursuant to 10 CFR 50.36. The proposed change 3

is therefore, acceptable.

2.9. Hydrogen Recombiner System By letter dated October 24,1998, the licensee withdrew the portion of the TS change req' est u

related to the hydrogen recombiners.

2.10 Editorial and Typographical Corrections The licensee made four editorial / typographical corrections consisting of changes to: (1) i able -

3-5.1 to Table 3.5-1 in the foot note on page 4-Sa, (2) 9.8 days to 9.0 days on page 4-38, (3) Section 27 of the NFPA Code - 1976 to Section 600 of the NFPA' Code, and (4) grater to

greater on page 4.6. The staff has reviewed and agrees with these corrections.

3.0 STATE CONSULTATION

A in 'accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Pennsylvania State official was notified of the proposed issuance ~of the amendment. The State official had no comments.

4-

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (63 FR 14486). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forte in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.

5.0 CONCLUSION

The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by ~ _

operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

Principal Contributors: T. Eaton O. Chopra C. Munson R. Eaton -

1 Date:

' June 21, 1999 o

~

~

4 DATED: June 21, 1999 i

AMENDMENT NO. 212 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-50 THREE MILE ISLAND

% Docket File 1 PUBLIC PDI-f RF

. J. Zwolinski/S. Black J. Clifford R. Eaton

' T. Colbum T. Clark OGC G. Hill, (2)

'W.Beckner T. Eaton O. Chopra C. Munson ACRS R. Scholl(email SE to RFS)

M. Oprendek, RI

~

1 a

f

+