ML19211A813
| ML19211A813 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 12/06/1979 |
| From: | Vollmer R NRC - TMI-2 OPERATIONS/SUPPORT TASK FORCE |
| To: | Arnold R METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912210118 | |
| Download: ML19211A813 (7) | |
Text
'
NRC PUBL10 pa"%
Jg UNITED STATES
., w l
iie p,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3,g Q p/
j WA$HINGTON, D. C. 20555 l
t,,'
v 4 December 6,1979 i
i f
I Docket No. 50-289 Mr. R. C. Arnold Senior Vice President i
Metropolitan Edison Company l
100 Interpace Parkway Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 i
Dear Mr. Arnold:
I Th'e enclosed requests for additional information will confirm identical requests telecopied to you on November 9,1979 (financial), and NovemDer 28, 1979 (technical). Your earliest response to these items will be impor-tant to the completion of our review.
Sincerely, N
, Richard H. Vollmer, Director Three Mile Islana Support Enclost.res:
1.
Request for Additional Information/ Technical 2.
Request for Additional Information/ Financial 1635 317 7 912210 NI
R. C. Arnold December 6,1979 Mr. J. G. Herbein, Dr. Walter H. Jorcon Vice President Nuclear Operations 881 W. Outer Drive Metropolitan Edison Company Oak Riege, Tennessee 37830 P.O. Box 480 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Or. Linda W. Little 5000 Hermitage Drive Mr. E. G. Wallace, Licensing Manager Raleigh, horth Carolina 27612 GPU Service Corporation 260 Cherry Hill Road George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 Shaw, Pitt=an, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
Mr. G. P. Miller, Washington, D.C. 20036 Acting Supt., Unit 1 Metropolitan Edison Company Karin W. Carte', Zsq.
P.O. Box 480 505 Executive House Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 P.O. Box 2357 Harriscurg, Pennsylvania 17120 Mr. W. E. Potts, Unit 1 Supt.,
Technical Support Honorable Mark Cohen Metropolitan Edison Company 512 E-3 Main Capital Builcing P.O. Box 480 Harrisourg, Pennsylvania 17120 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Ellyn Weiss, Esq.
Mr. J. J. Coli t:,
Sheldon, Hannon, Roisman & Weiss Manager Plant Engineering 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 Metropolitan Edison Company Washington, D.C. 20006 P.O. Box 480 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Mr. Steven C. Sholly 304 S. Marxet Street Mr. I. R. Fi nf rock, J r.
Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 Jersey Central Power & Lignt Company Madison Avenue at Punch Bowl Road Mr. Thomas Gerusky Morristown, New Jersey 07950 Bureau of Raciation Protection P.O. Box 2063 Mr. R. W. Conrao Harriscurg, Pennsylvania 17120 Pennsylvania Electric Company 1007 Broad Street Mr. Marvin I. Lewis Johnstown, Pennsylvania 15907 6504 Braaford Terrace Philaceiphia, Pennsylvania 19149 J. B. Lieberman, Esq.
Berlock, Israel, Lieoerman Ms. Jane Lee 26 Broacway R.D. 3, Box 3521 New York, New York 10004 Etters, Pennsylvania 17319 Ms. Mary V. Soutnard, Walter W. Cohen, Consumer Aavocate Chai rperson Department of Justice Citizens for a Safe Environment Strawoerry Square,14th Floor P.O. Box 405 Harrisourg, Pennsylvania 17127 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 1635 5i3
R. C. Arnold Decemoer 6,1979 Robert L. Knupp, Esq.
Ms. Marjorie M. Aamodt Assistant Solicitor R.D. 55 Knupp and Andrews Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 P.O. Box P 407 N. Front Street Ms. Karen Sheldon Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 Sheldon, Harmon, Roisnan & Weiss 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 John E. Minnich, Chairman Washington, D.C. 20006 Dauphin Co. Board of Commissioners Dauphin County Courthouse Earl B. Hoffman Front and Market Streets Dauphin County Commissioner Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 Dauphin County Courthouse Front and Market Streets Robert Q. Pollard Harrisourg, Pennsylvania 17101 Chesapeak Energy Alliance 609 Montpelier Street
- Ivan W. Smith, Esq.
Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Chauncey Kepford U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Judith H. Johnsrud Washington, D.C. 20555 Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue
- Atomic Safety anc Licensing Boarc State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Frieca Berryhill, Chairlacy Washington, D.C. 20555 Coalition for Nuclear Power Plant Postponement
- 0ccketing and Service Section 2610 Grendon Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wilmington, Delaware 19808 Washington, D.C. 20555 Holly S. Keck
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York Board 245 W. Philadelpnia Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission York, Pennsylvania 17404 Wasnington, D.C. 20555 John Levin, Esq.
Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission P.O. Box 3265 Harrisburg, Pennsylva'.11a 17120 Jordon D. Cunningham, Esq.
Fox, Farr anc Cunningham 2320 N. Second Street Harrisourg, Pennsylvania 17110 Ms. Katny McCaugnin Three Mile Island Alert, Inc.
23 Scutn 21st Street Harrisourg, Pennsylvania 17104 1635 319
l REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION_
I THREE MILE ISLAND, UNIT 1 1.
Your response to questions 36 and 37 does not provide the staff with sufficient information to make an evaluation of the high pressure injection (HPI) design and associated flow rates. We require that you provide the following infomation:
Table of expected HPI flow (1 and 2 HPI pumps) in each of the four a.
legs versus RCS pressure (2500 to atmospheric) considering the new cavitating venturi installation. Provide your analytical / empirical basis for these flow rates. What reduction in flow rate was caused by the inclusion of these flow-limiting devices? Com:are these ficw rates to the HPI flow rates assumed in the B&W LO~A ar.alysis,
" Evaluation of Transient Behavior and Small Reactor Ccolar.t System Breaks in the 177 Fuel Assembly Plants," May 7,1979, Vclume 1, Figure 6.2.59.
b.
A complete test description for confirmation of adecuate flow splits and flows including:
(1) description of temporary flow indications and where they will be installed.
(Address why using installed instrucentation is not adequate.)
(2) basis for 550 gpm " upper limit" acceptance criteria.
(3) range of pressures over which data will be taken.
(4) range of installed flow instrumentation.
(5) acceptance criteria for flow rates at higher pressures.
We require that this test confim that the TMI-1 HPI design provides adequate flow as assumed in Figure 6.2.59 of the B&W analysis (ab:ve).
Provide your comitment to conduct a test and submit the test pro:edure which will accomplish this purpose.
2.
Your response to question 36a. does not provide sufficier.t analytical justification for adequacy of the 64/36 flow split for ar. HPI lins break or your statement that RCS pressure will not expend significant time above 1500 psig for a spectrum of HPI line breaks.
Provide such analyses or confinn that a 70/30 flow split would be achieved and that the existing LOCA analyses are appropriate for a spectrum of HPI line breaks (:etween the RCS and the check valve nearest the RCS).
POOR ORGINAL 1635 320
2-3.
Your response to question 36c. does not provide the staff with sufficient information to make 'an evaluation of the cavitating venturi design.
Provide justification in the form of test data, calculations, etc., that the cavitatir.2 venturis can be relied upon to perfom their function for an HPI line break (limit flow out break such that sufficient HPI reaches core). It is our podtion that the brief test description does not adequately cover the ceditions which would result from an HPI line break.
Also, provide detailed drawings, data, and specifications for the cavitating venturis.
4.
Item 2.1.7.a of the Lessons Learned requirements states, in part, the following:
The automatic initiation signals and circuits (of the Emergency Feedwater System) shall be designed so that a single failure will not result in the loss of system function.
Further review of your proposed design for EFW system has brought into question the capability of the EFW flow control valves to meet the single failure criterion in the automatic mode. Our cor.cern is based upon the non-single-failure-proof ICS as the sole source of automatic control signals to the two EFW flow control valves.
(No credit can be taken for the manual control stations in your analysis.)
Provide a detailed discussion of this aspect of your design that is responsive to the above concern. If confomance to the above requirement cannot be demonstrated, your response should also include the following:
(1) a commitment to upgrade the design to meet this requirement on an expedited basis, (2) a proposed schedule for completion, and (3) a conceptual design of the proposed modification.
1635 321
REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL INFORMATION THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO.1 DOCKET NO. 50-289 By submittals dated October 15,17 and 19,1979, GPU responded to the NRC Staff's Request for Financial Infomation dated September 21,1979. We have reviewed these submittals and have detemined that they are incomplete and need to be supplemented. The item numbers referenced below aoply to item numbers in our September 21, 1979 request.
1.
(1, 2 and 3) The breakdown between operating costs and capital costs is stated to be preliminary. GPU should provide the final breakdown when it is available.
2.
(3) On what basis does GPU assume that current costs of TMI replacement energy are not recovered? Explain in detail.
3.
(3) Describe the " temporary investments" under " external financing" that are projected for GPU and Penelec.
4.
(4.a) Provide justification for the assumed 71 percent plant capacity factor for TMI-1.
Indicate the actual plant capacity factor experienced by TMI-1 when it was in conTnercial operation. Provide total (GPU) operating cost estimates assuming plant capacity factors of 50 cercent and 60 percent.
5.
(4.b) Notify the Staff of the final disposition of the PPUC show cause proceeding regarding the inclusion of TMI-l capital and coerating costs in the rates of Met-Ed and Penelec.
1635 522
6.
(9) C :,cribe the criteria that were used to determine that no cost reduction actions at the TMI-1 facility are related to safe operation of that facility.
7.
(10.c) Indicate the revenue effect of rate increases granted, both in the f
year granted and in the subsequent year.
If the subsequent year effect is not known, annualize amounts received in the year granted.
8.
(10.b) A description of each licensee's regulatory environment was not sub-mi tted. See item 10.b of the Staff's request dated September 21, 1979.
9.
(10.b and 10.c) Subsequent to our September 21, 1979 request, it was reported (Wall Street Journal, November 2,1979, p.12) that the Pennsylvania Public Utility Comission (PPUC) issued a show cause order to Met-Ed regarding the company's ability to provide utility service in Pennsylvania. Provide copies of the PPUC order and copies of Met-Ed's response to the order, when available.
Continue to keep the NRC Staff informed of all developments in the show cause
' 7ceeding. Provide copies of all subsequent PPUC orders and other directives and Met-Ed responses related to this proceeding.
10.
(10.b and 10.c) Subsequent to our September 21, 1979 request, it was reported (Newark Star-Ledcer, November 3,1979, p. 6) that the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU) is studying alternatives to LCP&L's franchise, including a possible transfer of the franchise to another authority.
Provide any information available to JCP&L regarding the scope of the study, alter-natives to be considered and tar 9et date for the report.
Provide ccpies of any related NJBPU orders and directives and any JCP&L responses thereto.
1635 523