ML19220B428
| ML19220B428 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/03/1978 |
| From: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Herbein J METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904260026 | |
| Download: ML19220B428 (2) | |
Text
.
8e
- tsis,*r n
UNITED STATES 3
e j' '.
NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMISSION
.y K,.,' I a
.. ' u' L.,.
WASHINGTCN, O. C. 20555 c
- 5..':
8
..g s - g
, ? S S.? 2
%, ' v '.,#
May 3,1973
- ...=
DccKet Sc. 50-320
- -letrcyclitan Edisen C cpany A".".i :
Ir. Jchn G. Hercein Vice President P. O. Ocx 542 Faading, Pennsylvania 19603 Gentle.m n:
SUSI C :
2-II-2 P.U:"IAL LCCP CPE3Al'!CU Cue to a fanure of de anti-rotational device on ene reactor ecclant peng at 21!-2, ycu have operated de plant wita dree reactor coolant pu.:ps, in accorcance with tne ccnditions of de cperating license and tne
. Cecnnical Specifica icns. Your letter of claren 29,197a, notes this and also defines additicnal cperating linits ccvering dis situa:icn.
Enclesed ycu will find a regest for additicnal analyses whien we recuire to document the margins available for lenger terra cperation witn three reaCter Ccclant p g s.
,;e recuest dat de rod widdrawal and pump seicure analyses ce sucr.:itted witnin 45 days and the todated LCCA calculation witnin 90 days. Please notify us wi2in 7 days if you cannet accc:redate tnis schedule.
. Sincerely,
.i
'(\\.
p
\\ ll h
5 A,iena.&a,!d...i.t' Lignt ~;ater Reacters.2ran5n 4 Divisien of Prc;ect Jianagement Encicsure:
As stated ces:
Listed cn fcilcwing page 79 C f16 C02 b
...~_.gn g ()
v e. s1
- opo
- et:0politan 20isen C tagany ccs:
G-:ctge F. T:cwcr ic;a, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, ?ctts 5 T:0wtcidge 1300 M S tree t, U.
'.J.
'iasn ington, D. C. 20036 i:r. I. R. f in f:Ocx Jersev. Central ?cteer and Lic.n C pany
!adison Avenue at Punen Bowl Rcad teristown, New Jersey 07960 -
Mr. R. Conrad Fer.nsylvania Electric Ccepany 1007 3rcad Street Jennstown, Pennsylvanis L5907 Chauncey R. Kepford, Esq.
Chairman YO :< Cciaraittee for a 3afe Environment 433 Orlando Crive State College, Pennsylvania 16c01 Mr. Ricnard ti. Het/ard Et0jectItanage GFU Service C0cpc:2 tion 260 Cherry Hill Rcad Farsipcany, dew Jersey 07054 Mr. T. Gacy 3: ugnton Safety and Licensing !anager GFU Service C: ;0tatica 250 Cherry Hill Fced Parsippany, uew Jersey 07054 f*
8
'me
$ Il
e T'4I-2 DALUATION OF WREE-PLMP CPERAT:Ott The staff was notified of the reac:Or coolant pumo 2A anti-rota:icnal device f ailure which occurred during precperational testing.
Discussions with tne applicant acdressed the possibility of fu ure acerations with a three-pump configuration at reduced pcwer wnich is currently autnorized by the plant Technical Specifications. Reference i pro-vides the aaplicant's conclusion that three-;uma cceration wi:nin :ne present technical specifications would not cause any viciaticn cf safety limits for any FSAR Chapter 15 transient.
'de nave reviewed the TMI-2 FSAR and the safety analyses of other similar 3&W plants for the potential consequences of transients and accidents wnile ocerating in this partial loop configuration.
These analyses or0vice justificatior for operation in the partial leap concition, since no acceptance criteria are exceeded. On this basis, nree-: ump operation would be acceptable. However, for two classes of events, rod witncra val and loss of flow due to reactor coolant puma seizure the consecuences during partial leap operation are screwnat more severe than full 1000 operation (3SAR partial loco rod withdrawal shcws higner pressures, Midland pump sei:ure shcws higner PCT for the two-pumo case).
Therefore, in order to confinn the safety margins available for these events, we repuest that you perforn the folicwing analyses for TMI-2 assuming tne three reactor ccolant pump configuration:
1.
Red Withdrawal (startuo and at acwer) 2.
Reactor Ccolant Pumo Shaft Seizure Provide and justify tne red group worths and reactivity adciticn ra:es used in the analyses.
Reference 2 prcvides a LCCA analysis for the 177 icwer 1000 SL plants during three-uma operation at reduced ocwer.
The staff found this analysis acce:: table (reference 3).
Since this evaluation, severai mocifications to the LCCA calculation nave been mace, (incor orati:n of the inlet no::le U-baffle, CRAFT and THETA ccde changes) such :nat a worst break calculation for three-cumo Oceration using an evaluation model which is wholly in conformance with Accencix K and 10 CFR 50.46 has not been perfor ed.
'de request that an analysis be provicec of :ne OEPD 3.55 f t. Cg=1.0 break during three-pumo Oceration to confirm the margins available.
iretil
References 1.
Letter frca J. G. Herbein (Met Ed) to 3. A. Varga (NRC) datec March 29, 1978.
2.
BAW 10103A, Rev. 3, July 1977, ECCS Analysis of B&W's 177 FA L:wered Loop NSS 3.
Letter frca Stolz (NRC) to Suncke (B&W) dated Fecruary 4,1975.
.u k
h vCG
(