ML19220C433
| ML19220C433 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/30/1974 |
| From: | Washburn B US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19220C432 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7905010378 | |
| Download: ML19220C433 (7) | |
Text
,
y.e rch 30, 1974 CCC ET NO. 50-320 APPLICANTS:
Metropolitan Edison Co. (Met-Ed)
Jersey Central Power & Light Co.
Pennsylvania Electric Co.
FACILITY:
THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATICN, UNIT 2
SUMMARY
OF MIETING March 19,1974 DISCUSSION OF FSAR ACCEPTANCE REVIEW AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIREMENT 3 On March 19, 1974, representatives of Met-Ed, Sabcock and Wilcox, General Public Utilities, Burns and Roe, and Gilbert Associates met with the Regulatory staff to discuss the results of the FSAR acceptance review and the Staff's request for additional information required in the FSAR.
The dis-cussion included all areas of interest except foundation engineering, geology and seismology for which comments and questions were not timely received.
A list or attendees is enclosed.
Significant discussion areas are sum =arized in the following.
1.
Inservice Inspections / Testing The applicant was told that if he can comply with the guides on inspection items without backfitting, it is prudent so to do.
Question 3-1:
In the reactor coolant system, ASME Code Class 2 and 3 components, we ask the applicant to review the system, propose inspections and detail what items /
areas are available for inspection.
The applicant states that expensive backfit was undertaken to come up to Class is it was agreed not to come up to Class 2 and 3 by design and not to meet Regulatory Guide 1.51 at some point in the pasts some joints are not visually inspec-tiver Unit 2 has the main steam system in Class 2.
a,L ;L i
790501D572
. SU?O'.ARY OF XZrING,
March 19, 1974 Question 3-4:
Flywheel Integrity--The applicant was asked to please bear
'7 mind the conclusion in the Safety Ivaluation Report and prior agreements.
This is also a concern expressed by the ACRS.
2 Seismic Instrumentation Question 4-1:
The applicant had previously agreed to include one seismoscope but this was inadvertently omitted from the FSAR.
In response to a question frem the applicant, the staff stated that it would be accept-able to use the multielement seismoscope in Unit 1 provided that the soil conditions for Unit 2 are the same as for Unit 1.
3.
Structural Design Question 4-2:
The applicant was asked to discuss how closely the new Regulatory Safety Guides are followed by the design.
The applicant expressed concern over the task of having to compare their designs with the Regulatory Guides and asked that we tell them what is wrong with their methods (designs).
The applicant asked if we could be specific as to which area (s) of a Guide in which we want the comparisons.
Regulatory Guide 1.13--We are concerned about cask dropping and would like the applicant to discuss what could occur if a cask could be dropped over the spent fuel pool.
The applicant stated that the crane cannot go over the spent fuel pools this should be in the FSAR this concern was satisfied by the Unit i design.
We stated that appropriate references to Unit 1, if applicable to Unit 2, would be acceptable.
The applicant was asked to cross reference everything very carefully.
Question 4-4:
We have particular interests in the design criteria and methods for subcompartments and differential pressures in subcompartments during high energy pipe breaks and in the potential for liner buckling due to impin6ement of hot jets.
4 Accident Analysis Question 5-1:
Analyses for feedwater line break, which is de-pressurization type break rather than a pressur-
, U:
~
(][-
i J
3_
SUMy.ARY OF MEETING, March 19,1974 ization type as in the stea= line break, with an additional single failure, are required.
The analyses of this pipe break should take into consideration the loss of off-site power and the worst case single active failure.
The system should be analyzed as designed.
It may be necessary to look at both auxiliary feedwater and rain feedwater line breaks to determine which is the worst case from the primary effects standpoint.
We need flow vs time for these breaks.
The applicant stated that the auxiliary feedwater system is not and Engineered Safety Feature s it does not meet Category / Class I 2A-00 on components, signal from ICS is not Class I, and is not single failure proof.
The turbine-driven main feedwater pump is used to cocidown by driving this turbine thru a one-inch by-pass line.
It should be verified that the main feedwater turbine can be used for this.
5.
Instrumentation and Control The information supplied does not permit us to determine that the actual design meets the criteria.
The applicant needs a specific example of an acceptable drawing sub-mittal.
6 Auxiliary Systems Question 8-4:
Our concern is the application of back-flow preventers, not contamination to the environment thru releases.
The need for legible drawings which can be read without the aid of a magnifying glass was emphasized.
7.
Effluent Treatment and Source Ter=s No formal questions were submitted.
The discussion pointed out exs=ples of discrep/72, W.
ancies between information supplied in a letter (2/22 M.
Creitz, Met-Ed to R. C. DeYoung) and that in the FSAR.
The applicant was asked to check the FSAR against the respense in this letter and to assure us that the correct information is supplied in the FSAR.
}
Specific examples (this is not a complete listing) are, referring to question numbers in the referenced letters
< 1/
'; t, sv'*
.4-
SUMMARY
OF MEETING, March 19, 1974 3
Question)11:
The FSAR for Unit 2 states 2,017 ft vs 2,030 ft in the letter.
Question 12:
The total mass of secondary coolant (this should be just the material circulating in the loop--
exclusive of storage)--the letter apparently gave one figure which included storage volume and we could not find the needed answer in the FSAR.
Question 19 b.:
We need the fraction of the let-dow.1 going to the boren control system.
Question 28:
Ye suspect that ti answer is totally in-appropriate for Unit 2 Question 29:
The answer does not Appear to agree with~
the FSAR drawings.
Question 30:
The answer does not agree with the FSAR for Unit 2.
3NWL 1645 is being adopted to an ANSI standard and nay be retrofitted to TMI-2.
Environmental and other important =onitoring was dis-cussed.
8.
Accident Analysis (Site Characteristics and Engineered Safety Features)
Questions 12-5 thru 12-11:
The FSAR did not follow the standard for=at and it is difficult to find the needed information such as pH, concentrations, nozzle header layout, etc., in the documentation on the spray system as it relates to the fission product removal function.
Appendix 63 was referenced but we have been unable to find the requested information there.
Question 12-12:
The applicant asked if the answer could be deferred until after the FSAR submittal and promised this information within 90 days.
Responding to Item 1 in this question will require this additional time.
This response is needed within 30 days of docketing.
Question 12-4:
The sump design detail was not supplied.
We want a drawing showing the design including a cross section of the sump.
We want information on all filtra-tion systems and a comparison with Regulatory Guide 1.52 Question 13 h:
Fart 2 The applicant asked if one meteorological read-out in Unit 1 would suffice.
The l L
\\
A '
e S M ARY OF MEETING, March 19, 1974 response was that this depends on the accident control plan and where the accident control center is to be located.
Question 13-3:
A larger map, supplied separate frem the FSAR,would be acceptable.
(A minimum of three copies are needed for our evaluation.)
Questions 13-14 thru -19:
We want to be certain that we get thia information into the docket as was indicated to the applicant.
Sediment in the intake is a potential problem.
We want to know if sediment is a general problem along the Susquehanna or is it just due to the TMI construction cofferdam as postulated.
9.
ESF-Containment Systems Questions 9-1 thru -9:
Applicant will provide answer on response time in a few days.
J. generic review in process may clear up sow.e parts of this question and then plaht specifics will follow.
The applicant asked for the status of our review of the AI hydrogen recombiner.
The answer could not be obtained during the meetin (Answered by phone to Mr. J. Vann, GFU, on March 20)g.
10.
Radiological Assessment No written questions were submitted.
We want the environmental monitoring program, as previ-ously discussed, included in the FSAR--in toto.
We want Section 12 3 of the FSAR to be expanded so that this infor=ation can be referenced in the materials licensing and in connection with incorporating the materials license into the reactor license.
More detailed information is needed for a material license than for the FSAR.
The required information was described in detail and Pilgrim, Units 2 and 3 was given as an example of a docket where this was correctly done. (See Reg. Guide 1.70.3 for additional details. )
In Section 12.2.5 we want to include an ANSI standard on respiratory protection.
11.
The applicant called attention to FSAR Sections 1.3.2.20 and.21 which indicate that the fluid block and contain-ment penetration pressurization systems had not been in-cluded in the final design of TMI-2 The applicant was advised that the omission of these systems could result in the suspension of the construction permit.
y t1 iV-i L.
1
's v
. SUYJ.ARY OF EETING,
Y. arch 19, 1974 B. W. Washburn Licensing ~-roject F.anag::
Light Water Reactors Group 2,
. Branch 2 Licensi.y Inclosure:
List of Attendees Distribution:
e e
m 7
I l
g
(
~'j L.
I U m
i MEETING ATTENDANCE March 19, 1974 TMI-2 ACCEPTANCE REVIEW RESULTS AND REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Est-Ed Burns
'e Ree Ms. R. S. 3rown S. S. Rosen J. F. Fritzen A. F. Za11 nick J. R. Ellwanger GPUSC E. P. Stargavos T. M. Crirtins, Jr.
J. M. Vann S
J. E. Kunkel D. L. Schnader J. L. Caves 34W E. J. Butcher G. F. Glei E. G. Ward AEC K. Kniel
- 3. W. Washburn
- J.
W. Skrove
'L. W. Heller
- M. B. Fairtile
- R. Zavadoski
- W. F. Pasedag
- C.
7errell
- K. Kapur
- A. Gluckmann
- C, Berlinger
- L. Hulnan
- F. Congel
- F.
StMary
- D.
Shum
- R. Kornasiewicz
- L. Connery
- L. Weintraub
- P.
Stoddart
- indicates part time attendance p
4 n.,
'; L
\\
m
['
April 3, 1974 Mcia t.;o. 50-320
\\,
~
T.nici, Chiaf, l.ight Water Ecactors f, ranch 2-2 L
5"'eXiu GF E:ZTI:;G WI E FITROPOLITAN EDISON CO. (Met-Ed), THTIE M:L:
ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION,1; NIT 2 (TMI-2), DISCUSSION OF FJAE ACCE"TA':C:
RC/IEW, March 19, 1974, AND ADDITIO:;AL I:,TORMAT!c:i 2ICUIzc' ';;s I
attached is a sunnarf of the meetin:; held with Met-Ed, March 19, 1974, in bethesda, to discuss the results of the FSAR acceptance review and the requirenents for additicnal informa, tion in the FSA.".
Ihb m
B. W. Washburn, Licensin:-
Project Mana;;cr Lignt Water Reactors 3 ranch 2-2 Directorate of Licensing
Enclosures:
Sunnary of Peeting Discussion of FSAR Acceptance Review and Additional Infornation Require:ents DISTRIEUTION:
Docket File -
J. W.
Skrove -
Local PDR '
L. W. Heller-L Reading #
M.
B. Fairtile -
PS Assistant Directors -
R. Zavadoski" RP Branch Chiefs -
W. F. Pasedag -
S. Varga' C. Ferrell" D. Elsenhut.
K. Kapur "
J. Hendrie /
A. Glucknann -
TR. Assistant Directers -
C. Berlinger-
'"R Branch Chiefs -
L. Hulnan -
F. St Marf -
F. Congel -
B. Washburn -
D. Shum '
CCC /
R. Kornasiewicc ~
R0 (3)'
L. Con 2 rf -
M. Se rrice -
L. Weintraub -
W AC?S (16 M P.
Stoddart f^._ '~1.
d ~.
A 7,3-2, L o,..e.
/ aashburn:as 4/ 8 / 7. 4..
..n.
ron nc.m t m 9 m ac.w o2.,)
3.
c.a
- i.....->
>>.-a..
7L i
_