ML19256D527
| ML19256D527 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/07/1973 |
| From: | Brunner E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | James Keppler US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256D522 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910180838 | |
| Download: ML19256D527 (2) | |
See also: IR 05000289/1973001
Text
J
,,a
-,
gm y
i
unn rEo sTATLs
[d ' h ,j .
%
ATOMIC ENEROY COMMISSION
i
oinzeronare or accus.4rony ortnarious
.
g*
-
accion i
O
1 I
V
i
'*
970 BROA3 STREET
'
f
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY 01102
m ,,, ,, -
FEB 'l O
(
.
J. C. Keppler, Cnief, Reactor Testing & Operations Br.
Directorate of Regulatory Operations, HQ
RO INSPECTION REPORT No. 50-289/73-01
METROPCLITAN EDISON COMPANY
THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 1
The subject inspection report is forwarded for action.
The Core Flood Terk Flow Test presently proposed by the licensee does
,
not appear to provide any basis for a quartitative determination of the
coolant delivery capability of the system.
The test originally proposed
by the licensee in the FSAR required that CF system time / discharge capability
be demonstrated to be in accordance with design calculations.
In order to
accomplish that. objective, the test required that CF tank fevel, pressure,
and isolation valve position be continuously recorded, relative to a common
elapsed time, while discharging the contents of each tank into the open
reactor vessel with water level established in the fuel transfer car.rl.
In
(
Amendment 32 to the FSAR, dated October 24, 1972,'the licensee revisea the
description of the test to eliminate any requirements for monitoring of tank
pressure, level, and valve position during the test, which precludes any
quantitative analysis of flow delivery capability.
As presently described
in the FSAR, it merely requires that the CF tank isolation valves b2 opened
and the tank contents allowed to discharge into the reactor vessel.
Based
on the present test description in the FSAR, the licensee has prepared a
Core Flood Tank Flow Test procedure. While th? ; test procedure improves
upon the present FSAR ccmmitments, in that it does require a check of elapsed
times for a specified tank level change during discharge, and comparison of
this time on one tank to the other to detect any significant difference, it
still does not provide the basis for any comparison of the flow delivery
capability of the systcm, as installed at Three Mile Island, with the flow
delivery capability assumed for the LOCA analysis.
It should be noted that
the licensee has stated, in the FSAR,that the reason for the abbreviated test
is that the verificati:n of the calculation methods used to predict the CF
system flow under accident conditions was successfully completed at Oconee
and need not be repeated at Three Mile Island.
We do not questica the validity
.
of the calculational model. Our c,oncern is that the system, as installed at
Three Mile Island, be demonstrated to perform as predicted by the previously
proved calculational model.
4
'
'
'
14~51
127
-
3P
.
i-
- 4910
80 M
1
'
.
-
.
,
.
~ . .
. _ , _ .
- * * " " - ~ *
. . _ _
_
, ,
f
,,
. .
-
. .
,
,
,
.
'
.
t
2-
.
..f
It is our position that the licensee should be required to perform a test
of the system which will provide data that demonstrates that -he system
installed at Three Mile Island . will provide the flow deli'-
y capability
assumed in the LOCA analysis.
s
.
flaj
c& FM
E. J. Brunner, Chief
Facility Test & Startup Branch
Enclosure:
-
-
RO Inspection Report No. 50-289/73-01
.
cc:
RO Chief, Reactor Testing & Operations Br. (21)
RO Chief, Reactor Construction Br.
RO:HQ (5)
,
~
'
Local PDR
DTIE
'
State of Pennsylvania
s,
,
'
.
,
1451
128
-
.
e
$
e
e
e
8
e
e
e
e
e
e