ML19259D491
| ML19259D491 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/13/1974 |
| From: | Arnold R METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| GQL-0068, GQL-68, NUDOCS 7910240758 | |
| Download: ML19259D491 (5) | |
Text
AEC DISTR'-'tTION FOR PART 50 DOCKET MATER,T **
(TDiPORARY FORM)
CONTROL NO: 5502 FILE:
ENVIRO FROM:
DATE OF DOC DATE REC'D LTR TWX RPT OTHER Metropolitan Edison Co.
Reading, PA R. C. Arnold 6-13-74 6-18-74 X
TO:
J. P. O'Reilly 1
CLASS UNCLASS PROP INFO INPUT NO CYS REC'D DOCKET NO:
XXX 1
50-289 DESCRIPTION:
ENCLOSURES:
Ltr furn info re enviro incident #EI 50-299/
I 1 KNOWLEDGED 74-4 of 6-6-74 re excessive total chlorine concentration at the plant river discharge....
g
- REMOVE PLANT NAME:THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT #1 FOR ACTION /INFORMATION 6-14-74 Cvc
!SCWENCER(L)
ZIDIANN(L)
!REGAN(E)
BUTLER (L)
W/ Copies W/1 Copies info W/ Copies W/2 Copies CLARK (L)
STOLZ(L)
DICKER (E)
W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies PARR(L)
VASSALLO(L)
KNIGHTON(E) v/
c:;i :
U/ c:;i::
n/ c:;i::
n/ c:;i::
KNIEL(L)
PURPLE (L)
YOUNGBLOOD(E)
W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies INTEENAL DISTRIBUTION C &EG FILE' iTECH REVIEN
/DENTON A/T IND
- AEC PDR
/ HENDRIE GRIMES M C ASST BRAIniAN
/X;C, RCCM P-506A SCHROEDER GAMMILL DIGGS (L)
SALTZMAN
- 3. hTRT
- MUNTZING/ STAFF MACCARY THER pEARIN (L)
CASE KNIGHT BALLARD
/GOULBCURNE (L)
PLANS GIAMBUSSO PAWLICKI SPANGLER LEE (L)
MCDONALD BOYD SHA0 DUBE w/ input
[MAIGRET(L)
MOORE (L)(BWR)
STELLO ENVIRO REED (E)
CHAPMAN DEYOUNG(L)(FWR)
HOUSTON MULLER WO SERVI.CE (L)
SKOVHOLT (L)
NOVAK DICKER SHEPPARD (L)
C. MILES EER COLLER(L)
ROSS KNIGHTON SLATER (E)
EISENH1.'T P. COLLINS IPPOLITO YOUNGBLOOD SMITH (L)
DENISE TEDESCO REGAN TEETS (L)
AOR FILE AEG OPR LONG PROJECT LDR WADE (E)
JFILE & RECION(3)
LAINAS MST. MARY (2)
WILLIAMS (E)
D. THOMPSON (2)
MORRIS BENAROYA HARLESS WILSON (L) 1 'A C O
') 1Lln STEEI.E VOLIRER I tJ7 7
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTICN
/l/\\
- TIC (A3ERNATHY) 1)(% U3) NATIONAL LAB'S ANL l-PDR-SAN /LA/NY
J-ASLBP(3/W Bldg,Rm 529) 1-LIBRARI AN 1 - ASLB J1-W. PENNING ~0N, Fm E-201 GT BROOKHAVEN NAT. LA3 1 - P. R. DAVIS (AEROJET NUCLEAR) 1-CONSULTANT'S 1-AGMED(Ruth Guss n 16 - CYS ACRS HOLDING NEWMARK/BLUME/A';3ABL\\N EM-S-12 7. GT.
1-GERALD ULRIKSON...ORNL l-RD.. MULLER. 7-309 K 1-B & M SW NEBRCAD, Rm I-201 910240758 J
/.py => -Fj'gg g.,: :,,
- ~ ~x u,
. =.w. a.
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
.,mm POST OFFICE BOX 542 RE ADING, PENNSY LVA.'JI A 19C03 TELEPHONE 215 - 929-2601 June 13, 1974
.GQL_.0068
- 'O{\\ ;
l
.v Mr. J. P. O"teilly, Director Regulntory Operat' Ms Region 1 %
' 'q. j I-' *, /z y '
U. S. Atomic Ener,,.:= mission 631 Park Avenue Fing of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
Operating License DPR-50 Docket #50-289 In ac.c.,1 dance with the Environmental Technical Specifications for Three Mile Islan:1 Nuclear Station, Unit 1, va are reporting the following Environnental Incident:
(1)
Reportin6 Number:
E.I. 50-289/74-4 (2a) Report Date:
June 13, 1974 (2b) Occurrence Date:
June 6, 1974 (3)
Facility:
Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 (4)
Identification of Incident:
Excessive Total Chlorine Concentration at the Plant River Discharge which is a violation of Environmental Technical Specifications, paragraph 2.2.la, and con::titutes exceeding a limiting condition for operation.
(5)
Conditions Prior to Occurrence:
Reactor c.citical, power escala-tion test at C% of rated power in progress with major plant para-meters as follows:
1459 220 5502
-li$GUiMD5 ff6CRF'liILB'00P.E
Power:
Core:
0 Elec:
0 6
R'J Flow:
144 x ld ///hr.
RC Pressure:
2155 psig RC Temperature:
532 F PRZR Level:
5.00in.
PEZR Temp.:
650 F 0
(6)
Description of Incident:
During a periodic evolution conducted' to chlorinate the systems cooled by the mechanical draft cooling tower, the plant river discharge sample taken 10 minutes after coe=encement of the evolution indicated a chlorine concentration of.215 ppo, at 30 minutes
.22 ppm, and at 50 minutes
.25 ppm.
In that chlorine addition had been terminated about 15 minutes after commencement of the evolution, it was determined that there vere no additional actions which could be taken to get the reading within the specification limit.
(7)
Designation of Apparent Cause of Incident:
a.
The most probable cause of the incident was Personnel, in that an improperly prepared pH-4 buffer solution was used in the analysis of total chlorine. Normal procedure is to use a pH-4 buffer solution prepared by site personnel.
In the case of this incident, however, the buffer solution used was cbtained from another source, and was not checked for accuracy of preparation prior to being used in the plant river discharge total chlorine analysis.
The technician who performed the analyses suspected the possibility of an error in the analyses and, therefore, performed a free and total chlorine analysis on a sample of demineralized water.
This analysis indicated that the sample contained.04 ppm free chlorine and.274 ppm total chlorine, which was higher than any of the values obtained for the plant river discharge samples. The analysis was then repeated on another sample of demin-eralized water using a new batch of buffer solution.
It was found that this sample analysis indicated no detectable free chlorine and no total chlorine. Frca this, it appeers that use of the improperly prepared buffer solution yielded higher-than-actual values for the river discharge chlcrine samples, although there is no way of 1459 221
. w.
- a. a. -- _
knowing the =agnitude of the errors.
b.
Additional passible causes that were considartl in the analysis, but not thought to be probable causes of this incident, were procedure and component failure.
(8)
Analysis of Incident:
It is believed that the total chlorine level did not exceed the tachnical specifications limit by a severe enough degree.or for a long enough duration to have caused environmental damage, in that the values measured for total chlorine were most likely higher than the actual values and, based on the degree of error indicated on the demineralized samples, actual values were most likely well within specification limits.
(9)
Corrective Action: As explained in the above analysis, there were no ittediate corrective actions which could have been taken to reduce the total chlorine level to within specifica-tion limits and no i=:ediate actions were taken.
As also explained in the above analysis, the ennitoring tech-nician performed additional analyses to determine the reliabil-ity of the pH-4 buffer solution.
The Station Superintendent was notified of the incident; he inforned the Vice President-Generation and, to provide for an additional precautionary measure, it was then decided to decrease the chlorination feed from 250 lbs/ day to 200 lbs/ day prior to the next chlorination period.
Subsequent discussions among the Vice President-Generation, Manager-Generation Engineering, and Station Superintendent have resulted in a decision to have the Met-Ed Operational quality Assurance Department perform an audit of the station chlorine analysis procedures and the i=plementation thereof.
Additional long term corrective actions relating to this same problem were stated in EI 50-289/?h-3 seven day letter dated June 5, 1974, and II 50-289/74-4 seven day letter dated June 12, 1974, and vill consist of:
a.
meet.'.ng with a consultant to discuss terms of a contract to evaluate 1.
if, and how, chlorine addition rates should be established as a function of existing conditions, and 2.
the reliability of the chlorine monitoring apparatus, and 1459 222
~...
-4 a.
b.
utilizing the yet to be established 90-day period refer-enced in the Environ = ental Technical Specifications, paragraph 2.2.1.b, to further evaluate (9)a.l. ani (9)s.2.
ab ove.
(10)
Failure Data:
a.
Previous Failures: Although possible malfunction of the chlorine monitoring apparatus is not believed to be the cause of this incident, this possibility has been pre-viously noted in EI's 50-289/74-2 and 3 seven-day letters dated June 5 and June 12, 1974, respectively.
b.
Equipmeat Identification:
It will not be possible to ascertain if the conitoring apparatus failed until the additional technical analyses mentioned in (9)a. and (9)b. above are completed; however, on the basis 6f what information is available, failure of the equipment is considered ta be unlikely.
Sincerely, Signed - R. C. Amold R. C. Arnold Vice President RCA:JFV:eg cc:
Director Directorate of Licensing U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C.
20545 1459 223
.