ML19261F136
| ML19261F136 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/25/1975 |
| From: | Arnold R METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19261F137 | List: |
| References | |
| GQL-0974, GQL-974, NUDOCS 7910240797 | |
| Download: ML19261F136 (4) | |
Text
.
NRC
'TRIBUTIOF' F_OR PART 50 DOCKE
.1 ATE RI AL (TEMPOR ARY FORM)
CONTROL NO:
M_
~
INb FILE:
FROMpetropolitan Edison Co.
DATE OF DOC DATE REC'D LTR TWX RPT OTHER Reading, Penna.
g -y.,
5-5-75 XX R. C. Arnold TO:
ORIG CC OTHER SENT AEC POR J.P. O'Reilly 1 Signed SENT LOCAL PDR xxxx CLASS UNCLASS PROPINFO INPUT NO CYS REC'D DOCKET NO:
xxxx 1
50-289 DESCRIPTION:
ENCLOSURES:
Ltr. reporting Abnormal Occurr. # 75-03, on-4-17-75, concerning Total chlorine concentratica at the plant river discharge exceeded xnt........
( 1 cy. ltr. rec'd)
PLANT NAME: Three Mile Island # 1 FOR ACT!ON/INFORMATION VCR 5-6-75 BUTLER (L)
SCHWENCER (L) ZlEMANN (L)
/ REG AN (E)
W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies
[
Wh. Copies CLARK (L)
STOLZ (L)
DICKER (E) j,LE AR (L)
W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/s Cooies PAR R (I.)
VMS A.LLO (L) v.rmgu793 gg; cowTc W/ Copies W/ Copics W/ Copies W/ Copies KNIEL (L)
PURPLE (L)
YOUNGB LOOD (E)
LICE:iSII;0 PROJECT MANAGER W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION 6FIL D TECH REVIEW jDENTON LIC ASST.
A/T IN D NnurvM SCHROEDER GRIMES R. DIGGS (L)
BRAITMAN gOGC, ROOM P 506A MACCARY GAMMILL H. GE ARIN (L)
SA LTZM AN GOSSICK/STAF F KNIGHT v KASTNER E. GOULBOURNE (L)
ME LTZ CASE DAWLICK!
g BALLARD P. KREUTZER (E)
GIAMBUSSO SHAO SPANGLER J. LEE (L)
PLANS BOYD STELLO M. MAIGRET (L)
MCDONALD MOORE (L)
HOUSTON E NVI RO_
/S. REED (E) /(p/1 CHAPMAN DEYOUNG (L)
NOVAK MULLER M. SERVICE (b)
DUBE (L:r)
SKOVHOLT (L)
ROSS DICKER S. SHEPPARD (L)
E. COUPE GOLLER (L) (Ltr)
IPPOLITO KNIGHTON M. SLATER (E)
PETERSON P. CO L LINS TEDESCO YOUNGBLOOD H. SMITH (L)
HARTFIELD (2)
- . TEETS (L) [h)
DENISE J. COLLINS REGAN S
KLECKER REG OPR LAIN AS PROJECT LDR G. WILLI AMS (E)
EISENHUT
.[ FILE & REGION (2)
BENAROYA gg4ht.M.)
V. WILSON (L)
WIGGINTON MPIC VOLLMER HAR LESS R. INGRAM (L) p f
STEELE
/1 - LOCAL PDR/[
FJTERN AL DISTRIBUTION T. -a L'
[he
.i 1 - TIC (ABERNATHY) (1)i,
. - NATION AL LABS g/1 - NSIC (BUCH AN AN) 1 - PD R-SAN /LA/NY 1 - W. PENN!NGTON, Rm E 201 GT 1 - BROOKH AVEN 1" T LAS 1-ASLB 1 - CONSU LTANTS 1 - G. ULRIKSON. O N L 1 - Newton Anderwn N EWM ARK /B LUM E/AG S A BI AN 1 - AG M E D ( R U TH G L:53.'.1 A N )
- ACRS HOLDING /SENT Rm B-127 GT 1 - J. D. RUNKLES. Rm E 201 l
7930240 K
s IN7LS i,,.,
'/;,
mia a mann METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY 1: ce : u m - m m v r" POST CFFICE BOX 542 REACING, PENNSYLVANI A 19603 TELEPHONE 215 - 929-3601 April 24, 1975 GQL 0974 Mr. J. P. O'Reilly, Director Of fice of Inspection and Enforcement, Region 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
Operating License DPR-50 Docket #50-289 In accordance with the Environmental Technical Specifications for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1, we are reporting the following Environmental Incident:
(1) Reporting Number:
E.I. 50-289/75-03 (2a) Report Date: April 24,1975 (2b) Occurrence Date: April 17, 1975 (3) Facility: Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1 (4) Identification of Incident:
Total chlorine concentration at the plant river discharge exceeded
.01 ppm for greater than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> per day)which is a violation of the Environmental Technical Specifications paragraph 2.'.1.c and constitutes exceeding a limiting condition for operation.
(5) Conditions Prior to Incident:
The reactor was at steady-state power with major plant parameters as follows:
Power: Core: 100%
Elec:
857 MW (Gross)
RC Flow: 1.36 x 10 lbs/hr 1485 315 4890
%'7h
RC Pressure:
2155 psig FC TEMP. 578 F PR2R Level:
237 in.
PRZR Temp.:
648 F (6)
Desc.ription of Incident:
At about 0815 on April 17, a cracked and leaking hypochlorite carboy was found in the pretreatment building sump.
Upon discovery of the leak, the building sump pumps and the sump pump in the industrial waste treatment building, to which the pretreatment building sump pump discharges, were secured.
(This was accomplished by 0900.) Approximately 12 gallons of solution (10% free available chlorine) were spilled. The remaining volume of about 3 gallons was placed in the hypochlorite tank.
Af ter securing the pumps, the chemistry department was notified of the incident. However, at 0900 a normal 15-minute chlorination period was initiated.
The contents of the sump were treated by addition of sodium thiosulfate.
When the analysis of samples of the industrial waste building sump shoved less than 0.5 ppm, the contents were released.
(The 0.5 ppm criteria is based on a dilution factor of 173, as described below, and a conservative factor of safety to be in compliance with the.01 ppm limit at the plant discharge.)
(7)
Designation of Apparent Cause of Incident:
The initial cause of the incident is equipment failure, in that the cracked carboy permitted leakage of the hypochlorite solution.
However, the primary apparent cause of the occurrence is design, in that the existing drainage system in the pretreatment building is designed such that any liquid spillage in the building will be accumulated in the sump. A separate storage area for liquid chemicals surrounded by retaining sill and' including a separate drainage system would have prevented such an occurrence.
(8) Analysis of Occurrence:
The period of time that the leak existed was estimated from the security department's log.
The last time the pretreatment building was inspected was 0540 The sump was secured at 0900.
Therefore, the discharge could have occurred for up to 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 20 minutes, under worst-case conditions.
Evaluation of the contents of the two sumps revealed the following:
Volume Free Available Chlorine Industrial Waste Sump 50,000 gal.
7.3 ppm Pretreatment Building Sump 150 gal.
770 ppm 1485 316
s As less than half of the free avaflable chlorine can be accounted for in the sumps, it may be assumed that the remainder was discharged.
Using this assumption and a dilution of approximately 173 (the industrial waste building rump has a flow of 150 gpm and the river water discharge was 26,000 gym), the concentration at the plant discharge was calculated to be.04 ppm.
Analysis following the normal chlorination period at 0900 showed the following:
Time Free Available Chlorine Total Residual Chlorine 0910
.03 ppm
.03 ppm 0930
.05 ppm
.05 ppm 0950
.03 ppm
.03 ppm Although it is believed that the leakage occurred over a relatively long period (not exceeding 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 20 minutes), calculations show that even had the entire release occurred instantaneously, the applicable total chlorine concentration would not have exceeded the 0.2 ppm specification limit.
It is believed that the chlorine released did not cause environmental damage or endanger the health and safety of the public for the following reasons:
a.
During the course of the subsequent chlorination period (beginning at 0900), free available chlorine remained less than the 0.1 ppm specification limit and the total residual chlorine remained less than the 0.2 ppm specification limit.
b.
The free available and total residual chlorine are measured prior to discharge to the river.
The actual discharge is small in comparison to the total river flow which results in a large dilution of the chlorine residual.
It is believed that the effective chlorine residuals actuclly established in the river subsequent to the dilution would be below environmentally-hazardous values.
c.
On April 18, Met-Ed's consultant performed a routine survey of river fish and biota.
No signs of deleterious ef fects were seen.
(9)
Corrective Action:
Immediate correction action was taken as described above to terminate the release.
Long term corrective action has been proposed as follows:
a.
A storage area for liquid chemicals (as described above) in the pretreatment building will be established.
b.
Further procedural guidance will be provided requiring additional chlorine monitoring when a sample exceeds the.01 ppm specification limit when continuous analysis is not available.
Such guidance will be implemented within 30 days.
1485 317
Further, steps have been taken to ensure implementation of the above listed corrective actions.
(10)
Failure Data:
Not applicable.
Sincerely,
!/
Qp4 R. C. 'A Id Vice P' resident RCA:RSB:pa cc:
Director Division of Reactor Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 File 7.7.3.11.1/20.1.1 1485 318