ML19340F181
| ML19340F181 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/06/1981 |
| From: | Snyder B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Arnold R METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101210237 | |
| Download: ML19340F181 (4) | |
Text
.
+f o,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
y.
g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- }
h,...../
~
JAN 0 6198; Mr. R. C. Arnold
/
c Chief Operating Executive hj j
Metropolitan Edison Company 100 Interpace Parkway Parsippany, New Jersey 07054
Dear Mr. Amold:
Subject:
Contingency Plan for Transfer and Storage of ReTetor Containment Building Sump Water This letter is in response to your letter (TLL 541) of November 4,1980 which provided the contingency plan for the transfer and storage of the contaminated water in the reactor containment building sump. We have initiated our review of the plan and will require additional infonnation to complete our review, including information about the potential interaction between Unit 1 and Unit 2 from implementing the plan.
Your letter identifies four storage sites and lists the sites in the following order of suitability:
1.
Unit 2 reactor coolant bleed tanks (232,000 gal.);
Unit 2 Tank Farm in "A" spent fuel pool (110,000 gal.); Unit I reactor coolant bleed tanks (247,000 gal.); and Unit 2 "A" spent fuel pool (320,000 gal.).
You also state that the use of Unit 1 tankage is undesirable and will be examining the impact of utilizing the Unit 2 "A" spent fuel pool. We agree that the use of Unit 1 tankage is undesirable in that it spreads highly
.^
contaminated water and suspended solids throughout additional piping and components in both Unit 1 and Unit 2 and places burdens on the Unit 1 facility if the tankage is not completely available (i.e., the tanks are partially filled with Unit I contaminated water). We recommend that consideration be,
given to upgrade the suitability of the Unit 2 "A" spent fuel psol and to utilize the Unit 1 tankage only as a last resort.
If you cannot implement actions to mitigate the impact of utilization of the Unit 2 "A" spent fuel pool, you should provide in your contingency plan information concerning the water movements (including potential discharges to the river) which may be required to make the Unit I bleed tanks available.
Other connents and requests for additional information are contained in the enclosure. I would be pleased to discuss this matter with you.
Sincerely, O
deM A
Bernard J. Snyde ' Program t rector TMI Program Offi e Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information
_ 810123023 ?
p
o l
ENCLOSURE NRC STAFF COMMENTS
" CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR TRANSFER AND STORAGE OF REACTOR CONTAINMENT BUILDING SUMP WATER" General Comments:
This contingency plan does not provide a current tank status for tanks other than the RCBTs. Tha plan should provide a summary of water currently in tanks that could safely be disposed of either to the environment or other on-site tanks. No infonnation has been provided to assure that procedures exist to transfer water from the sump to tanks in Unit 1, Unit 2 or the spent fuel pool.
Procedures should be in place that would assure that safe transfers can be made to any tankage in either Unit 1 or Unit 2.
Your plan does not describe which pumps and piping systems would be used to transfer sump water.
Specific Comments:
Pace 1 - #2 Is there an emergency plan in place for transferring sump water? Does the emergency plan provide assurances that transfer pathways and equipment would be available in a timely manner in the event a transfer is required?
l Are procedures written and approved for sump water transfer?
Does an emergency procedure exist for denoting system % priority of action, and specific procedural steps for a coordinated (consolidated) approach?
~
1 Anticipated time constraints are not listed for all phases of transfer evolutions, i.e., time to empty receiving tank with time to fill from sump.
i Please provide such information.
Page 1 - #3 Identify safety related plant operations that would be affected in the event that sump water had to be transferred.' tanks in Unit 2.
Page 1 - #4 In item #1 of your conclusions you state that storage locations exist within 4
the plant to accommodate the entire quantity of sump water. We understand the word plant to mean tankage in Unit 2.
If the entire inventory of sump water were transferred to Unit 2 tanks wha + would be the remaining capacity available for flush water and inleakage?
We are assuming that this tankage to be the RCBT and the spent fuel pool.
Are procedures written and approved for the emergency transfer of sump water to the Unit 1 RCBT?
What formal constraints will be imposed on Unit 1 if water is transferred, i.e., procedure requirements?
Page 2 (middlel For the locations identified provide the current status.
In the event that transfer of sump water is required, how much time would be required to nake space available? How much reserve capacity would this plan set aside in
4
~
. Unit 2 to take care of in-leakage? At what point, and at what storage location inventory, will a decision be made to transfer water to Unit 17 Page 2 - #2 (at bottom)
Identify equipment and instrumentation in storage location cubicles that would require maintenance.
Page 3 - first full paragraph After the transfer of sump water, what is the expected volume of flush water that would be required? Where will the flush water be transferred to?
Page 3 - Item #1 In your analysis, was credit taken for additional shielding that could be placed on top of the existing shielding?
Page 3 - Item #2 To what level would airborne contamination increase as a result of storage af sump water in the Spent Fuel Pool? Identify the airborne contaminants and the possible extent of increased releases to the environment.
-w
N
?
1
?o
=
I-
.l)
Metropolitan Edison Company III Post Of fice Bom duo
. If M.dmetown. Pennsy'vania 1/09 vna,r's Di,ect Dial Nwnter November 4,1980 TLL 541 i
)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Harold R. Denton, Director U.S. Nuclear Regisl atory Commission Vashirgton, D.C. 20535
.m.,_
Daar 51rs ibidor Three Mile Isl and Nuclear Station. Unit II (TM1-2)
~
Operating License No. DPR-73 Doeke t No. 50-320 2-Contingency Plan for Transfer and Storage of Reactor Containment Building Sunp Wa ter This letter ta in response to your letter dated August 6,1980, and fulfills our commitment made to you via cur letter T1.L 416, dated August 22, 1980, supplemented by our letter TLL 550, dated October 17, 1980, to t:?
provide a contingency plan for transfer of the contaminated water presently in the reactor building containment sump.
This plan has been developed to identify existing locations that as ac cept ab l e teid er eme rg ency c ondi-tions for storage of that w ter should an emergency require' removal of the water from the reactor containcent building sump. This plan considers the use of presently installed equipment for storage and transfer.
Our conclusions are as follows:
1.
Storage locations exist within the plant tb accommodate the entire 1.-
quantity of nump water in the event of mergency conditions.
i.
2.
Transfer paths can be made available to transfer the water from the samep to a chosen storage location.
3.
Transfer of the va ter a of plant operations.
4.
Should it be necessary i overall radiological va:
Entire document previously bpacted.
entered into system under:
y fU Ano 4bli 110 3l O 7'
b
\\qU '
,t
, { '"
No. of pages:
S.
g
,.