ML20039G416

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Advises That Util 811023 & 1102 Response to NRC Re Pressurized Thermal Shock Reviewed.Request for Addl Info Encl.Info to Be Submitted w/150-day Response
ML20039G416
Person / Time
Site: Crane 
Issue date: 12/18/1981
From: Novak T
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Hukill H
METROPOLITAN EDISON CO.
References
NUDOCS 8201180193
Download: ML20039G416 (8)
v • d • e


Text

i s.

_9 OECEMER ' B 1981 e

o A

DISTRIBUTION:

L PDR ORB #4 Rdg GVissing n

6 Docket File TERA DEisenhut RINijNM EHylton 6 4 k,,

e NRC PDR NSIC OELD Gray File OgO

%' {[

Docket flo. 50-289 AE0D SHanauer c.,

p IE-3 TNovak M

f ACRS-10 EBlackwood

'1 gi9

/

s

. ^

l'r. Henry D. Hukill RJacobs H0rnstein Vice President and Director - Tril-1 TliI Site Pouch 6

,?

fietropolitan Edison Cocoany HSilver N /7Tp, ^

P. O. Box 480 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057

Dear !!r. Hukill:

lie have reviewed yo'ir "60 day" response dated October 23 and flovember 2 1901, to our letter dated August 21, 1981, concerning Pressurized Themal i

Shock (PTS). Enclosure I to this letter identifies additional information needed as a result of our review of your response. We request that the additional information identified in Enclosure 1 be provided with your "150-day" response to our August 21 letter.

In addition, we have been assessing what infomation will be provided in the "150-day" responses due in January 1982 and the infomation expected to be supplied from the PUR Owners' Group. Since the staff is committed to provide its recorrendations for further actions regarding PTS to the Commission in the Spring of 1982, it is important that your "150-day" response to our August 21 letter provide two significant pieces of informa-tion. First, you must provide your basis for continued operation, Dending completion of any longer tem studies. We enphasize that continued opera-tion of your facility, without any irr:ediate modifications to your facility or its operation, will be dependent upon our evaluation of your response.

Secondly, your response should fully address the information addressed in.

We have prepared Enclosure 2 to provide amplification to the "150-day" infomation request of the August 21, 1981 letter.

The additional infomation requested by the letter should be provided in accordance with 10 CFP. 50.54(f) of the Connission's regulations.

The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements of this letter affect fewer than ten resoondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.

Sincerely, I s%ned W

{

8201100193 811218 DR ADOCK 05000 Thomas fl. Novak, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors Division of Licensing l

Enclosures:

I 1.

Evaluation of the "60-day" ORB #4:DL Response to 8/21/81 Ltr.

  • see previous 318 for corcurrepce GVissing*

c.

~ri:

i - un u.

1 w-my ORB #4:DL C-0RB#4:DL D B..

DL omen >...... ~..M.mS 3..!.c..n12.1]E. llc... -.--

RJacobs*

JStolz*

aa e

T.

a cuamin) r-l 2,/,1]/,8,1,,,,,12L],648,],,,

,J@g/,8,,,1,,, 12//,L81,,,,,,,

ute >

e unc rORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 024o OFFIClAL RECORD COPY usam mi-meeo

~,

. )

(3) Your assessnent of the sensitivity of your analyses to uncertainties in input values, such as initial crack size, copper content. fluence, and inital reference tenperature at welds.

(4) A list of asstoptions relied upon in reaching your conclusions.

a.

If this list includes " credit" for operator actions, describe the basic instructions given the operators (for exanple, if a "sub-cooling" band is used, describe it). Submit the procedures the operator will follow, and describe the training beine, given to i

establish operator readiness to cope with PTS events.

b.

If the list includes credit for the effects of warn prestressing for some event sequench, include your justification and analyses st.owing that such events will follow a pressure-tenperature path-way for which warn pre-stress is effective.

The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements of this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.

Sincerely, 4

l Thonias M. !!ovak, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors Division of Licensing Enciosure:

Evaluation of 60 Dar Pesponse to 8/21/81 tmC ltr. on PTS &

Request for Additional Infomation l

cc w/ enclosure:

See next page 4

I i

I

(

OR d

C 0RB 4:

omce >

U.L

(....D..L

.. D..S.T............

.. - AD..:0..R :DL..

0 B 14 :D..L...

...g

.. -. ~.

(

$URNSMEh M

s h.f..

,,...%.h.h.

...bballE1NI...

Ilo.Valo....

n

.~--o..

.--o.

.o

-. -.. - -.. ~ ~.

.~~ ~~.~. ----

.... 7.

.. bl 12/ '../81

.....//.../. 81.....

12

....../....../. 81 12

...... /.... /.81 12 12 nne rosu sta nomocu oao OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usam mwmeo

[f

?g UNITED STATES

+

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

%,4.,,,,l December 18, 1981 Docket No. 50-289 Mr. Henry D. Hukill Vice President and Director - TMI-1 Metropolitan Edison Company P. O. Box 480 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057

Dear Mr. Hukill:

We have reviewed your "60 day" response dated October 23 and November 2 1981, to our letter dated August 21, 1981, concerning Pressurized Themal Shock (PTS). Enclosure 1 to this letter identifies additional infomation needed as a result of our review of your response. We request that the additional information identified in Enclosure 1 be provided with your "150-day" response to our August 21 letter.

In addition, we have been assessing what infomation will be provided in the "150-day" responses due in January 1982 and the infomation expected ta be supplied from the PWR Owners' Group. Since the staff is committed to provide its recommendations for further actions regarding PTS to the Commission in the Spring of 1982, it is important that your "150-day" response to our August 21 letter provide two significant pieces of informa-tion. First, you must provide your basis for continued operation, pending completion of any longer term studies. We emphasize that continued opera-tion of your facility, without any immediate modifications to your facility or its operation, will be dependent upon our evaluation of your response.

Secondly, your response should fully address the infomation addressed in.

We have prepared Enclosure 2 to provide amplification to the "150-day" infomation request of the August 21, 1981 letter.

The additional information requested by the letter should be provided in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(f) of the Commission's regulations.

The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements of this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.

Sincerely, Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors Division of Licensing l

Enclosures, l

1.

Evaluation of the "60-day" Response to 8/21/81 Ltr.

2.

Amplification of "150-day" l

Requests to 8/21/81 Ltr.

cc w/ enclosures:

see next page

Metropolitan Edison Company cc w/ enclosure (s):

Mr. Marvin I. Lewis Dr. Walter H. Jordan 6504 Bradford Terrace 881 W. Outer Drive Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 Cak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Walter W. Cohen, Consumer Advocate Dr. Linda W. Little Depar'tment of Justice 5000l Hermitage Drive Strawberry Square, 14th Floor Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127 Ms. Gail P. Bradford Mr. R. J. Toole Anti-Nuclear Group Representing Manager, TMI-1 York

!!etropolitan Edison Company 245 W. Philadelphia Street P. O. Box 480 York, Pennsylvania 17404 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 John Levin, Esq.

Pennsylvania Public Utilities Comm.

John E. Minnich, Chairman Box 3265 Dauphin Co. Board of Commissioners Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Dauphin County Courthouse Front and Market Streets Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq.

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 Fox, Farr and Cunningham 2320 North 2nd Street

  • Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Hs, Louise Bradford TMIA

  • Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 1011 Green Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102 Washington, D. C.

20555 Ms. Marjorie M. Aamodt

  • Docketing and Service Section R.D. #5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 Washington, D. C.

20555 Mr. Richard Roberts Robert Q. Pollard The Patriot 609 Montpelier Street 812 Market Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 Chauncey Kepford Earl 'B. Hoffman Judith H. Johnsrud Dauphin County Commissioner Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power Dauphin County Courthouse 433 Orlando Avenue Front and Market Streets State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101

)

l Ms. Ellen R. Weiss, Esq.

Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss 1725 I Street, N.W.

Suite 506 Washington, D. C.

20006 J. B. Lieberman, Esq.

Mr. Steven C. Sholly Berlock Israel & Liberman linion of Concerned Scientists 26 Broadway 1725 I Street, N. W., Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Wa:hington, DC 20006

Metropolitan Edison Company General Ccunsel Federal Emergency Managem:nt Agency Mr. Thomas Gerusky ATTN:

Docket Clerk Bureau of Radiation Protection 1725 I Street, NW Department of Environmental Resources Washington, DC 20472 P. O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Karin W. Carter, Esq.

505 Executive House P

ttt1hollin jffe rris es or et rg nnsylvania 17120

)

Madison, Wisconsin 53711 York College of Pennsylvania Country Club Road York, Pennsylvania 17405 G. F. Trowbridge, Esq.

Dauphin County Office Emergency Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Preparedness 1800 M Street, N.W.

Court House, Room 7 Washington, D. C.

20036 Front & Market Streets Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 Mr. E. G. Wallace Licensing Manager Department of Environmental Resources GPU Service Corporation ATTN: Director, Office of Radiological 100 Interpace Parkway Health Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 P. O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 William S. Jordan, III, Esq.

Ms. Lennie Prough Harmon & Weiss U. S. N. R. C. - TMI Site 1725 I Street, Hh!, Suite 506 P. O. Box 311 Washington, DC 20006 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Ms. Virginia Southard, Chairman Citizens for a Safe Environment 264 Walton Street Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043 Mr. Robert B. Borsum Babcock & Wilcox Government Publications Section Nuclear Power Generation Division State Library of Pennsylvania Suite 220, 7910 Woodmont Avenue Box 1601 (Educaticn Building)

Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17126

  • Ivan W. Smith, Esq.

Mr. David D. Maxwell, Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Board of Supervisors U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Londonderry Township Washi.ngton, D. C.

20555 RFD#1 - Geyers Church Raod Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Mr. C. W. Smyth Supervisor of Licensing Ti1I-l Metropolitan Edison Company Regional Radhtion Representative P. 0.* Box 480 EPA Region III Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Curtis Building (Sixth Floor)

J 6th and Walnut Streets cc w/ enclosure (s) & incoming dtd.:

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 Mr. Donald R. Haverkamp Governor's Office of State Planning Senior Resident Inspector (TMI-1) and Development j

U.S.N.R.C.

ATTN: Coordinator, Pennsylvania l

P. O. Box 311 State Clearinghouse l

Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 P. O. Box 1323 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 i

p

-l l

_cl ENCLOSURE (1)

EVALUATION OF THE METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY 60 DAY

~

RESPONSE TO THE NRC LETTER DATED AUGUST 21, 1981 CONCERflING PRESSURIZED THERMAL SH0CK (PTS) AND REQUEST FOR ADDITION THREE MILE ISLAflD NUCLEAR STATION

(!

e UNIT NO. 1

., y t

n 50-289 YM N

Q

- s 1.

RT ilDT We have reviewed your letter dated October 23, 1981, and accept your values i

of initial RTriDT, current RTilDT, and current fluence which were provided for.

f the Till-l vessel.

x

.~

s s

+

2.

Rate of Increase of RTNDT l

You have provided rates of increase in fluence per EFPY for your reactor s

~

vessel. We accept these values. However, please provide the rate of in-crease of fluence at the critical longitudinal weld location taking into consideration any contemplated changes in core configuration.

3. & 4.

MiDT Limit and Basis for the Limit Since the "60 day" response stated that you do not consider a limit on RTNDT (x

to be an appropriate basis for continued operation, the staff needs to develop a quantative criterion for continued operation that, if implemented, would assure maintenance of an acceptable low risk of vessel failure from PTS event

~

for the near-term, pending longer term results of more detailed analysis or research. We will be developing this criterion considering recommendations that you may provide in your "150 day" response.

5.

Operator Actions We are aware through the TMI-l restart hearing proceed of the emphasis i

placed on the overall concern of PTS at THI-1. We are aware that this x

l issue is addressed in procedures, training and management involvement and that operators are sensitive to the thermal shock considerations. However, u

~

~

1

- w,y.

. e

_ _w_

.. _4 f;

,y

.n,i mM

4. u %

gg, q 1 -~

A,.

- s,

w

,Y

&~%

>w

,, A'..

m,,

Ny

.y N y

,v 4,

%w. _c,. w

. sT

., - s

.a q.

w.

.-a, %:, f,

s m

[..

i 9e.cynnot 4terbine,.from'~your "60 day" response the degree of emphasis which f

s.

N g*

e O{.

k 44" isfcurN6I ['placed'on the issue in training and, management involvement.

bl m [s ^

.._,y w

  • I qq

..V 3

e

!.y cy; pgJ%.bist th.hh. ou p, xpand kouY r.e,sponse to. provide us a more detailed dis-j'"

^

  1. . eq 3,-.,,.

m e.~

~,u n.s~ s.

m

!,-Ic,* _ c'E;sion~6fcghatsste[s have be'6n'tak'en to ensure that your operators have a

/r w O g

x i

s b d,., firm 9 rasp of 4.h.is ' issue and can be.expe~cted to cope with the events which s,

,b 34 x

.v

'*-Fserve to initiat,e PTc N

9

, m s

s.

s 1

h *'%e Q

.2;.-*!.

s a

\\

s

.b./ i

.s

-~%

Q e

s a

\\

T c=

i 2

, 'M

(

c.? [

N

(

J-

,,.n

, s3 c.

p a

s, g

M h-4'

.- \\

e

,n, $,. m

(-

~._

e

-f -(* '

V

_v+

e-r

.p....

i y~.,

~"

.p

.h

,,e 4

Qgwl,-

T

.\\

ys

\\

a

+

t W

s'

= \\,,

1((

i es%

' ]a

.,M *

'N N-

.) w-

)

' v.

4

  • 5

+

w.

_. ~ w m,

w s.

\\*

s s, f

i

=*-

'~

    • v g

J

]

.L w% \\s "

Og*

%=**

b'> gg r,,e<

g Ss e

- p

't s

s [

b

(.

O M

as.

j; s. '=..

g r

.N v

p m, i

1 g%,

h

.c w,5

\\

- g f

t (Ns s

t N

\\

\\

4,..

'A c O g

'3 g '

I b

%n

(

j j,'

.e kt

~~

  • N.

g 9

6

-m

")

. 1 '

', ~.

=.s y'

., e i

$=

i i

C' g

?'^ %.3 w

~

A n.

~-

e e i

f 1

4

,/,

x w

n<

'b T

sa % Q

+ L %Q*

\\,,

4 5

T %

J's 4

{. s

+g

~

i g

=

y m---

N 1

g %

- C

(

t N

v f

. N 4

~

r t-i

. th.s

~

s ~

x

,1 n

w y

e' ->

f

-[', a

~

t

."'A 4

h g#

\\

y*,

g

=

s g

h

'q jf.,

e

,+.?-

-. - - - - *, - - - ~ *

- ~'

' ~

~ ' ' ~

piCf.0SURE(2)

AMPLIFICATION OF THE "150-DAY" REQUEST TO THE AUGUST 21, 1981 LETTER (1)

Identification of the PTS events that were considered in reaching your conclusions, and a justification for PTS events that you did not consider. You should include a quantitative assessment of the probability of occurrence of the various PTS events considered and not considered and an accompanying assessment of the likelihood of vessel failure vs. EFPY for the events. The manner in which you considered multiple failures of systems, components, and those resulting from operator actions should be described in detail.

(2)

A description of the steps, if any, you are taking now or plan to take in the near future to delay the rate of further embrittlement of your vessel, and your assessment of the effectiveness of those steps.

(3)

Your assessment of the sensitivity of your analyses to uncertainties in input values, such as initial crack size, copper ccatent, fluence, and initial reference ten.perature at welds,

1 (4)

A list of assumptions relied upon in reaching your conclusions.

a.

If this list includes " credit" for operator actions, describe the basic instructions given the operators (for example, if a "sub-cooling" band is used, describe it). Submit the procedures the operatorJtill follow, and describe the training being given to establish operator readiness to cope with PTS events.

b.

If the list includes credit for the effects of warm prestressing for some event sequences, include your justification and analyses showing that such events will follow a pressure-temperature pathway for which warm pre-stress is effective.

l' f

9

-

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20039G416&oldid=4559304"