ML19347A843
| ML19347A843 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1980 |
| From: | Hovey G METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| To: | Jay Collins Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TLL-437, NUDOCS 8009300389 | |
| Download: ML19347A843 (4) | |
Text
.
a.
e.$
v
.,W e u - e M : 7 Metropolitan Ednon Cornpany I
L 13-A I_w - w) l y
6 J" Post Office Box 480 Piddletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Writer's O. rect Dial Number September 1980 TLL 437 TMI Program Office Attn:
Mr. John T. Collins, Deputy Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission c/o Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station Middletowr., Pennsylvania 17057
Dear Sir:
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (TMI-2)
Operating License No. DPR-73 Docket No. 50-320 MDHR System Operatican Our recent submittal to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission concerning the Technical Specifications and Recovery Operations Plan Change Requests for the MDHR System identifies the FOHR System as the primary method of decay heat removal. This letter is submitted to provide clarification of and our inter-pretation concerning the definition of " primary method of decay heat removal" and to provide insight concerning our intended method of decay heat removal.
Our submittals concerning the MDHR System identify thrae (3) diverse methods of decay heat removal. They are:
1)
MDHR System 2)
Heat loss to Ambier.t 3)
LTB Cooling System Of these three decay heat removal methods, the FOHR System and heat loss to ambient represent the more desireable alternatives.
Our intent is to use the cooling mode which provides assured decay heat removal and which, concurrently, addresses a number of balance-of-plant considerations, such as preferred heat sink, impact on cleanup activities, and influence on wacer processing.
Ad-dressing these concerns may cause us to use one or the other of these two (2) cooling modes.
This operational, methodology will permit maintenance of the reactor in a safe shutdown condition and may minimize reliance on the performance of =echanical components in the >OHR System.
Said succintly, we view MDER as a " primary method of decay heat removal" and will be prepared to use the SOHR System. However, we may choose to use a different cooling scheme without employing the MDHR System.
Identification of the MDHR System as the " primary heat removal mode" does not necessitate its use.
Furthermore, we anticipate actual decay heat removal from the RCS to occur as
{}
a result of loss to ambient. For conditiens that require lower RCS tempera-t tures, or when forced cooling flow through the RCS is desired, we will use the MDHR System. We do not intend that any one decay heat removal method be employed exclusively, but that all methods be used as necessary to optimize 80093o o M O
li"S'
TMI-2 BCC List Mr. E. L. Blaka, Jr.
- Mr. Bill Lavallee Shaw, Pittman, Potts, & Trowbridge Nuclear Safety Analysis Center 1800 M Street, N.W.
P.O. Box 10412 Washington, D.C.
20036 Palo Alto, California 94303 Mr. A. S. Dam Dr. Steven Long, Director Burns and Roe, Inc.
Power Plant Siting Program 650 Winters Avenue Department of Natural Resources Parmus, New Jersey 07652 Tawes State Office, Building B-3 580 Taylor Avenue Mr. T. F. Hartley, Jr.
Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Marsh and McLennan, Inc.
1221 Avenue of the Americas Ms. Margaret Reilly New York, New York 10020 Chief Division of Reactor Review PA Department of Environmental Resources Mrs. Pat Higgins Fulton National Dar.h Building Edison Electric Institute Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 1111 19th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Mr. R. Sanacore i
American Nuclear Insurers Mr. George Kulynych The Exchange - Suite '45 Babcock and Wilcox, Inc.
270 Farmington Avenue P.O. Box 1260 Farmington, Connecticut 06032 Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission c/o Document Management Branch G. K. Hovey, Trailer 105 Washington, D.C.
20555 P. R. Clark, GPUSC Parsippany R. Fenti, Trailer 22 - QA W. F. Schmauss, U-2,GRC Chm., Parsippany J. J. Barton, Trailer 102 A. S. Bell, TMI GORB Sec., Parsippany L. W. Harding, Trailer 68 M. A. Nelson, TMI-1 PORC Chm., Trailer 60 R. M. Klingaman, Met-Ed, Reading M. A. Shatto, U-1 PORC Se., TMI-1 N. Kazanas, Parsippany, QA G. A. Kunder, U-2 PORC Chm... Trailer 104 J. F. Wilson, Trailer 14 D. C. Carl, U-2 PORC Sec., Trailer 104
)
J. G. Herbein, Trailer 119 B. A. Hockley, niacovery Room, Crawford Sta B. Ballard, Trailer 16 J. Theising, Becthel, Administration Bldg.
G. P. Miller, TMI-1 R. L. Rider, Bechtel, Trailer 173 R. C. Arnold, Trailer 201 & Parsippany D. Smith, Production Supervision, Reading D. G. Mitchell, Trailer 68 P. S. Walsh, GPU Parsippany S. D. Chaplin, Trailer 120 D. Buchan, Trailer 24 R. A. Knief, Trailer 118 B. D. Elam, Trailcr 104 J. C. DeVine. Trailer 110 J. J. Chwastyk, TMI-2 Operations R. W. Heward, Parsippany G. J. Trof f er, Trailer 198 W. N. Moreau, Trailer 109 G. Mencinsky, Parsippany J. T. Collins, NRC Trailer 1 J. Brasher, Trailer 180 E. G. Wallace, Parsippany Licensing File (6)
L. Smith, Parsippany DDCC File: 02.0016.0001.0001.02
- LER's only (34 !
-~--
e
~
' John 7. col; lna*. e
...ILL 437 The Recovery 0.erations Plan Change Request that'has been issuedsidentifies
~
7 the performance of >DHR System surveillance testing as follows:
1.
Verification that the. operating MDHR pump will provide ade,quate flow to permit the removal of decay. heat.
2.
Verifica* tion that the operating MDHR heat exchanger will adequately provide the necessary heat transfer for the removal of decay heat.
During the development of the logic for the surveiIlance requirements speci-fled in our submittal, it is recognized that:
1.
The MDHR System is not absolutely essential for the removal of decay heat; heat loss to ambient, LTC "B",
steaming OTSG A to the condenser, are viable modes of core cooling.
2.
The MDHR System contains redundant components; it does not have separate, redundant flow loops.
3.
The MDHR System is not a safety-related system as is, for example, the Decay Heat System.
4.
The requirement to maintain, and subsequently verify operability of, the idle MDHR System components in a completely ready state for MDHR System service, in our opinion, does not exist.
In view of the above, it is requested that the MDHR System surveillance requirements not be issued to reflect required functional performance testing of the idle MDHR pump and heat exchanger every 31 days.
Discussion with Mr. Don Brinkman of the NRC Staff, has indicated that it is the intention of the Commission to require the performance of a functional test by running the idle pump.
Our intent is to perform functional testing of the
.MDHR System components prior to placing them in service to verify operability.
After the System is placed in service it is intended that surveillance requirements be imposed only on the operating pump and heat exchanger in the System. These surveillance requirements would provide the following benefits:
1.
Verify that the operating pump is providing the necessary core flowrate for the removal of decay heat from the reactor.
2.
Verify that the operating heat exchanger is providing adequate heat removal capacity.
3.
Ensure that pump seal integrity of the idle pump is not degraded due to the performance of testing.
(Starting and stopping the idle pump to perform surveillance tests to confirm operability may be del.3terious to the integrity of the pump seals).
It is requested, therefore, that the >DHR System Recovery Operations Plan Change Request be approved as written.
The performance of unnecessary sur-veillance testing of the idle pump is neither required from a heat generation standpoint, nor technically justified.
4 4
J4hn ~I,. Col l i n s
" H.'y 437 s-e We would be pleased to discuss this important matter with you at your con-venience..
l Sincerely.
j 1
l
/s/ G. K. Hovey G. K. Hovey Director, TMI-2 GKH:LJL: dad 4
cc:
Bernard J. Snyder I
a i
k 4
i
)
4 h
I e
n, s,~>.w, e ~.,,. - - -,,
,. -.