ML18046A809

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Revised Draft Evaluation of SEP Topic V-5.Requests Response within 30 Days Re Whether as-built Facility Differs from Licensing Basis Assumed in NRC Assessment.Info Re Leakage Detection Sys Incomplete
ML18046A809
Person / Time
Site: Palisades 
Issue date: 07/16/1981
From: Crutchfield D
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Hoffman D
CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
References
TASK-05-05, TASK-5-5, TASK-RR LSO5-81-07-050, LSO5-81-7-50, NUDOCS 8107240305
Download: ML18046A809 (7)
v • d • e


Text

)

/....

~)'

--r--

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

0

~

Docket No.

50~255 LSOS07-050 WJuly 16 1981

  • ~~

. ~-:-:-*

\\}'

"\\

' /

Mr. David P. Hoffman I>'. \\}..~\\.\\) */.'0 Nuciear L 1cens1ng AdiD1n1strator

{I.~ ' ?:, \\'OS\\"' ~

Consumers Power Company

-* S'J \\,. i. 9.~..,_,..1rft't. _9J 1945 W Pa rna 11 Road

. ~

'!4lo."'~\\,,.-.~

Jackson, Michigan 49201

~/. \\)*"

r.0~

(_!O *

Dear Mr. Hoffman:

~,\\~\\°'\\.

SUBJECT:

SEP TOPIC V-5, REACTOR COOLANT PRESSURE BOUNDA~YLEE\\l\\.1<1-\\6E DETECTION - PALISADES Enclosed is a copy of our revised draft evaluation of SEP Topic V-5 for Palisades. This assessment compares.your facility, as described in Docket No. 50-255, with the criteria currently used by the regulatory staff for licensing new facilities. This revised draft evaluation facto.rs in the information contained in the March 10, 1981 letter from the NRC to you regarding this subject for both Big Rock Point and Palisades, and informa-tion ~ontained in SEP Topic V-10.A and available 10 CFR 50, Appendix I subniittals for Palisades. Please inf9rm us within 30 days whether or not your as-built facility differs from the licensing* basis assumed in our assessment *.

This evaluation will be a basic input to the integrated safety assessment for your facility unless you* ictentify changes needed to reflect the as-built conditions at your facility. This assessment may be revised in the future if your facility design is changed or if NRC criteria relating to this subject are modified before the integrated assessment is completed.

Enclosure:

SEP Topic V-5 SincereJy,

~ -~..

Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Br~nch No. 5

. Qi vis ion 9f _Li ceris_i ng

-1 l----- -1 PDR ADOCK 05000255 8107240305 810716

.L*~*I

_j cc w/enclosure:

P PDR See next page,. - --.

~;,.------~

OFFICE~. SEPB: DL SEPB: DL s

. L 0 # : DL: PM RB#5*: DL: c ff.

DL SURNAME *** °KHe'rri r;9*:ci.....

0RHe'riiia'rin.... "~iRussel'r"...... TWairib'acti'....... cr'utdit'ieT... (;.a 1rias'..........................

' BATE~ ** *7 ~"j/8'i"........ 7 / i/8i'........ *7 T. /8i"........ "ii/d j Bf...... *7 iiJ! 8i"......... 'j j'f f i8i.........................

--.................... *********************....... 1........................................................................... _

NRC f'ORM 318 llE>/891 NRCM E>24()

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY*

  • 'USGP_O: 1980-329-824

PALISADES SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM TOPIC V-5

-REACTOR COOLANT PRESSURE BOUNDARY (RCPB) LEAKAGE DETECTION I~

  • Introduction The safety obje_ctive of Topic V-5 is to determine the reliability and sensitivity of the leak detection systems which monitor the reactor coolant *pressure boundary to identify primary system leaks at early stage before failures occur.

II.

Review Criteria The acce~tance criteria for' the detection.of leakage from the reactor coolant pressure boundary is stated in the General Design Criteria of Appendix A, 10CFR Part 50.

Criterion 30, 11Quality o.f Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary, 11 requires that means shall be provided for detecting

-and, to th~ extent practical, identifying the _location of the sources of leakage in the reactor coolant pressure boundary.

ItI. Review Guidelines Th~ acceptance criteria are described in the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion Standard Review Plan Section 5.2.5, 11Reactor Coolant Pressure Baun-dary Leakage Detection.

11 The areas of. the Safety Analysis Report and Tethnical Specifications are reviewed to.establish that information sub-mitted *by the licensee is in compliance wi.th Regulatory. Gui.de 1.45, 11*React.or Co.olant Pressure'_Boundary Leakage Detection Systems.

11 IV. **Evaluation Safety Topic V-5 was evaluated in this review for compliance of the infor~

mation submitted by the licensee with Regulatory Guide 1.45, 11Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Leakage Detection Systems.

11 T.he information in the*

. -Safety Analysis Report, Technical Specifications, the March 10, 1981.

letter from the NRC to Consumers Power Co. regarding SEP Topic V-5 for

~ Btg Rock Point and Palisades, the April 21, 1979 letter from the NRC to Consumers Power Co *. regarding SEP Topic V-10.A, and the available 10

'CFR 50, Appendix I review information for Palisades was reviewed.

Reg-

. ulatory Gui de 1. 45 requires that at 1 east three separate detection systems be install~d in a nuclear power plant to detect an unidentified leakage frpm the _reac~or co9l_ant pressure boundary to the primary containment of one gallon per minute within one-hour *. leakage from identified-sources,,..

must be isolated so that the flow rates may be monitored separately from unidentified leakage.

The detection systems should be capable of per-forming th~ir functfons following certain seismic events and capable of being checked in the control room.

Of the three separate leak detection

-m-ethods -required, two--of the methods shoufd-be-(n sump -level -and flow monitoring and (2) airborne particulate radioactivity monitoring.

The third method may be either monitoring of condensate flow rate from air coolers or monitoring of airborne gaseous radioactivity. Other detection methods, such as humidity, temperature and pressure, should be considered

.to be alarms of indirect indlcation of leakage to the containment.

In addition, provisions should be made to monitor systems interfacing with the reactor cool ant pressure boundary for signs of i ntersystem leakage through methods such as radioactivity and water level or flow monitors.

Plant incorporated systems and their corresponoing features are tabulated in Enclosure 1.

Detailed guidance for the leakage detectiOn system is contained in Regulatory Guide 1.45.

Based upon our review of the referenced documents and the sµmmaries presented in Enclosure 1, we have determined:

.**;)

The systems employed for the detection -of leakage from the reactor coolant pressure boundary to the containment do not meet the require-ments of Regulatory Guide 1.45. Specifically, the airborne particulate radioactivity monitor required by the Guide is not present.

The sensitivity of the sump level monitor is far from that indicated in Regulatory Guide 1.45 *.. In addition, the sensitivity of. the gaseous radiation is adequate at.1% failed fuel, but it is not cl~ar that thi~ is the case at lower amounts of failed fuel. There is insuffici~nt information to determine the extent to which other.

Gu i*de requirements are met *

. 2*). Provisions are made to monitor reactor coolant in-leakage to those systems l_isted in Table 2 of Enclosure 1.

However, from the review of the referenced information it is not clear that thts table includes all systems.whfch interface wi.th th*e reactor coolant pressure bounda*ry.

In addition, information concerning the leak detettion.methods; similar to that given for the detection systems in Table l* of Enclosure 1, is incomplete for those in Table 2.

3). Palisades FSAR Amendment 15 (Question 4.3) indicates that CVCS Makeup Flowrate is included as a Plant.Incorporated System for leak detection-, -

however, information regarding this method is not given such that Table 3 of Enclosure 1 is incomplete.

4)

The Palisades Technical Specifica~ions do not impose requirements concerning the opera bi 1 i ty of the leakage detection systems. to

_ :_ monitor 1 eakage_ to _th_e primary contai mnent_, a_? _J:_~g_1,.1irgcj_' by_ Reg_t!l~t()ry _________ ----~-

Gui de 1~45.

- v *.. Conclusions

1)

The leakage detection systems incorporated for measurement of leakage from the reactor coolant pressure boundary to the contain-ment are not in conformance with Regulatory Guide 1.45 criteria.

  • The necessity for any modifications will be determined during the integrated safety assessment.
2)

A section should be added to the Palisades Technical Specifica-tions concerning operability of the reactor coolant pressure boundary to* the containment leakage detection systems. Standard Technical Specification 3/4.4.6 and the corresponding surveillance requirements should be used as guidance for the development of this section for the leakage detection systems relied upon as a result of the integrated safety assessment.

3).Information concerning the leakage detection systems for the detection of inter-system reactor coolant pressure boundary leakage and the eves Makeup Flowrate is incomplete. Therefore, we C!lnnot determine the extent to which Regulatory Guide *1.4*5 is met.

The n~cessity for any modifications in this area will be considered during the integrated safety assessment.

.I REACTOR COOLANT PRESSURE BOUNDARY LEAKAGE DETECTION SYSTEMS Regulatory Guide.1.45 Requirements *

.Table 1:

Plant:

Palisades RCPB to Containment Time Req'd Earthquake For Control Room*

Document-Testable Leak Rate to Achieve Which*Function Indication For ation Ref-During N*lr-System Incorporated Sensitivity Sensitivity Is Assured Alarms &*Indicators erence ma 1 Oper.1 ti on

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

. 7)

8)
9)
10)
11)
32)

Sump Level Mon.i tor~ng (Inventory)

Yes

. *25 gpm l hr.

Yes FSAR Amend.

15.., Question Sump Pump*Actuations Monitoring (Time Meters)

Airborne Particulate Radioactivity Monitoring FSAR Amend.

Airborne Gaseous Yes

    • .03 gpm
    • 45 min.

15, Question Radioactivity Monitoring 4.3 Condensated Flow Rate from Air Coolers Containment Atmosphere Pressure Monitor1nq

!":SAK Amend.

Containment Atmosphere Yes

  • 2.5 gpm

. l hr.

15, Question Humidity Monitorinq 4.3 Containment Atmosphere Temperature Monitoring Accoust1c Enrissions Moisture Sensitive Tape Reactor Vessel Flange Pressure FSAR Amend.

and Drain Tank *Level.Detectors

    • Yes Yes 15, Quest ion Safety Valve and PORV Seat Leakage FSAR Amend.

via Temperature Monitors Yes 15, Question

  • ~~~~~s~p9nci~~Y~aigg 1 tRr.ta~~~od~akage stated in the referenced documentation by 60 min. to derive the constant rate
    • Minimum sensitivity and time based upon an assumption of 1% failed fuel.

l'

! I" I: I

I 1 n ;

'. I. ::

I

  • ~.
I

.* i\\} ;,1

.
' ?:i:

~

  • 1

.; 'I: i!* :

~

f I. 1 11

~

I.r i t : Ii t*

~

I '* '. ~. *'

,**JI

.* I :

I" i.

In-ter;ystem Leakage Systems' Which Interface w/ RCPB l) Secondary' System

2) Secondary System
3) Component Cooling Water System
4) Component Cooling Water System
5) Contro*1 Rod Drive Mechanisms
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)

REACTOR COOLANT PRESSU~E oourmMY LEAKAGE DETECTION SYSTEMS Regulatory Guide 1.45 Requirements Plant: Palisades Methods to T1me Req d l:.a rthqua ke For Control Room Measure RCPB Leak Rate to Achieve Which*Function Indication For In-Leakage Sensitivity Sensitivity Is Assured Al arms &"I ndi ca tors Air Ejector Rad. Monitor

< 5 gpm Yes Blowdown Rad.

Monitor

< 5 gpm Yes Rad. Monitor Yes Surge Tank Level Seal Leak-off Line Thermocou1 le Yes Document-Testable ation Ref-During Nor-erence mal Opcrat_~

SAR Amend.

5, Question.

SAR Amend.

5, Question 3

g/6/70 AEC SE ect. 3.10, a1 d 1121179 NRC L r.

o CPCo re: S P Topic. V-10: A.

  • /21/79 NRC L1 r.

o CPCo re: *SIP op1c V-10.A I SAR Amend.

5, Question

',j

.Table 3:

RCS Inventory Ba~ance Leak Rate Sensitivity Correspondina Time Require to Achieve S1~nsitivity

  • Nonna 1
  • 1 n\\"entory Check.

<l REACTOR COOLANT PRESSURE BOUNDARY LEAKAGE DETECTION SYSTEMS Regulatory Guide 1.45 Requirements Pl t

Palisades an =~~~~~~~~~-

gpm Instrumentation Required with Corresponding Location:

EarthquakE* F()r Which Instrumentation Hardware Functioning ls Assured:

Testable During Nonnal Operation:

Documentation

Reference:

FSAR Amend. 15, Question 4.3

..

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML18046A809&oldid=5024461"