ML18047A538
| ML18047A538 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 08/24/1982 |
| From: | Johnson B CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8208270234 | |
| Download: ML18047A538 (5) | |
Text
!JMCrutchfield, Chief Palisades Plant CONTAINMENT PURGING AND VENTING August 24, 1982
- 2.
Make available the purging and venting modification acceptance tests.
Response
The acceptance test results are available at the Palisades Plant to the IE Inspector.
- 3.
How is the purging and venting system addressed in Palisades Technical Specifications sections 3 and 4?
Response
Currently, the Technical Specification requirements for operability and surveillance relate to the containment integrity aspects of the system.
Specifications to limit the use of the system will not be proposed unless the results of addressing the long-term issue indicates a need for such spec.ifications.
The schedule for addressing the long-term issue identified in NRC letter dated November 29, 1978 is as follows:
2 Currently, Consumers Power Company is working on our evaluation to justify unlimited use of the containment vent and purge system.
The anticipated completion for this study is December 31, 1982.
Upon completion, a submittal will be made addressing the identified long-term issues.
Brian D Johnson Staff Licensing Engineer CC Administrator, Region III, USNRC_
NRC Resident Inspector - Palisades 8208270234 820824 PDR ADOCK 05000255 P
consumers Power company General Offices: 1945 West Parnall Road,.Jackson, Ml 49201 o (517) 788-0550 August 24, 1982 Dennis M Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No 5 Nuclear Reactor Regulation US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 DOCKET 50-255 -
LICENSE DPR PALISADES PLANT -
CONTAINMENT PURGING AND VENTING NRC letter dated 10/23/79 and entitled "Containment Purging and Venting During Normal Operation" identified the interim position for Containment Purge and Vent Valve Operation Pending Resolution of Isolation Valve Operability.
Consumers Power Company replied to the NRC staff position by stating in our submittal dated 11/27 /79 (same subject} that the containment purge a.nd vent valves would be opened only with the Palisades Plant in cold or refueling shutdown and that future operation of the valves would be allowed only when the staff interim position has been satisfied.
NRC letter dated 10/8/80 accepted Consumers Power qommitment on this issue.
During the 1981 refueling outage at Palisades, modifications were made to upgrade the containment vent and purge system.
The 48-inch supply penetration was totally eliminated, the 48-inch exhaust penetration was replaced with two 8-inch penetrations each having two automatic isolation valves and both valves in the 12-inch supply penetration were replaced.
Discussions with the NRC regarding the approval to operate this modified purge system resulted in verbal approval to use the system provided the interim position for containment purge and vent valve operation was met and the schedule for addressing the long-term issue of containme.nt purge identified in NRC letter d&ted November 29, 1978 was provided.
The ability to meet the interim position is demonstrated by response to the following three items:
- 1.
Provide the summary and conclusion of 10 CFR 50.59 review on the containment purging and venting modification.
Response
The safety evaluation is attached which takes into account ability to close against accident pressure of 55 psig and seismic requirements.
~.
SAFETY EVALUATION t'lant Pal; sades TITLE:
FC-510-5 TMI-11 Redesjgn Containment Purge r_*:::_~t---------
REASON FOR EVALUATION:.......,A.... d....
m..._1..... n..._....
R,..e'""iq,...11... j...,r..,.e...
m..,e..,p....,t __________________________ _
- 1.
ANNUAL REPORT
- 1. Must a summary of the change and evaluation be included in the Annual Report?
If the item or activity (test, experiment, procedure) to l:>e changed is described in the FSAR/FHSR, then the answer is Yes.
- 2. List the affected section(s) of the FSAR/FHSR.
Section 5 Para 5.1.5.3, Section 9 Para 9.8.2.4 (O) & (P)
!L.
0-LIST
- 1. Is any film. on the Q-List affected by the change?
- 2. List the affected item(s).
Containment Penetration 1 and 4 I UN REVIEWED SAFETY QUESTION J. If the answer to both I and 11 is No, then this section is not required.
- 2. Is this an unreviewed (by N RC) safety question?
An item is an unreviewed safety question if the answer to either A, B, or C below is Yes.
r.. 'ER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS AND PROVIDE SPECIFIC JUSTIFICATION. (USE ATTACHMENT IF NECESSARY.)
\\.__<:.. :. Is the probability of occu.rrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the Safety Analysis Report increased? Yes__
No....x._, Because:
48 in ducts are being. replaced with 2, 8" lines which will be grouted.
CV-1813 and 1814 are redesianed to close against containment pressure of 55 lbs.
This system will be designed to meet plant seismic requirements.
System will not degrade containment integrity.
- 8.
Is the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the SafetY Analysis Report created? Yes__
No_..x._, Because:
... *.. ' C
.*-i
- c.
Is the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification reduced? Yes __
Penetration will be pressure.tested and R032 will be run as required.
be egual to or less than specified in Section 4.5.2 of Tech Specs.
- ,.J. ******
Leakage will :
. };'**.
:*<<;{
. :-,.. ~:*:
IV.
1-
'._I __ T... E.... c.... H... N.-l=C-.A;.;;:L;...;:S:;.;.P..;;;:Eo;:;C..;..;I F.... l""'C"-'A __
T..;..;I O=-N __ s __ ___,.1- "
- 1. Does the change, test, or experiment involve a change in the Technical Specifications?
- 2. List the affected sections of the Technical Specifications.
Y..
PRIOR"NRC APPROVAL
- 1. Is prior N RC approval required?
Prior N RC approval is required if the answer to 111 or IV is Yes.
Reviewed by oa.)/\\ t ~
~*
I efa.~6i Date I
B.
Is the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the Safety Analysis
- c. -
Report created? Yes__
No_x_, Because:
___ s_e_e_A_a_h_a_v_e---------------------------------------C
..... * :..:?
.. J..
Is the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification reduced? Yes __ _
No_.x_, Because:
i'*:** **:-.: :'.*.
Penetration will be pressure tested and R032 will be run as required.
be egual to or less than specified in Section 4.5.2 of Tech Specs.
- ~.
. I : TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS. I Leakage will *
- 1. Does the change, test, or experiment involve a change in the Technical Specifications?
- 2. List the affected sections of the Technical Specifications.
Y..:.
PRIOR,.NRC APPROVAL
- 1. Is prior N RC approval required?
Prior N RC approval is required if the answer to 111 or IV is Yes.
Reviewed by 0 {1_.Jr., ~
~*
1 Vcr~Ji Date I
.*r-:..,,_ f* * *-
.,........ -.. ~..
. -.. **--~.....
- ..... :~. '
. **., r*,.. - - ** * * **.. :;.;:,;,
.;.;:.'-~4~:' /i