ML19262B095
| ML19262B095 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 11/02/1979 |
| From: | Lainas G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912110577 | |
| Download: ML19262B095 (4) | |
Text
l
- g E2 20
~
ps anag(0, a-Q fi UNITED STATES y g 3 4,
-',g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c
wAsm NGTON, D. C. 20555 t
i
'%l.],..#
NOV 2 1979 MEMORANDUM FOR:
A. Schwencer, Chief, Operating Reactors Branch #1, D0R FROM:
G. Lainas, Chief, Plant Systems Branch
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - CONTAINMENT PURGE SYSTEM - JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 1 (TAC 10166)
REFERENCES:
1.
Letter to A. Schwencer from F.L. Claytu.
Jr.,
"Ccntainment Purging During Normal Plant Operation," dated January 9,1979.
2.
Letter to A. Schwencer from F.L. Clayton, Jr.,
" Containment Purging During Nonnal Plant Operation," dated January 10, 1979.
3.
Letter to A. Schwencer from F.L. Clayton, Jr.,
" Containment Purging During Nomal Plant Operation," dated February 5,1979.
4 Letter to A. Schwencer from F.L. Clayton, Jr.,
" Changes to Operating License No. NPF-2 Technical Specifications," dated June 20,1979.
5.
Letter to A. Schwencer from F.L. Clayton, Jr.,
" Containment Purge Valves," dated August 7, 1979.
Plant Name: Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Unit No. 1 Docket No.: 50-348 Project Manager:
E. Reeves Review Status: Awaiting Infomation With regard to the containnent purge and vent system at the Joseph M.
Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit No.1, the licensee has elected to justify unlimited purging with their 18" " mini-purge" valves and justify limited purging (less than 90 hours0.00104 days <br />0.025 hours <br />1.488095e-4 weeks <br />3.4245e-5 months <br /> per year in modes 1 through 4) with their 48" main purge valves (References 1 through 4). The Plant Systems Branch (PSB), Section B, after having reviewed the documents filed by the licensee
\\b52Df*
a 7912110
NOV 2 1979 (References 1 through 5), has prepared the enclosed request for additional infomation.
The PSB, Section A (EISC), is currently reviewing the licensee's infomation provided at their July 31, 1979 meeting.
G. Lainas, Chief Plant Systems Branch Division of Operating Reactors Enclosure; As stated Contacts:
J. Kerrigan, X-28129 D Shum, X-27058 cc w/ enclosure:
D. Eisenhut B. Grimes W. Gamill L. Nichols G. Lainas E, Reeves E. Adensam D. Tondi D. Shum J. Kerrigan J.T. Beard G. Knighton V, Noonan F. Witt R. Scholl 1532 256
ENCLOSURE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE CONTAINMENT PURGE SYSTEM FOR
_ JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 1 p0CKET NO.:
50-348 1.
The main purge system (48 inch lines) should only be used for the reactor operationa,1 modes of cold shutdown and refueling (modes 5 and 6).
2.
With regard to the containment mini-purge system:
a)
In response to BTP item 5.b, regarding the protection of structures and safety-related eauipment located beyond the purge system isolation valves, your submittal, dated February 5,1979, stated that the radiological analysis was performed taking no credit for the pur : filter.
This response does not appear to fully address the concerns of BTP item 5.b.
Provide a list of all structures and safety-related equipment that would be damaged or would suffer a loss of function from the environment created by the escaping air and steam.
Discuss, in detail, the potential of the damaged structures to adversely affect safety-related equipment in the vicinity.
Discuss the impact on safety due to the loss of function of safety-related equipment. Discuss all post-accident functions that are impacted.
1532 257
b) For the containment purge isolation valve:, specify the differential pressure across the valve for which the maximur leak rate occurs.
Provide test results (e.g., from vendor tests of leakage rate versus valve differential pressure) which support your conclusion.
3.
With regard to the purge supply and exhaust duct covering (bird screen) discuss the design basis of the screen.
In particular:
a) Discuss the design basis for the sizing of the screen mesh pattern; b) Discuss the ability of the " bird screen" to withstand dynamic LOCA forces; c) Discuss the provisions taken to assure -hat the screen has been properly qualified (e.g., for seismic events); and d) Describe the routine procedures (e.g., inspections, etc.)
that you use to assure that partial blockage of the screen by debris during normal operation does not affect the ability of the screen to remain in place and perform its function when subjected to LOCA forces.
1532 258
..