ML20031D674
| ML20031D674 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/09/1981 |
| From: | Fields M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20031D662 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110140010 | |
| Download: ML20031D674 (2) | |
Text
.
.10/09/81 v
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY A'JD LICEN5ING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-466
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF TESTIMONY OF MEL B. FIELDS RELATIVE TO BYPASS LEAKAGE
[McCorkle Contention 17]
Q.
Please state your name and position with the NRC.
A.
My name is Mel B. Fields.11 am employed at the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission as a Containment Systems Engineer in the Contain-ment Systems. Branch.
I have testified previously in this hearing on Board Question 4B, Compliance with GDC 50; Board Question 9, Bypass Leakage; and Board Question 4A, Combustible Gas Control.
Q.
What is the purpose of this testimony?
A.
The purpose of this testimony is to respond to McCorkle Conten '
l tion 17.
Q.
What does McCorkle Contention 17 allege?
l A.
McCorkle Contention 17 states as follows:
l The containment as designed will allow excess leakage to bypass the filtration systems. The power company admits that 20 per-i cent of the leakage would not even be filtered.
Q.
Has the staff reviewed the amount of containment leakage that will bypass the filtration systems?
l s110140010 011009 l
PDR ADOCK 05000
A.
Yes. The staff has reviewed the penetrations and lines pene-trating the ACNGS containment for the' potential pf having bypass leak paths against the criteria set forth in Branch Technical Position CSB 6-3,
" Determination of Bypass Leakage Paths in Dual Containment Plants," which is part of NUREG-0800, (Standard Review Plan) Section 6.2.3, " Secondary Containment Functional Design." The criteria used by the applicant to classify the lines into potential and nonpotential bypass leak paths follow our guidelines and are acceptable.
Q.
Is the amount of bypass leakage assumed by the applicant reasonable from a hardware performance capability standpoint?
A.
Yes. The amount of unfiltered leakage assumed for ACNGS (0.095%
of containment volume per day) is approximately 4% of the total leakage al-lowed (0.5% of containment volume per day). This kind of percentage ratio between total leakage and bypass laakage is reasonable for dual containments.
l and has been shown to be achievable in the periodic leak tests of operating
(
l plants.
Q.
What measures will be taken to assure that containment leakage at ACNGS will not exceed the technical specification limits for both total leak-age and unfiltered leakage?
A.
Appendix J of 10 CFR Part 50 requires extensive pre-operational leak tests and periodic leak tests during the life of the plant to assure that the containment will maintain its expected level of leak-tightness.
Type A leak tests (total containment leakage) will be performed three times during each 10 year service period while Types B and C leak tests (for con-tainment penetrations), which will provide a measure of expected unfiltered leakage, will be performed at intervals not to exceed 2 years of duration.
__ __