ML20041F846

Forwards Evaluation of Safety Assessment Rept Re SEP Topic XV-7,reactor Coolant Pump Seizure/Shaft Break.Initial Conditions Acceptable & Peak Pressures & MCPR Reached During Transient Are within Acceptable Levels

ML20041F846
Person / Time
Site:	Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png
Issue date:	03/11/1982
From:	Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Vandewalle D CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
References
TASK-15-07, TASK-15-7, TASK-RR NUDOCS 8203170476
Download: ML20041F846 (7)

Text

l a

,a March 11,1982 to Docket No. 50-155 g

LS05-82 03-066 1

s n w M,e3

~

- Q iffe17JssfW )

A u vr.m suw c:-w Mr. David J. VandeWalle m

m

• vin a C.

4 S

Nuclear Licensing Administrator

' h Consumers Power Company

^

1945 W. Parnall Road

• NF #

Jackson, Michigan 49201

~

SUBJECT:

BIG ROCK POINT - SEP TOPIC XV-7, REACTOR COOLANT PUMP SEIZURE / SHAFT BREAK By Ictter dated July 15, 1981, you submitted a safety assessment report for the above topic.

The staff has reviewed this assessment and our conclusions are presented in the enclosed safety evaluation report.-

which completes the review of this topic for the Big Rock Point Plant.

This evaluation will be a basic input to the integrated assessment for your facility.

The evaluation may be revised in the future if your facility design is changed or if NRC criteria relating to this topic are modified before the integrated assessment is completed.

Sincerely, 5Y

/

Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief

,,3g (,sid Operating Reactors Branch No. 5 Division of Licensing gon.,

Enclosure:

6-Y As stated cc w/ enclosure:

See next page s/~/n EE.P.B,. f,3,/,d,,,,,,,S,EyALC,,,,,,.S,E,PR[dl[,pBEjl Q

,,6pg;QL,,,,

omer >

suanAue).E.5.9.E.RGBAI.41...GQM,bd.,,,,, HBy,g,gll,,,,,,,,B,(,ms,h[,.d*, QQ,,,

.,3,dd

,,QL4,i,hg,,,,,

o n u.3.m.t82 3i 4m

...u..Qi.a2...... 212.is2....%.

.3.Q..!82...

8203170476 820311 gDR ADOCK 05000 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usom --m.co N

Big Rock Point Docket No. 50-155 Rev. 2/8/82.

, c.,

u-

+'

Mr. David J. VandeWalle f=

p l- -

~'

;i a

'--L;. - - cc L-Mr. ~ Paul A. Perry, Secretary U. S. Environmental Protection Consumers Power Company Agency

- 212. West Michigan Avenue Federal Activities Branchn Jackson, Michigan 49201 Region V Office ATTN:

Regional Radiation Representative Judd L. Bacon, Esquire 230 South Dearborn Street Consumers Power Company Chicago, Illinois 60604 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Joseph Gallo, Esquire U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Isham, Lincoln & Beale Washington, D. C.

20555 1120 Connecticut Avenue Room 325 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Wasnington, D. C.

20036

. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Peter W. Steketee, Esquire Washington, D. C.

20555 505 Peoples Building Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 Mr. Frederick J. Sho'n Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Al an S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman-U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Washington, D. ~C.

20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant ATTN:

Mr. C. J. Hartman Mr. John O'Neill, II Plant Superintendent Route 2, Box da Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Maple City, Michigan 49664 Christa-Maria l

Charlevoix Public Library Route 2, Box 108C 107 Clinton Street Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 l

Charlevoix, Michigan William J. Scanlon, Esquire Chairman 2034 Pauline Boulevard County Board of Supervisors Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 Charlevoix County Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Resident Inspector Big Rock Point Plant Of fice of the Governor (2) c/o U.S. NRC Room 1 - Capitol Building RR #3, Box 600 Lansing, Michigan 48913 Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Herbert Semmel Mr. Jim E. Mills Counsel for Christa Maria, et al.

Route 2, Box 108C l

Urban Law Institute Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 l

Antioch School of Law l

263316th Street, NW l

Washington, D. C.

20460 l

_=

2-Big Rock Point e.

Docket No, 50-155 *-

Mr. David J. VandeWalle cc O~

• z ; [l $

Dr.. John H. Buck

<'n m -?'-

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board

~

y U..S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Ms. JoAnn Bier 204 Clinton Street Charlevoix, Ptichigan 49720 e.

Thomas S. Moore Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III Office of Inspection and Enforcement 799~ Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 e

0 4

9 9

4 l

O o

~.

Ls BIG ROCK POINT SEP TOPIC XV-7

1. d _..

, s. -

u...,

'.j;

,y-g. gr,

,,,}.

{,[ < -

=

e - ;-- ]E h :: g f f _.c,$

j e'

-Recirculation Pump Seizure I '.

Introduction-

_.s,n.

• E ' ~

~~

cy During the pump seizure event, reactor coolant flow drops rapidly and core power decreases due to additional void formation.

The reactor trip s

. level is not reached during this event.

The licensee has performed an analysis of the recirculation pump seizure event (Ref.1).

The analysis assumes the rea'ctor' is initially at 102" power.

11.

Review Criteria

.u Section 50.34 of 10 CFR Part 50 requires that 'each applicant for an oper-

~~

'El ating license provide an analysis and evaluation 'of the design and per-formance of structures, systems and components of the facility with the objective of assessing the risk to public health and safety resulting from operation of the facility.

The steam line ' break is one of the postu-lated accidents used to evaluate the adequacy of these structures, systems, and components with respect to the public health and safety.

Section 50.36 of 10 CFR Part 50.36 of 10 CFR Part 50 requires the Technical Specifications to include safety limits which protect the integrity of the physical barriers which guard against the uncontrol' led release of radio-

-J activity.

s The General Design Criteria ( Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50) establish minimum requirements for the principal design criteria for water-cooled reactors.

.i 2

GDC 27 " Combined Reactivity Control System Capability " requires that the c.:...

reactivity controbsys'tems', in-conjunction,with poison addition.by ;tieldi,:n -

e

. :Qi A=..

R:zpf:W ?; *ikf W & Gy~~ 3 &

-emergency core cooling system,:has the capability:to-reliably control @phy,

. c ~;-

reactivity cha'nges -to cassbretthat under postulated -accidenticonditionsy[aijd y

~

.with appropriate margin for stuck rods the capability to cool the core is maintained.

GDC 28 " Reactivity imits" requires that the reactivity control systems be designed with appropriate limits on the potential amount and rate of reactivity increase to ensure that the effects of postulated reactivity accidents can neither (1) result in damage to the reactor coolant pressure boundary greater than limited. local yielding nor (2) sufficiently disturb the i

core, its support structures or other reactor pressure vessel internals to

~

impair significantly the capability to cool the core.

/

GDC 31 " Fracture Prevention of Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary" requires that the boundary be designed with sufficient margin to assure that when stressed under operating, maintenance, testing and postulated accident condi-tions (1) the boundary behaves in a nonbrittle manner and (2) the probability L

of rapidly prcpagating fractures is minimized.

10'CFR Part 100.11 provides dose guidelines for reactor siting against which calculated accident dose consequences may be compared.

III.

Related Safety Topics s

Various other SEP topics evaluata such items as the reactor protection system.

The effects of single failure on safe shutdown capability are considered under Topic VII-3.

=

e

?

,3,.-

s

~.

IV.

Review Guidelines' E485h.'i Ghe re' view :is conducteddn accordance:with:SRP "15.3.5 and~15.3.4;;T$yp34

~ $;\\Wk : ? $dLi. MY : X*% lh;l.2

'-' #. & fi

_L.,:D~;iiQ M f ???%.

A"J'?,h, "JJ3he7evaT0atioOiiicl udes'* review of:the,. analysis for;the sevent 3nd identifica 3 M

?

Aion :.oflthe features dn :the plant :that mitigate :the: consequences of!the-event-q,y e m_..

m.

_s.

as well as the ability of these systems to function as required. The extent to which operator action is required is also evaluated.

Deviations from the criteria specified in the Standard Review Pla-n are identified.

V.

Evaluation The results of the licensee's analysis indicate that the reactor does not trip during this event.

The lowest MCPR reached is 1.60 and the pressure de-creases from normal ' perating. pressure.

c A limiting single failure and loss of offsite power 'are not evaluated in o

this analysis.

However, since the reactor is not tripped during this event, a single failure cannot be ideritified that may alter the course of mitigation.

Additionally, loss of offsite power would further reduce the severity of the consequences.

'/.

VI.

Concl usion As part of the SEP review for. Big Rock Point, we have evaluated the licensee's analysis on recirculation pump seizure and have concluced that'the initial conditions are acceptable and the peak pressures and MCPR reached during 9

the transient are within the acceptable limits. Operator actions taken during this event are'of'rcutine nature and are not critical in mitigating I

adverse consequences of the transient.

s e*

f

~

h_. _ -

.. i

> Recirculation' Pump Shift ~ Break _t.

1lp,fsa.i;.y " g. u.

- w-

-~

, _ w.m,u.&$b%awW5:;},lyzedibyg}l?

yL R

m 3-J U d

A'g?

- a;4 ~-.. ~gygvage. es.g;y.gq3 z&w&

tihas:nottbeeCana T-Q: _.

.a..

3..

n ' &[

'The recirculation pump shaft 1breakdransien

?GCh the licensee, because its consequences.are'less-severe 4hantt+he con

.. : w -..

y ls f flow.!in. '. T..'

J sequbnces during$the : pump seizure Merit'due'-to. rthefr.eversa..c.o ; ?i e....-5.f m.

N. Nv'e~1 the affected loop, which further reduces the reactor powe Therefore, separate analysis is not required for this event.

Loss of Forced Recirculation Flow from Pump Trio or Flow Controlle Malfunctions.

Loss of forced recirculation flow can occur due to loss of poweri (decreasing to the pumps, pump ' failure or flow controller malfunction Review guidelines are provided in SRR 15.3.1 and 15.3.2.

flow).'

Topic Mechanical failure of one recirculation pump is addressed above.

XV-4 considers the consequences of loss of ac power to statio Therefore, separate analysis is not required such as recirculation pueps.

for this event.

References _

l Letter from R. A. Vincent, Consumers Power Company, to Dire Big Rock Poi ~nt i

D. M. Crutchfield, NRC,

Subject:

Reactor Regulation, Attn:

d Plant - SEP Design Basis Dent Topics XV-1, XV-3, XV-4, XV-5, 1

XV-9, dated July 15, 1981.

l l

I-h' u,-

c.f.

.i d

l l

l t

2'i s.