ML20148P164
| ML20148P164 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/08/1978 |
| From: | Lawroski S Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148P161 | List: |
| References | |
| PROJECT-448O NUDOCS 7811280136 | |
| Download: ML20148P164 (3) | |
Text
- __ _ __._
pg P%[%
,[s UNITED STATES e
p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
l ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS g#
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 l
November 8, 1978 Honorable Joseph M. Hendrie Chairran O. S. Nuclear Regulatory Canmission l
Washington, DC 20555 l
SUBJECE: RFPORT ON 7EE FAST FLUX TEST FACILITY 7
Dear Dr. Hendrie:
During its 223rd meeting, November 2-4, 1978, the Advisory Camnittee on Reactor Safeguards completed its review of the proposed operation of the Department of Energy's (DOE) Fast Flux Test Facility (FFIF). We ACRS reported previous]y on the construction phase of this project on July 13, 1971, January 13, 1972, May 18, 1973, and July 15, 1975. We project was also considered during the 221st meeting, September 7-9, 1978 and at Subcom-mittee meetings held in Washington, DC on July 12, 1978 and August 10, 1978.
During its review, the Canmittee had the benefit of discussions with repre-sentatives of the Reactor 'Research Technology Division of the DOE (Project),
their contractors and consultants, and the NRC Staff. The Committee also had the benefit of the documents listed below.
The FFTF is a 400 MWt sodium cooled fast re&ctor located at DOE's Hanford Reservation in Benton County, Washington. We site is about 41/2 miles from the Coltmbia River, the nearest boundary of the reservation, and about 10 miles north of Richland, Washington.
In view of the fact that this reactor is unique, appropriate detailed procedures and standards of the kind used in the review of light water re-actors were not available for the review of FFTF. Because the FFTF is a DOE facility the scope of the NRC review was defined by the DOE request that NRC provide advice regarding the adequacy of the FFTP design and technical specifications to ensure safe operation. W e NRC review did not include construction audits, assessments of the "as built" configuration, or evalu-ation of acceptance test results that would verify that the plant was con-structed in accordance with the design criteria and documentation. Provi-sions for safeguards and security were also excluded fran review.
w_
78112801%
,.r Honorable Joseph M. Hendrie November 8,1978 The NRC Staff agrees with the Project that failure of the reactor inlet
~
piping need not be considered as a cause of a core disruptive accident (CDA) provided that certain conditions are met. These include preservice and inservice inspection of piping, leak detection instrumentation, and an appropriate materials surveillance program. The Project has committed to developing an ultrasonic testing (UI) device for high temperature use, to inservice inspection of selected, high stress welds on the secondary sodium loops when the Ur device is available, and to installation of so-dium aerosol leak detection systems in the heat transport cells. A mate-rials surveillance program will be conducted using test subassemblies, as well as in-reactor and hot leg components that are renoved. In addition, the NRC recommends that a cold preservice inspection be conducted on the hot crossover piping welds and that inservice inspections be implemented as soon as practicable. The Committee supports these recmmendations.
The Project has perforne.d studies of various postulated core disruptive accidents (CDA). %e NRC Staff has concluded that the calculated prompt energetics from CDAs are within the capability of the containment system.
The ACRS concurs with the Staff conclusion.
The FPfF does not have a Class lE power supply to provide decay heat re-moval. Instead, the Project will depend upon natural convection cooling in +he event of loss of offsite power and failure of the onsite diesel generators. The Project's calculations indicate that natural circulation will provide decay heat renoval.
It is proposed that the natural circula-tion decay heat removal bc measured durirg the startup testing. The ACRS concurs that the adequacy of the decay heat renoval by natural circulation should be experimentally verified.
The NRC Staff and the Project have not yet agreed on the adequacy of con-tainment for dealing with the consequences of sme low probability acci-dents which lead to the ootential for generation and release to contalment of significant quantities of sodium aerosols, hydrogen and other volatile gases. In its report of July 15, 1975, the ACRS' recommended that consider-ation be given to the possible usefulness of sand-and-gravel filters for the i
l renoval of airborne particulates. During the current review, the NRC Staff has recomended that measures be taken by the Project to permit the measure-ment and control of the hydrogen concentration in the contalment, to further reduce the chance of a damaging explosion. The NRC Staff has also recommended that means be included for controlled venting. We ACRS supports these Staff positions and recommends development of additional mitigation measures, such
~:
... e
~
3-November 8,1978 Honorable Joseph M. Hendrie as a sand and gravel filter, for possible addition to the controlled venting system to provide still further assurance of limited radioactivity releases in the event that one of these low probability accidents should occur.
As pointed out in a previous report, the ACRS has recognized that the FFTP is a special test facility located on a favorable site. Both positive and negative aspects of this situation have been considered throughout the re-view. The ACRS believes that if due regard is given to the matters mentioned above, and in previous reports, it is acceptable for startup and operation of the FETF to proceed.
Sincerely, f Y ; W Step en Lawroski Chairman
References:
1.
U.S. Energy Research and Develognent Administration fr.ow DOE), " Final Safety Analysis Report, Fast Flux Test Facility," Vols. 1-10, dated December 1975 with Amendments 1-27 and Supplements 1-28.
2.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Safety Evaluation Report, USDOE, l
Fast Flux Test Faciltiy," USNRC Report, NUREG-0358, dated August 1,1978.
3.
Letter from R. L. Ferguson, ERDA, to R. P. Denise, NRC,
Subject:
NRC Review and Advice on the FFTF, dated November 13, 1975.
l 4.
Letter from R. L. Ferguson, EPDA, to R. P. Denise, NRC,
Subject:
Scope of NRC Review of FETF FSAR, dated August 20, 1976.
5.
Letter from R. L. Ferguson, ERDA, to R. P. Denise, NRC,
Subject:
FETF Safeguards and Security, dated July 14, 1977.
J 4