ML20197D441

Forwards Request for Addl Info Re Util Submittals Concerning Corrosion Due to Chloride Contamination,For Response within 45 Days of Ltr Date

ML20197D441
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Saint Vrain
Issue date:	05/07/1986
From:	Heitner K Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Walker R PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF COLORADO
References
TAC-57248, NUDOCS 8605140272
Download: ML20197D441 (5)

Text

_ ._ ____ __ ________ _ ______ -

May 7, 1986

.. s Docket No. 50-267 i Mr. R. F. Walker, President Public Service Company of Colorado l Post Office Box 840 Denver, Colorado 80201-0840

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - FORT ST. VRAIN - CORR 0SION DUE TO CHLORIDE CONTAMINATION The staff has reviewed Public Service Company of Colorado's submittals concerning corrosion due to chloride contamination at Fort St. Vrain, and has determined that additional information is needed to complete this review.

Enclosed are ten questions that define the additional information needed for this review. We request that you respond to these questions within 45 days of the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact Charles Hinson at (301) 492-7930.

The information requested in this letter affects fewer than 10 respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.

Sincerely, original signed by Kenneth L.'Heitner, Project Manager Standardization and Special Projects Directorate Division of PWR Licensing-B, NRR

Enclosure:

As stated ,

~

cc w/ enclosure: -

See next page '

DISTRIBUTION:

, Docket File' ' .

KHeitner EJordan SSPD ~ Risdincj Olynch- BGrimes NRC PDR HBerkow JPartlow Local POR KParczewski ACRS.(10)

DCS JWermeil PNoonan CHinson FMiraglia OELD

.c B: SPD DPWRLpgik$PD DPWRL-B:S'SPD DW :SSPD W :SSPD 4

4n

//g/86 CHinson' ' KHeitner:ac OL h . Be ow

,05/l/86 4 5/ 5 /86 05/t786 MS/7/86 8605140272 860507 PDR ADOCK 05000267

• P PDR

,. s

1. UNITED STATES g [ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O rj WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k.....,/ May 7, 1986 Docket No. 50-267 Mr. R. F. Walker, President Public Service Company of Colorado Post Office Box 840 Denver, Colorado 80201-0840

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - FORT ST. VRAIN - CORROSION i DUE TO CHLORIDE CONTAMINATION i

! The staff has reviewed Public Service Company of Colorado's submittals A

concerning corrosion due to chloride contamination at Fort St. Vrain, and has determined that additional information is needed to complete this review. l r

~

Enclosed are ten questions that define the additional information needed for this review. We request that you respond to these questions within 45 days of the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact Charles Hinson at (301) 492-7930.

The information requested in this letter affects fewer than 10 respondents; ther~efore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.

Sincerely, l Kenneth L. Heitner, Project Manager Standardization and S~pecial' .

Projects Directorate Division of PWR Licensing-B, NRR

Enclosure:

, As stated

~

cc w/ enclosure: _

See next page 'e ^

.u O

. ~ . _ . .- - .. - - .

.. s

• f Mr. R. F. Walker Public Service Company of Colorado Fort St. Vrain i CC:

Mr. D. W. Warembourg, Manager AlbertJ.Hazle,Direckor Nuclear Engineering Division Radiation Control Division '

Public Service Company Department of Health of Colorado 4210 East lith Avenue P. O. Box 840 Denver, Colorado 8C220 Denver, Colorado 80201 .

Mr. David Alberstein, 14/159A Mr. J. W. Gahm, Manager GA Technologies, Inc. Nuclear Production. Division 4

Post Office Box 85608 Public Service Comptny of Colorado San Diego, California 92138 16805 Weld County Road 19-1/2 Platteville, Colorado 80651 Mr. H. L. Brey, Manager Nuclear Licensing and Fuel Division Mr. L. W. Singleton, Manager Public Service Company of Colorado Quality Assurance Division P. O. Box 840 Fort St. Vrain Nucl' ear Station Denver, Colorado 80201 16805 Weld County Road 19-1/2 Platteville, Colorado 80651 e

Senior Resident Inspector

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i P. 0. Box 640 Platteville, Colorado 80651 i

Kelley, Stansfield & 0'Donnell i Public Service Company Building Room 900 4 550 15th Street j Denver, Colorado 80202 Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nucl'ar e Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 Chairman, Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado r Greeley, Colorado 80631 ,

Regional Representative Radiation Programs Environmental Protection Agency - -

1800 Lincoln Street ,

Denver, Colorado 80203 e

e b

A 9 e

' REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - CHLORIDE CORROSION FORT ST. VRAIN PLANT, ELECTRICAL, INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL SYSTEMS BRANCH

1. How did you determine the " Total Leachable Chlorine" in the. reactor, reported in the last column of Table 3 of the March 18, 1985, submittal? Were these results obtained by a simple extrapolation from the test data, or did you consider actual transfer mechanistns by which water removed leachable materials from the various components during a

plant operation?

2. How did you arrive at the value of 13 pCi Cl-36/g C1 for the 250 g of chloride released from the core prior to the release of highly activated chloride during Cycles 3 and 4? This value cannot be derived from the data presented in Table C-1 in the March 18, 1985, submittal. How was the amount of chloride initially released from the core (250 g) estimated?

3. Provide a justification for the assumption in the Marr.h 26, 1985, submittal that the cavity liner will remain in a wet condition for two months per year.

4. Justify the statement in the March 26, 1985, submittal that during a failure of the filter element only particles greater than 100p in

! diameter would not be transported through the primary circuit by the flowing helium. Explain why particles smaller than 100p in diameter, which could pass through the damaged filter, will not degrade the performance of the primary coolant system.

5. In discussing the failure consequence of the hydrogen getter, you made a statement that "... full helium purification flow during normal operation could be regained by installing one non-nuclear isolation '

valve on the cold-inlet side of the hydrogen economizer." Provide a detailed explanation of the meaning of this stat'ement and, specifically.

how this isolation valve would control the helium purification flow.

Is such a valve currently provided?

6. In discussing the failure " consequence of the broken instrument line, you stated that "...because of the size of the lines, there can be no significant primary coolant leakage." Justify this statement and indicate what the maximum predicted flow rate from a broken instrument line would be.

7. Does the evaluation presented in the March 26, 1985, submittal comprise all components exposed to the primary coolant which are susceptible to chloride induced corrosion and can produce an adverse effect on plant safety in case of failure, or does it include only' selected examples of thes'e components? *

8. What specific methods will you use.to ascertain tha 'n the event of the plenum elements failure, the observed increase ' primary coolant activity could be ascribed to fuel overheating caused d.irectly by this

, failure and not to other occurrences which may produce similar

, activity releases?

l l

l

(

9. Provide a justification for your conclusion that the damage to the helium circulator caused by the corrosion of the circulator's disk won't cause degradation of the plant performance beyond its, safety limits. .

10. Justify your statement that monitoring on a monthly basis tiie temperature of the water used for cooling the thermal barrier will provide enough information to permit taking appropriate corrective actions in the event the barrier becomes detached due to corrosion failure of its attachment studs.

4 t

1 Y

i

..u.,,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _