ML19320C271

Forwards Response to Containment Sys Branch Question 57 for Facility.Leak Reduction Program Initiated to Maintain Leakage Rates of Sys Outside Containment to as Low as Practical

ML19320C271
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	07/07/1980
From:	Clayton F ALABAMA POWER CO.
To:	Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8007160579
Download: ML19320C271 (3)

Text

- Alabama Power Company

"

• 600 North 18th Street Post Office Box 2641 Birmmgham. Alabama 35291 Telephone 205 323-5341 h k c

thoyc , ;" fait Alabama Power the sr>uthem elec:nc system July 7, 1980 Docket No.50-36h Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nucli.ar Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Mr. A. Schwencer JCSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLAUT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Gentlemen:

Enclosed is Alabama Power Company's response to NRO Containment System Branch question CS3 57 for Farley Unit 2.

If you. have any further questions, please advise.

Years very truly, ,

.

9e i A '; -..: x.:.M : ~

m .

.

F. L. Clayto1, Jr.

RWS:rt Enclosure ec: Mr. R. A. Thomas Mr. G. F. Trowbridge Mr. L. Kintner Mr. W. H. Bradford Boo /

.s

/!/

8007160579 4

.- \

• REQUEST FOR ADDITICNAL IITIOR'iATION JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT CONTAINME'IT SYSTEMS BRANCH QUESTION CSB.57 Question:

Closed systems outside contain=ent (e.g. , the emergen:y core cooling system and the contain=ent spray system) having a post-accident function,

-

become extensions of the containment boundary following a 1CCA. Certain of these systems may also be identified as one of the redundant contain-ment isolation barriers. Since these systems =ay circulate contaminated water or the containment atmosphere, syste= co=ponents which may leak are relied on to provide containment integrity. Therefore, discuss your plans for specifying a leakage limit for each syste= that beco=es an extension

-of the containment boundary following a LOCA, and leak testing the systems either hydrestatically or pneumatically. Also, discuss how the leakage vill be included in the radiological assess =ent of the si'e.

Response

In order to =aintain leakage rates of systems outside containment to as lov as practical, Alabama Power Company has initiated a leak reduction program at Plant Farley Unit 2. The plant systems were reviewed and the following systems were identif led that could potentially contain highly radioactive fluids following a serious accident:

g (1) High head safety injection system (recirculation portion only)

(2) Lov head safety injection system (recirculation portion 'only)

(3) Residual heat removal system (h) Reactor coolant systes letdown and =akeup system (5) Reactor coolsnt sa=pling system (6) Containment spray system (recirculation portion only)

(7) Radioactive vaste gas system '

In an effort to provide leak reduction the following =easures vill be taken prior to full power operation:

(1) Allventanddrainlinesvii.1becappedtoprevent release

<

due to seat leakage.

(2) The packing of all valves (except Kerotest pac.'.less valves)

.in the scoped liquid systems vill be inspected for leakage and =aintenance performed where required.

(3) The seals and packing on all pu=ps in the scoped liquid syste=s vill be inspected for leakage.

(h) Valves, fittings, and compressor seals in the scoped gaseous syste=s will be " snooped" for leakage and maintenance perfor=ed as required.

4

_ _ - _

. .

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Page 2 JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT CONTAIN:ENT SYSTEMS BRANCH QUESTION CS3.57

-

To determine the amount of leakage from the affected systems, leak rate tests will be performed periodically at intervals not to exceed each refueling outage. These leakage rates will be dete. ined by using

- integrated leak rate tests for all systems except the radioactive vaste gas system which will be tested using a bubble (" snoop") test of in-

'dividual valves, fittings, and seals.

Due to the measures taken to reduce and =aintain leakage rates to as lov as practical, the a=ount of release from these systems will be small. With the overconservativeness of the radiological assessment of the site, and the fact that these releases would be within the auxiliary building, the added release from these systems vould be insignificant and are adequately covered in the present radiological assessment; therefore, there is no need to set ad.11tional leakage limits for these systems or account for the specific releases from these systems in the site dose rates.

. h- "

_

$

4 I