ML19209B398
| ML19209B398 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 09/17/1979 |
| From: | Lainas G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910090629 | |
| Download: ML19209B398 (2) | |
Text
Q2L I Oil
' 'f E,3s-,( [%j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UNITED STATES
+
C W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g
Qf k; 'v
/
SEP 171979 MEMORANDUM FOR:
A. Schwencer, Chief, Operating Reactors Branch #1, D0R FROM:
G.'Lainas, Chief, Plant Systems Branch, D0R
SUBJECT:
CONTAINMENT PURGE SYSTEM - D.C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2
REFERENCES:
1.
Letter to H. Denton from J. Tillinghast,
" Containment Purging During Normal Plant Operation," dated January 4,1979.
2.
Internal Memorandum to D. Eisenhut from R. Tedesco and J. Knight, " Draft Safety Evaluation Report for D.C. Cook Nuclear Plart, Unit 2; Change to Technical Speci.'ication 3/4.6.1.7," dated October 23, 1978.
Plant Name:
D.C. Cook Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos.: 50-315 and 50-316 Project Manager:
D. Wigginton Review Status:
Complete In response to our generic letter of November 29, 1978 regarding the containment purge and vent system at the D.C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, the licensee elected to justify unlimited purging (Reference 1).
The issue of containment purging during normal plant operations has been reviewed by the Containment Systems Branch (CSB) for the D.C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 2.
This review was initiated by the licensee's request (January 13,1978) for a Technical Specification change to delete the restriction on purging imposed during the operating license review for Unit 2.
The licensee's justification for unlimited purging on Unit 2 is directly applicable to Unit 1 (Reference 1).
The similarity of the Unit 1 and 2 purge and vent systems was verified by the NRC resident inspector at the D.C. Cook Nuclear Plant (telecon J. Kerrigan and R. Masse, August 30, 1979).
1116 285 7910090 Q p
The review by CSB of the Ur.it 2 containment purge and vent system was completed in October 1978 (Reference 2). CSB concluded that Unit 2 (1) should be pemitted to use the upper compartment purge system, lower compartment purge system, instrument room purge system, and containment pressure relief system, indf yidually, but not concurrently, as frequently as needed during all plant operating modes and (2) should be required to leak test the containment isolation valves for the above systems following each use of a system. '
- Due to the fact that the Unit 1 purge and vent system has been confimed to be identical with the Unit 2 system, the Plant Systems Branch, Section B, agrees with the licensee that the conclusions of the safety evaluation of Unit 2 are directly applicable to Unit 1.
The Safety Evaluation Report issued by CSB on the Unit 2 contairment purge and vent system (Reference
- 2) should, therefore, be expanded to include the acceptability of the Unit 1 system.
The PSB, Section B review of the Unit 1 system acceptability did not address the electrical aspects of the containment purge system at the D.C. Cook Nuclear Plant, nor did it address concerns that other branches involved in this generic issue (e.g., EB/ DOR, EEB/ DOR) might hr.ve.
We, therefore, do not plan to conduct any non-elected review of this matter. Please advise me if you are not in agreement with this aoproach.
.. f G. Lainas, Chief Plant Systems Branch Division of Operating Reactors
Contact:
J. Kerrigan X-27110 cc D. Eisenhut D. Tondi B. Grimes D. Shum W. Gammill J. Kerrigan j j j () 28[]
L. Ni:hols J.T. Beard G. Lainas F. Witt D. Wigginton J. Zudans E. Adensam V. Noonan G. Knighton P. Check E. Reeves