ML19275J207
| ML19275J207 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/16/1980 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML093630928 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007010774 | |
| Download: ML19275J207 (3) | |
Text
.
SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT APPENDIX J REVIEW INDIAN POINT, UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-247 1.0 IjiTRODUCTIO'1 Cn August 7,1975[1], the NRC requested Consolidated Edison Company to review its containment leakage testing program for Indian Point, Unit 2 and the associated technical specifications, for compliance with the re-quirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50.
Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 was published on February 14, 1973. Since by this date there viere already many operating nuclear plants and a num-ber more in advanced stages of desicn or construction, the NRC decided to have these plants re-evaluated against the requirements of tnis new regulation. Therefore, beginning in August 1975, requests for review of the extent of compliance with the requirements of Appendix J were made of each licensee.
Following the initial responses to these re-quests, NRC staff positions were developed which would assure that the objectives of the testing requirements of the above cited regulation were satisfied.
These staff positions have since been apolied in our review cf the submittals filed by the Indian Point, Unit 2 licensee.
The results of our evaluation are provided below.
2.0 EVALUATION Our consultant,. ie Franklin Research Center, has reviewed the licensee's submittals [2, 3, 4, 5] and prepared the attached evaluation of contain-ment tests for Indian Point, Unit 2.
We have reviewed this evaluation and concur in its bases and findings.
ENCLOSURE EOO70107 R
. In its report, the staff's consultant recomrended that the proposed Tecnnical Specification (T.S.) 4.4.D be modified to require that the Type C test for containment isolation valves and associated systems be perforned during each reactor shutdown for refueling but in no case at intervals greater than two years.
The oroposed specification would sin-ply require Type C tests at intervals no greater than 2 years. We have discussed the above described modification with the licensee and the li-censee has agreed to adopt the changes.
On January 14, 1980, the licensee submitted Amendment 2 to Application for Amendment to Operating License [6], in which additional changes to the Technical Specifications were proposed (as compared to -those changes proposed in Amendment I to Application for Amendment to Operating License)
[5].
The proposed changes in Anendment 2 concerning containment tests that were verbally identified by the licensee include:
1.
the deletion of, "The start date for the first 10-year service period is September 28, 1973," from the proposed T.S. 4.4.A.3; 2.
the addition of, " pursuant to specification 6.9.2.a," to the proposed T.S. 4.4.F; 3.
the correction from " Annual Inspection" to " Visual Inspection" in the proposed T.S. 4.4.G; and 4.
the renumbering of certain valves in TABLE 4.4-1.
We have reviewed the above changes and find that the changes are primarily editorial in nature and are acceptable.
3.0 CONCLUSION
Based on our review of the enclosed evaluation report as prepared by our consultant and on the above discussion, the following conclusions are nade regarding the Appendix J review for Indian Point, Unit 2:
. 1. The licensee's requests for excluding Valves 753H, 7539, NOV-822A, MOV-8228 and PCV-lll from Type C testing are found to be acceptable.
No exemption from Appendix J requirenent is necessary.
- 2. The proposed T.S. 4.4 (Containment Tests) submitted by the licensee in Amendment 2 to the Application for Amendment to Operating License [6]
is found to be acceptable alono with a minor nodification to the pro-posed T.S. 4.4.D.
- 3. Proposed T.S. 4.4.B requires an exemption from the current recuirements of Appendix J to pennit testing between airlock door seals after each use in lieu of a complete airlock test. This exemption is found to be acceptable.
4.0 REFERENCES
Ll] NRC Generic Letter from Mr. Karl Goller, Acting Director for Operat-ing Reactors, to Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., (CEC) dated August 7, 1975.
[2] CEC letter from Mr. W. J. Cahill, Jr., Vice President to Mr. Karl Goller, Acting Director for Operating Reactors, dated Sep+ ember 9,1975.
[3] CEC letter from Mr. C. L. Newman, Vice President to Mr. Karl Goller, Assistant Director, DOR, dated April 14, 1976.
"']
LeBouef, Lamb, Leiby, and MacRay letter to Mr. Ben Rusche, Director, NRR, dated April 16, 1976, which forwarded an Apolication for Amendment to Facility Operating License DPR-26, dated April 14, 1976.
[5] LeBouef, Lamb, Lieby, and MacP,ay letter of January 6,1978, which for-warded Amendment 1 to the Application for Amendment to Facility Ooerat-ing License DPR-26, dated December 1977.
[6] CEC letter dated December 31, 1979, which forwarded Amendment 2 to the Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License DPR-26, dated December 1979.
- -..