ML20064K609
Text
F 4
b
~
Distribution i
Central File j
SPEB File TEM Reading File
's February 27, 1981 7
l MEMORANDUM FOR: Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, NRR FROM:
Thomas E. Murley, Director, Division of Safety Technology, NRR
SUBJECT:
SERVICE WATER F1.00 DING. INDIAN POINT UNIT 2 CONTAIMMENT l
Reference:
Memorandum, D. G. Eisenhut to Division Directors, " Operating
(
Reactor Event Memorandum No. 80-27; Service Water Flooding, l
Indian Point Unit 2 Containment." dated December 23, 1980.
s In Table 1 of the referenced memorandum the Safety Program Evaluation Bcanch (SPEB) was requested to review the adequacy of present NRC requirements for:
system leakage detection arid identification (RCS and non-RCS leakage) in con-h tainment; systec isolation capability; systeam leakage testing; and reactor l
vessel flooding analyses. This was to be part of an NRR generic study of the 2-adequacy of MRC requirements concerning. system leakage.,
Based on a brief review of the 'in' formation presented in the referenced memorandui and in the three enclosed memoranda. the SPEB has concluded that 'the current requirements and licensing review procedures appear inadequate regarding detection of leakage from non-RCS sources within the containment. Except for leakage from i
the reactor coolant ' system, the concerns stated above are not included within the staff's current requirements. Additional requirements for detettion of non-RCS leakage should be developed for both new license applications and plants l
that already have been issued an operating license'.~
3 However, the SPEB is not the correct group to develop such requirements. It is the responsibility of the SPEB to evaluate the adequacy of the proposed require-l ments in terus o.f_ s,uch factors as cost-benefit analysts; impa'ct on the NRC.
utilities-public, and possible adverse consequences. In light of this primary c
responsibility of the SPEB, they could not perform an impartial review of new requirenents that they had developed. Therefore, the branches in the Divisions
~
of Licensing Systems. Integration Human Factors' Safety and Engineering that have responsibility in these areas of concern should be the ones to. develop any proposed changes in the rdquirements of regulations.-
/
J
>f f :9:v;m,
It is our understanding that significant revisiloM to SRP' 5.2.5. " Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Leaka.ge Detection," are being considered for inclusion in the forthcoming revision to the SRP. New requirements proposed related to non-RCS leakage should take advantage of existing or proposed new requirements of SRP
' 5.23 and should be comensurate with the safety significance of leakage from systems ~otheia ~ th'an'the RCS.
Of W
- P e =, n.'.
- f...
03o9p3TT hLT e
m..
Darrell G. Eicenhut ;
For your information, OEEB is currently investigating possible use of television cameras inside containment. One specific use of such devices could be for detec-tion of significant leakage from non-P.CS components. We will provide the results of this study to you and other appropriate divisions when completed, probably within two months.
I.
Thomas E. Murley, Director Division of Safety Technology Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
Memorandum, H. W. Woods to E. L. Jordan, " Restart of Indian Point l' nit 3 Subsequent to Indian Point Unit 2 Contain-ment Flooding Event Discovered b.
October 17,1980," dated November 13, 1980.
2.
Menorandum, G. C. Lainas to.
l
- 0. G.. Eisenhut, " Indian Point 2:-
Licensing Basis for Reactor Pressure Yessel and Centainment Fan Cooler i
System-FSAR and Current NRC Require-ments," dated October 29, 1980.
1
- ?
3.
Note, L. S. Rubenstein to G. C. Lainas,
"!P-2 Event vs. Current Licensing Criteria," dated November 7,1980, ces w/ enclosures:
H. Denton
~ ' '
g, ca s e. --a ~.-n.
.,nn.
S.'Hansuer
\\
D. Ross
' R. Vollmer M. Emst_.,
R. Baer E. Adensam D.'Ptitett L. 01shan,__.____
~
G. Holahan I
K. Wichman
'~'
J. Donohen
'~
SPEB Members M. L. Boyle
~
t
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE l
l DST:SPEB DST:SPEB*
DST:1BEB DST:9 l
wi o,...i... s 1
-