ML20080E843
| ML20080E843 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Indian Point |
| Issue date: | 07/20/1971 |
| From: | Low L US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Morris P US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20079D981 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-83-728 NUDOCS 8402100171 | |
| Download: ML20080E843 (2) | |
Text
._
tu
- ~ -
4 Qn' \\, %,v2 W
~
S UNITED STATES
. A 4
..: 1 ATOMIC ENERG_Y COMMISSION b,,,
-/),
u 1.
1
' bel "#F WAcHl!4GTote. D.C. 20545 t
i k
g JUL 2 01971
~
(#
l i
i t
- p. A. Morris, Director s.
i Division of Reactor Lict.ncin';
/
TECHNICat, SPECIFICATI0:?S - EXTEHDED 'IAINTENANCE Recent tec% ical.upeci G c.fe.. have provisions that pernit engineered safety feature subsysteu er ecuponents to be inoperabic beycud the specified out-of-scrvice ti:.:, if a report and estimated date of operability are subaittea by the licensee before the end of the permitted cut-of-service tina. ide bc;1'icvc that provisions worded in this m2nner should not N includedia technical spceifications, because it places DRL in the position of having to initiate a ~
i positivci action to shut tb reactor down. This appears to us to be a reversal of responsihi1.itie:
Uc believe, that, since there is an 6.
cvaluated out-cf-service tica specified in the technical specifications, the licensec should uc. x. : a positive DRL approval for continued operation with an c:etendeo.. -of-service time.
If he cannot nect t.. - out-of-service ti:te tmd cc.nnot cceive approval for cc itinued operation, he should shnt dot.a his facility.
1 Ue reco=nand that these provisicas he reworded to require DRL approval l
for extended operation past the out-of-scrvice ti.ie, and that the
~
licensac's report justify ccentinued operation to the >stit.ated operability date, includ ' n g., as appropriate, the licenrc 's program i
for increased surveillancc et, a:id upgrading the operability of, the redundant counterpart.
I The Indian Point.No. 2 spr.ci fications on extended maintenance contain s
wording similar to that rece:::4cnded above, except that they do not explicitly require the liccasec to justify continued operation in the report. The Ip 2 specificatiens do, houcVer, contain one cdditional.
i feature thct is'not apprapdate, in our view.
They have a provi.sion that requires the licensee to repart to the Director, Region I,'. those outages which will c::cced the specified out-of-service period. (Section 3.3~.I).
The purpose of this report, r.tated 'in the specification, is to allow o
AEC to review the circu=:tc.m, and to render a decision on extending the out-of-service period, :heid.y pereitting reactor ope. ration to
~
<ontinua. Since Compliantc wcld i:.r.w fiately refer these reports to j
DRL for evaluatica, uc bclinve that the report should bc made directly j
to DRL instead of Complience.
h c.
j l
f 8402100171 831230 PDR FOIA MADDENO3-728 PDR ll i
i
~
e i
o e'
P. A. Morris, DRL
~2-Uc reco:=iend that the Indian Point ::o. 2 specifications be reworded to require that the report be made to DRL and that the report contain justification for continuing operation.
DRL vould, of course, promptly notify the Regional Office or Compliance Headquarters of any decisions to permit extensions.
Please let me. know what action you plan to take on these reconnendations, y * ~,
or if you desire to discuss these matters further.
f g...s knMr
- , Lawrence D. Low, Director
/
Division of Compliance cc:
A. Giambusso, CO R._ H. En; clhen, CO L. Kornblith, CO' M. L. Ernat, CO 1;. l'oseley, CO :I
.m=-
.-e-..-
~ e
- v.
=.-...e emm s-e..m.
wee eee pg
.e.g.....ee..
w-
., w g w y a w -
,,,,g.
,,g
.._ _ _____g.._..
=
.+h..&_w.=ea eehe-.- M e+m 6-*e.
mee NN + ew. h@ e hme
.h.
g p
g....
,.,e, w,
5
- e=.
m
.eee...w..
g
.,m...
.,,,m,
,e t
.