ML20126J593
| ML20126J593 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 04/23/1981 |
| From: | Daltroff S PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0578, RTR-NUREG-578 NUDOCS 8105010273 | |
| Download: ML20126J593 (2) | |
Text
\\
s PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY N
'@$/
2301 M ARKET STREET P,0, BOX 8699
/ (
g 1881 1981 PHILADELPHI A, PA.19101 e
1 eg3h L.
G'SHMS s0 g]i t
swirto.L.oatynorp
.. = = -
.P April 23, 1001 Re: Cocket Nos. 50-2'7 50-278 Mr. Darrell G.
Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing US Muclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Dear Mr. Eisenhut:
This correspondence requests a revision to the leak r eduction program comnitted to in a letter from S.
L.
- Daltroff, Philadelphia Electric Company, to H.
R.
Denton, NRC, d atad January 2, 1980.
The commitment was in response to the Short Term Lessons Learned (NUREG 0578), Section 2.1. 6 a, r equir em ent for all licensees to develop a leak reduction program to reduce leakage from systems outside containment that may contain highly r adioactive fluid s during a serious transient or accidant.
The Nuclear Regulator y Commission on October 28, 19 0 issued Am e ndm e nt Nos. 7u and 73 to Facility Operating Licenses Mos. DPR-44 and DPR-55 for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station.
These amendments included a change to the Technicsl Specifications requiring the leakage reduction program addressed in HUREC 05"8, section 2.1.6A.
Therefore, we propose that the leakage reduction
~
program as required by the Technical Specifications supersede the previous commitment described in the correspondence referenced above.
This would permit adjustments in the program without changing the intent. of the leakage control progr am as specified l
in the Technical Specifications.
The adjustments are as follows :
1.
The leakage reduction program described in the c0j l
correspondence referenced above identified two tests for the Reactor Water Cleanup System (RWCU).
The first J
involved an operational hydrostatic test d uring each i
refueling outage, at 1000 psig.
Additionally, a second
/O l
test was pro po sed at 49.1 osig during the integrated l
o
- 7 310 507 0Q17jg
i i
i Mr.
D.
G.
Eisenhut, Director Page 2
)
)
leak rate test (ILRT) ev er y 3 1/2 ye ars.
The operaticnal hydrestatic test represents a more stringent and meaningful test.
Th er efo r e, te eliminate redundancy in the testing program, it is prcposed that the requirement to test the PWCU d uring the ILRT be deleted.
2.
The correspondence referenced above preposed a leak test of the Standby Gas Treatment System (SBGTS).
Further analysis indicates that a leak test o f this syst em is inap pr c pr i a t e for the Tc11cwing reason.
In the event i
of a LOCA, the SSGTS starts automatically, the reacter building is isclated, and the SEGTS automatically aligns to take suction on the reacter building.
The gases flewing inside the S9GTS ducts in the reacter building are the same as exists outside the ducts (reacter building atmosphere).
Release of primar y centainment gases to the SSGTS is centro 11ed by a cne inch valve and must be initiated manually.
The v enting r ate can be centrolled to ensure a negative pressure in the SBGTS ducts.
Th er e fo r e, it is pr o po s ed that the SBGTS test be deleted from the program.
Sho uld you have any questiens regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Ver y truly your s,
/
f I~
i