ML20064K689
| ML20064K689 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Brunswick |
| Issue date: | 04/06/1981 |
| From: | Gammill W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Ippolito T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20064E577 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-82-389 NUDOCS 8104290774 | |
| Download: ML20064K689 (1) | |
Text
.
9 DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File 50-324 AI!' O 6 J'.-1 Docket File 50-325 ETSB Reading File
-7ETSB Docket Files Doci.c t !!os. 50-324/325 j
(
T. A. Ippolito, Chief
'{
Operating Reactors Drcr,ch I.'o. 2, DL FfC3:
H. P. Canaill, Chief Ef fluent Treatecnt Systens Branch, DSI
SUBJECT:
Pr0GRESS PEPORT 0:! A0G l'0DIFICATIO!!S AT GRU!!S1'ICK STEA!! ELECTRIC PLAUT i
i By letter, Mcrch 23,19C1, Carolina Pever and Light Conpany provided a modifi-l cation en the schedule for the redesign, purchase and installation of the 0
reconbiner/chcrcoal adsorber (chilled) system to replace the cryogenic offpu system at Brunswick, Unit !!os. I and 2.
The schedule co,mits to having Unit Mo. I codification installed, tested and operable !!ay 1,1983, and Unit l'o. 2 i
I fully operational by December 31, 1983, with the old cryogenic equipment re-roved. Present operation has been in accordance with the interim technical specifications addressing the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, t.ppendix I.
L'e find that the nodified schedule is acceptable.
g The applicant should be inforned that we consider that this najor change to a j
radcaste treatment system will require a 10 CFR Part 50.90 review.
For that revicu, we will need infomation to show confonaance with Appendix I and that the codification can neet the acceptance criteria of Standard Review Plans in
!!UREG-0800 (fomally NUREG-75/087).
The anendment to the FSAR should be scheduled such that our safety evaluation can be completed and proposed changes to the radiological effluent technical specifications submitted six ronths prior to use of the modified A0G system.
Orhi :1 M n-d by:
liinia 1. e.:cill,
William P. Gammill, Chief Ef fluent Treatment Systems Branch Division of Systens Integration cc:
W. Kreger J. Hannon J. Van Vliet F. Congel R. Rangart C. Uillis J. Doegli
[.
AN f/D
' e. DS.I:RP;
.D.S R_
DSJ 3B 8"'. JSBoe9.i 10..
.Ch'i l 1 i s.
.UPGa, mi I L 1
_04/J../81 04/4.f81
{' {04/02/8 _
.j e....
,~.cre:
OF FICI AL f:tiCO F.D CO PY
"""-2""'
r;-
1 o
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
c t;
y WASMNGTON, D. C. 20555
\\W...../
APR 8 1981 MEMORANDUM FOR: Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Carlyle Michelson, Director Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data
SUBJECT:
H.B. ROBINSON RCS LEAK ON JANUARY 29, 1981 The Engineering Evaluation Report for the Robinson event is enclosed for your information and consideration.
The primary reason for the evaluation was the loss of approximately 6,000 gallons of reactor coolant water from two separate leaks in the letdown train of the Chemical and Volume Control Letdown System (CVCS).
The evaluation of the event did not identify any safety concerns or any required immediate actions by the NRC. There are four areas, however, which are referred to NRR for your consideration. These include:
1.
Whether a requirement should be placed upon operating plants to establish a procedure for identification and recovery from a spurious safety injection actuation (if such a procedure is not already in place).
2.
Whether criteria for terminating SI should include provisions for isolating charging since charging flow could be considered high pressure safety injection for very small breaks.
3.
Whether there is a need for a direct reactor trip on a spurious safety injection actuation at other Westinghouse plants which do not have a direct trip.
4.
Whether operation of the isolation valves in the CVCS at Robinson is causing the system to be operated in a manner which is contrary to its design bases, c
3
/
/
3 n90' n-m 9pr
.y Harold R. Denton Since these areas have been identified for information, a written response is not requested. No additienal AE0D action is anticipated.
This event and the operator's response is a good example of an operating experience which should be disseminated to other licensees for information and training purposes. We have proposed this event to be included in Power Reactor Events.
t Carlyle Michelson, Director Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data
Enclosure:
Engineering Evaluation Report for H.B. Robinson cc w/ enclosure:
See Distribution