ML13316B084
| ML13316B084 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 08/16/1988 |
| From: | Trammell C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TAC-65272 NUDOCS 8808290248 | |
| Download: ML13316B084 (4) | |
Text
o UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 August 16, 1988 MEMORANDUM FOR: Sholly Coordinator FROM:
Charles M. Trammell, Project Manager Project Directorate V Division of Reactor Projects - III IV, V and Special Projects
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION IN BI-WEEKLY FR NOTICE -
NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING (TAC NO. 65272)
Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket No. 50-206, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1, San Diego County, California Date of amendment request: March 20, 1987 Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment involves four changes to the existing specification 4.3.1. The first change is an editorial change to Section A to remove references to the lower pressure test schedule and include this information in Section C. The second change consists of revising the requirement to specify each airlock shall be tested within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> following each closing, versus each opening. The third change consists of adding a requirement to test the airlock prior to establishing containment integrity if maintenance has been performed on the airlock which could affect the sealing capability. The fourth change consists of reducing the present lower pressure test from 10 psig to 3 psig. These proposed changes are being requested in order to provide clarification of the applicable 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J airlock leak testing requirements.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91, the licensee has provided its analysis as to whether or not the proposed amendment involves a significant hazards consideration and has concluded that the proposed changes do not constitute a significant hazards consideration, based on the following discussion:
6808290248 880816 PDR ADOCK 05000206 P
PNU
-2 (1) Will operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response:
No, the basis for airlock leak testing is to detect deterioration of sealing capability in order to prevent excessive dose consequences from a reactor transient.
Incorporation of an additional testing requirement will provide clarification for airlock testing in situations not covered by the existing Technical Specifications. Notwithstanding the fact that this additional testing requirement is taking exception to the Appendix J requirement, the proposed test will enhance the reliability of the airlock sealing capability by ensuring appropriate testing is conducted when necessary.
Reducing the lower pressure test to 3 psig will decrease the potential for damage to the door closing mechanism caused by testing the door at it's design limit for reverse pressure.
Accident consequences or probability will not be increased since containment pressure will seal the inner door. Based on the foregoing, operation bf the facility in accordance with the proposed change will not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
(2) Will operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response:
No, the function of the airlock is to provide personnel access to containment as necessary during periods when containment integrity is required. Airlock leakage testing is performed to verify the leakage integrity of the airlock on a periodic basis, subsequent to use, and subsequent to modifications which could affect the sealing capability. Testing in accordance with the proposed specifications will ensure that the integrity of the airlock is maintained under all circumstances encountered during plant operation. Frequency of air lock testing will not change as a result of this proposed change.
Reducing the lower test pressure from 10 psig to 3 psig ensures the inner door will be sealed and the latching mechanism will not be damaged. Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
(3) Will operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No, the margin of safety for the airlock is defined by sealing capability in the event of a reactor transient. The proposed change is intending to ensure that adequate leak testing requirements are included in the Technical Specifications.
By including these requirements in the Technical Specifications the sealing capability of the airlock will be maintained.
Reduction of the lower test pressure from 10 psig to 3 psig
3 August 16, 1988 does not affect the margin of safety since the direction of test is opposite the pressure direction resulting from the accident. Testing at 3 psig ensures the door mechanism has latched and the door is sealed. Accordingly, operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the request and the licensee's analysis and agrees that the criteria appears to be satisfied. The NRC staff, therefore, proposes to determine that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room location: General Library, University of California, P. 0. Box 19557, Irvine, California 92713.
Attorney for licensee: Charles R. Kocher, Assistant General Counsel, and James Beoletto, Esquire, Southern California, Edison Company, P. 0. Box 800, Rosemead, California 91770.
NRC Project Director: George W. Knighton Charles M. Trammell, Project Manager Project Directorate V Division of Reactor Projects - III IV, V and Special Projects
3 -
August 16, 1988 does not affect the margin of safety since the direction of test is opposite the pressure direction resulting from the accident. Testing at 3 psig ensures the door mechanism has latched and the door is sealed. Accordingly, operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the request and the licensee's analysis and agrees that the criteria appears to be satisfied. The NRC staff, therefore, proposes to determine that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room location: General Library, University of California, P. 0. Box 19557, Irvine, California 92713.
Attorney for licensee:
Charles R. Kocher, Assistant General Counsel, and James Beoletto, Esquire, Southern California Edison Company, P. 0. Box 800, Rosemead, California 91770.
NRC Project Director: George W. Knighton original signed by Charles M. Trammell, Project Manager Project Directorate V Division of Reactor Projects - III IV, V and Special Projects DISTRIBUTION:
Docket Fie JLee OGC-Rockville (Info Only)
NRC PDR PDV Reading CTrammell GKnighton Local PDR PDV/LA PDV/PM R RD/PDV C rammell:cw thighton 08 8
08/\\n/88 08/1L/88