ML18087A805
| ML18087A805 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 03/28/1983 |
| From: | Liden E Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18087A806 | List: |
| References | |
| LCR-82-01, LCR-82-1, LCR-83-01, LCR-83-1, NUDOCS 8304060246 | |
| Download: ML18087A805 (6) | |
Text
---::--1 OPS~G Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Nuclear Department March 28, 1983 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Attention:
Mro Steven A. Varga, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Licensing
Dear Mr. Varga:
REQUEST FOR ADMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES DPR-70 AND DPR-75 SALEM GENERATING STATION UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 Ref. LCR 82-01 LCR 83~01 In accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the regulations thereunder, we hereby transmit copies of our request for amendments LCR 82-01 and LCR 83-01 with our analyses of the changes to Facility Operating License DPR-70 for Salem Generating Station, Unit No. 1 and DPR-75 for Salem Generating Station, Unit No. 2.
an This submittal consists of the addition of the existing Manual Initiation functions for the Auxiliary Feedwater System to appropriate Engineered Safety Features (ESF) Tables in the Safety Technical Specifications (Appendix A) in response to NRC request, and a revision to a Surveillance Requirement in the Safety Technical Specification (Appendix A) regarding containment air lock testing.
...,.,/"L~~ o f gSt>o.D These requests each involve a single safety issue and have been each determined to be Class III amendments for Unit No. 1 and Class I for Unit No. 2 as defined by 10 CFR 170.22.
A check in the amount of $8,800 is enclosed.
~
8304060246 830328 PDR ADOCK 05000272 P-,
PDR The Energy People 95-21 68 (80 M) 11-82
Mr. Steven A. Varga, Chief U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3/28/83 This submittal includes three (3) signed originals and forty (40) copies.
Enclosure CC:
Mr. D. Fischer Very truly yours, Manager -
Nuclear Licensing and Regulation NRC Licensing Project Manager Mr. L. Norrholm NRC Senior Resident Inspector
STATE OF NEW JERSEY SS.
COUNTY OF SALEM COUNTY OF SALEM RICHARD A. UDERITZ, being duly sworn according to law deposes and says:
I am a Vice President of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, and as such, I find the matters set forth in our Request for Amendment dated March 28, 1983, are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
RICHARD A. UDERITZ Subscribed and sworn to before me
!JJ~, 1983
--1'1'-"--'---~--
7N0taiY:Public of New Jersey My Commission expires on BRIP,[\\l Mc!G:::E *JEi-t' NOTARY PUBLIC OF NEW JERSEY My Commission Exoires Jan. 7. 1935
CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS CONTAINMENT AIR LOCKS SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE LCR 83-01 Change surveillance requirement 4.6.1.3.a to read:
After each opening, except_when the airlock is being used for mult~ple entries, then at least once per 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, prove gasket integrity by pressurizing the volume between door gaskets to 10 psig and checking for a seal leakage rate equal to or less than 0.01 La.
REASON FOR CHANGE Using* a "between the seal test pressure" of 47 psig (Pa) at frequent intervals causes the following undesireable effects, according to the airlock manufacturer, (Chicago Bridge & Iron);
- *l'i-...__ ~-~e~ 47 psig is applied between the seals, the inner airlock ~o6r has a tendency tb push away from the door frame towards the center of.the containment bui~ding *
- 2)
Between 20 -
30 psig the seal elastomers tend to
.distort and displace themselves from the seaf grooves causing ari ~neveri seai ~fter the test.
- 3)
The une~en* seating of the seal causes undue stress
.on the airl6ck door oper~ting mechanism.
In addition to these conditions, when pressure is applied between the two gaskets on each door, the pressure on one of the gaskets is -ih the opposite directi6n from the accident (design) condition and the pressure tends to offseat the gasket.
Leakage tests therefore tend to be unrepresentative of the actual tightness of the air-lock, and there is no advantage of using pressures higher than 10 psig.
Repeated intergasket tests at full accident pressure (47.0 psig) leads to gasket
~egredation.
'r CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS CONTAINMENT AIR LOCKS SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS SAFETY EVALUATION e*
LCR 83-01 Sheet 2 of 3 10CFR 50 Appendix J, III.D~2. requires that each airlock be checked for positive sealing after use,-and leakage tested at full accident pressure (47.0 *~sig) every 6 months~
When the. airlock is being used regulariy, intergasket tests ot 10 psig performed ~t least every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> are suffjcient to demonstrate.gasket integrity without offseating, and the resultant potential damage to the gaskets and door operating mechanisms.
The periodic (6 months) full pressure inner volume tests will provide testing of airlock leakage without gasket or mechanism damage.
Appendix J requires that the airlock leakage at Pa, when combined with leakage from local testing of penetrations and is*olation valves in accordance with provisions of Appendix J, does not exceed 0.*6La.
Since this leakage rate is in terms of ?a, the. results of testing at Pt must be conserva-tively* extrapolated_ to Pa.
- In the absence of knowledge of
.the leakage path. geometry;.it is possible that the leakage
- p~th ~ori~is~s 6f *the spac~'bet~een two very closely fitting surface*s ~
- Since air.is. compressible,* the mass flow rate.
measured at Pt will be multiplied by the following factor, (derived by the Franklin Research Center for the NRC in March of 1982) **
- (Patrn)2] *(ut)
[Pt + Patml2 -
(Patm>2J (ua)
Where Pi and Pt are in psig.
Patm is discharge pressure for the leakage path in psia, ua is the viscosity of air at the temperature at which a test at Pa would be performed, and ut is the viscosity of air at the temperature of the test at Pt*
For example, assuming tests at Pt and Pa occur at same air temperatures7 if Pa= 47 psig, Pt= 10 psig, Patm = 14.7 p_sia, ut.= ua _then.. the extrapoiati_on would be~
[(6L7)2
[ Pt + Pa tm ) 2 -
( Pa tm ) 2 J ( u a)
[ 2 4. 7 2 -
1 4
- 7 2 ) ]
=
9.1 This extrapolation factor (9) rnultipled by the direct flow meter reading at. 10 psig (Pt~. would_ give the equivalent leakage* rate at.4 7* psig (Pa).:
- CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS CONTAINMENT AIR LOCKS SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS LCR 83-01 Sheet 3 of 3 We feel this meets the requirements of lOCRF 50, Appendix J, III.D.2. and does not introduc~ new conditions which could affect exis~ing safety analyses, therefore an unreviewed safety question is not involved *
.. :.