ML19322B772

Responds to NRC Describing Approach to Meeting App J Provisions.Proposed Tech Specs Incorporating Certain Considerations Will Be Submitted by 770215

ML19322B772
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	12/28/1976
From:	Parker W DUKE POWER CO.
To:	Rusche B, Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 7912050765
Download: ML19322B772 (3)

Text

6 NRC P(,4u 195 v.s. NUCLE AR REGULATORY r""* MIS $8CN y T..., o..,h 10 /2 k 'i o.7en C lO-2 6 NRC DISTRIBUTION roR PART 50 DOCKET MATERIAL TO: Mr RusChe FROM:

DATE OF DCCU Duke Power Company 2-28-76 Charlotte, NC W 0 Par.c.er Jr.

DATE RECEIVED ELETTER O NoToR'r E o PROP

1. NPUT FORM NUMBER OF COPIES RECEIVED 2 0 AIGIN AL

@UNC LAS$1FIE D g

one signed

. _ Osprv DESCRIPTION E N CLOSU R E Ltr re their 9-5-76 ltr.....& out 11-23-76 ltr...... furnishing info Concerning Appendix J........

DO NOT REIOVE WLEDGED PLANT NAME:

OConee 1-3 SAFETY FOR ACTION /INFORMATION vmrTun 1-4-76 chf ASSIGNED AD:

AMMTcMFD An*

/_3EANCH CHIEF-S C1W e.,i c.w [ S)

M A NEM EMTPF.

4_ERQJ.ECT MANAGER:

2 [C8_

PROJECT MANAGER:

2J.IC. ASST. :

Skyn/d.

LIC. ASST.

r..

INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION Q

REG FTTF #

SYSTEMS SAFETY PLANT SYSTEMS SITE SAFETY &

i

/

NRC PDR HEINEMAN

, J DESCO ENVIRO ANALYSTS

/ I & E (2.7 SCHROEDER BENAROYA DENTON & Mt T TVR t

/

OELD TATNAM I

/ GOSSICK & STAFF ENGINEERING IPPOLITO ENVIRO TECH.

-MIPC MACARRY KIRIGIOOD ERNST CASE KNIGHT BALLARD HANAUER SIHWEIL OPERATING REACTORS SPANGLER l

HARLESS PAWLICKI STELLO t

SITE TECH.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT REACTOR SAFETY OPERATING TECH.

CAMMILL BOYD ROSS

/ EISENHUT STEPP I

P, COLLINS NOVAK

/

SHA0 HULMAN HOUSTON ROSZTOCZY

/

BAER PETERSON CHECK

/

BITrLER SITE ANALYSIS MELTZ

/

GRIMES VOLLMER HELTEMES AT & I BUNCH SKOVHULT SALTZMAN

/

J. COLLINS RUTBERG L

KREGER EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION CONTROL NUMBE R CLPDR:hJeI ka j lo. 5 C NAT. IAB:

BROOKHAVEN MAT. TAR _

/ TIC:

REC V.IE ULRIKSON (ORNL) h L NSIC:

IA PDR

/}O$j ASLB; CONSULTANTS:

/ lACRS IL CYS -H0hDTIC/ SE)T M3 CW d

/" W ' ~7G i

er n,. _ _ _ -. 7 [ C

' U14UOU/Vs NICPQRM 195(2 76)

t DUKE POWER COMPM 4

Power 13 cat.Dixo 422 SouTu Csicacu Srnrer. CnAnt.orTr. N. C. as242 Reculta, o c' t na g,ea

• =*

WILLI AM c. paasta sm, Act P*t s. c t ut

?t.t*=CNE: A* E

• 70 4 S e t a as peo%c. og 373 4083 December 28, 1976

.f,,

s"p%7h

[H1#

44 9;

C'

.---- ~

Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Q /i Mr. Benard C. Rusche

(.

Q7 f.

'V,,

Id g

',.;/

g

\\j U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

/

,9 ^ -

Washington, D. C.

20555

,D N 3h7-

~*

Attention:

Mr. A. Schwencer, Chief

W o L ] ;,' d

[<f.

Operating Reactors Branch #1 A

. ga Re: Oconee Nuclear Station lf Docket Nos. 50-269, -270, -287

,, 3 _..< 3 r I

Dear Mr. Rusche:

~

cur September 5, 1975 letter requested an exemption from the provisions of 10CFR50, Appendix J concerning the testing of containment airlocks.

It was our interpretation that Section III.D.2 of Appendix J to 10CFR50 requires a Type B test to be performed at six-month intervals; however, those airlocks which are opened during such intervals were to be tested after each opening. Our letter described the design features of the Oconee containment airlocks which made this requirement impractical.

In your letter dated November 23, 1976, an acceptable approach to meeting the objectives of Appendix J was described.

This requires, at six-month intervals, that the entire airlock assembly shall be leak tested at the peak pressure, Pa.

Additionally, should the airlock be opened during the interval between the six-month tests, the airlock door seals shall be tested within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> of every first opening of a series of openings. This leak test may be performed at a lower pressure (e.g., manufacturer's recommended pressure) and the results conservatively l

extrapolated to a leakage rate at the accident pressure, Pa.

It is our conclusion that your interpretation of the intent of 10CFR50, Appendix J provides a suitable alternative for testing the Oconee containment airlocks.

In the case of the Oconee design, however, only

• the outer door in each airlock has a doubie seal and is therefore testable.

The inner door only has one seal and cannot be tested. Proposed Technical i

e B

1

Mr. Benard C. Rusche Page 2 December 28, 1976 Specifications will be submitted by February 15, 1977 which incorporate these considerations into the testing of the Oconee containment airlocks.

Ve truly yours, A

.%4 it s a.,L v '

- ' William O. Parker, Jr.

'd MST:vr