ML20078B439
| ML20078B439 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 10/18/1994 |
| From: | DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20078B437 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9410250231 | |
| Download: ML20078B439 (4) | |
Text
7.-
1 l
l l
l l
i l
Attachment ITA Marked-un Technical Speci6 cation Pace i
1 1
i 941025023 941018 PDR ADOCK 05000413 P
PDR a
i l
i i
l g
CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS l
SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS (Continued) l l
a.
Three Type A tests (Overall Integrated Containment Leakage Rate) shall be conducted at 40 10 month intervals during shutdown at either P,, 14.68 psig, or (Unit 1) at P, 7.34 psig, during each t
10 year service period The third test of each set shall be con-ducted during the shutdown for the 10 year plant inservice inspection; b.
If any periodic Type A test fails to meet either 0.75 L r (Unit 1) a 0.75 L, the test schedule for subsequent Type A tests shall be g
i reviewed and approved by the Commission.
If two consecutive Type A tests fail to meet either 0.75 L r (Unit 1) 0.75 L, a Type A test a
t shall be performed at least every 18 months until two consecutive at which time Type A tests meet either 0.75 L, or (Unit 1) 0.75 Lt the above test schedule may be resumed; c.
The accuracy of each Type A test shall be verified by a supplemental test which:
1)
Confirms the accuracy of the test by verifying that the supple-mental test result, L, minus the sum of the Type A and the c
superimposed leak, L, is equal to or less than 0.25 L or (Unit 1) 0.25 L ;
t 2)
Has a duration sufficient to establish accurately the change in leakage rate between the Type A test and the supplemental test; and 3)
Requires that the rate at which gas is injected into the con-tainment or bled from the containment during the supplemental test is between 0.75 L and 1.25 L or (Unit 1) 0.75 L and 3
3 t
1.25 L.
g d.
Type B and C tests shall be conducted with gas at a pressure no less than P, 14.68 psig, at intervals no greater than 24 months l
a except for tests involving:
1).
Air locks, 2)
Purge supply and exhaust isolation valves with resilient material i
seals, and 3)
Dual ply bellows assemblies on containment penetrations between the containment building afd the annulus.
I
- N r r umei11 ance need act be p^-f ermed S-these peretr:tione identi f-ied-m mm+m7_ing-ROT-SHUIDOW f ollowing the Unit 1 M r4t
/
T+,-
,c_,,
.._.:, u m.
+m refueling.
(Thi4-applie: te Unk-1-4nty-).
( A8FuiC6 W/ ATTMk6d,)
CATAWBA - UNITS 1 & 2 3/4 6-3 Amendment No.8 (Unit 1)
Amendment No.1 (Unit 2)
- For Cate.wba Unit 1, a one-time change is granted to extend this interval between the second test (performed 3/91) and the third test to 60 10 months. Also, this test will not be performed during the 10-year ISI refueling outage. This represents an exemption to 10 CFR 50, Appendix J.
e
1 Attachment III No Sienificant Ha7ards Analysis The following analysis is presented, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91, to demonstrate that the proposed change will not create a Significant Hazard Consideration.
- 1. The proposed change will not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Containment leak rate testing is not an initiator of any accident; the proposed interval extension does not affect reactor operations or accident analysis, and has no radiological consequences. Therefore, this proposed change will not involve an increase in the probability or consequences of any previously-evaluated accident.
- 2. The proposed change will not create the possibility of any new accident not previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not affect normal plant operations or configuration, nor does it affect leak rate test methods. The test history at Catawba (no ILRT failures) provides continued assurance of the leak tightness of the containment structure.
- 3. There is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
It has been documented in draft NUREG-1493 that an increase in the ILRT interval from 1 test every 3 years to I test every 10 years would result in a population exposure risk in the vicinity of 5 representative plants from,02% to.14%. The proposed change included herein, an increase from 40 i 10 months to 60 10 months, represents a small fraction of that already very small increase in risk. Therefore, it may be concluded that no significant reduction in a margin of safety will occur.
Based on the above, no significant hazards consideration is created by the proposed change.
I
-e.,
y-m-,.,,
-w++m-.-,
-,,,.r..,..
,r
,-,.