ML20098G465

Proposed Tech Specs Re Primary Containment Airlock Test Requirements

ML20098G465
Person / Time
Site:	FitzPatrick
Issue date:	10/01/1984
From:	POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK
To:
Shared Package
ML20098G460	List: ML20098G459 ML20098G463 ML20098G465
References
NUDOCS 8410050022
Download: ML20098G465 (4)

Text

.. . . . - . .- _ _ .

I

~^ '

re .

c ATTACHMENT I

^

PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE RELATED TO PRIMARY CONTAINMENT AIRLOCK TEST REQUIREMENTS NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY.

JAMES ' A. . FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-333 8410050022 841001 PDR ADOCK 05000333 PDR p 2,

.*v' w ur er ycf 'y tr- 7 W ar up w vvv* g W-*:im=ye& w'wr*gv1w w- tneq-4 y ew we-Wiwtw-w yy te p yyM's yr wy-y-rvww%r ww g ypyM' *N v-y*"'-+

'JAFNPP'

. 4. 7 ' C ont ' d .~ ,

The ' third tsct of ecch set -

shall be conducted when the. -

plant is shutdown for the 10 year plant inservice -

inspections.

Permissible periods ofTtesting.

The performance of Type A tests-shall be limited to periods when the plant facility is nonoperational and secured in the shutdown condition under the administrative control and

'in accordance with the plant safety procedures.

(2.) Type B tests.

Type B tests, (except tests for. air-locks), shall be performed during each reactor shutdown for refueling, or other convenient intervals, but in no case at intervals greater than 2 years.

Each airlock shall be tested at six (6) months intervals at an internal pressure of not less than 45 psig (P a). The overall leakage rate for the airlock shall be Jess than 268 SCFD (0.05 L a)*

Airlocks opened during periods when containment integrity is not required shall be tested at the end of such periods within three (3) days of when containment integrity is required. Airlocks opened during periods when containment integrity is required shall be tested within three (3) days af ter being opened.

For airlock doors having testable seals, testing of the seals shall fulfill the three (3) day test requirements but shall not be substituted for the six (6) month test of the entire airlock.

Amendment No.

173

3,' [ h ~

4 a

1 l

l 1

i J

4 ATTACHMENT II~

SAFETY EVALUATION RELATED .9N)

PRIMARY CONTAINMENT AIRLOCK TEST REQUIREMENTS-1 NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY

~ JAMES A'. FITZPATRICK ' NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DOCKET-NO. 50-333 1

y.-

's..

iSection I - Description of the Change The: proposed change to'the Technical, Specifications is'shown in Attachment I.to the Amendment Application. This change-occurs in Section.4.7.A page 173Jand reflects the NRC's October 22, 1980-amendment to 10 CFR.50, Appendix'J, regarding containment airlock In this change, the time specified for testing

~

' test requirements.

the1airlocks, which are opened and closed during the' intervals between 6 month. tests, was increased from 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to 3 days when-containment integrity is' required. . Test pressure and acceptance criteria-have also.been specified for airlock leak testing in this application.-

Section'II - Purpose of the Change The purpose of the1 change.is to modify containment. airlock test requirements in'the~JAF. Technical. Specifications. The proposed change should provide greater flexibility with respect to airlock tests when'the airlocks are in frequent use, such as occurs during an outage..

~

Section-III - Impact of the Change The proposed. change to the Technical Specifications do.not change any system or subsystem. The modifications ~will.not' alter the conclusions reached in the FSAR and SER accident analyses..

Section IV - Implementation of the Change The change.as proposed will not impact the ALARA or Fire Protection at JAF, nor will-the' change impact the environment.

Section V - Conclusion The incorporation of'this change: a) will..not change the probability norJthe consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously: evaluated in the safety y . Analysis. Report; b) will not1 increase the possibility for an

accident or malfunction of-a different type than.any evaluated previously in the Safety Analysis Report; and c) will not reduce

the margin of safety as defined in the' Bases for any Technical Specification; d) does not constitute an unreviewed safety question; and e)-involves no significent hazards' consideration, as defined in 10 CFR 50.92.

, 'Section VI - References

, -(a)~JAF FSAR 2- (b) JAP SER

.(c).10 CPR 50 Appendix J Amendment dated Oct'ober 22, 1980.

F L