ML20133G468
| ML20133G468 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20133G408 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8508080696 | |
| Download: ML20133G468 (2) | |
Text
.
/[ga angio.
UNITED STATES y
3 c. c [,g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 205S5 s,.... f SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 72 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-54 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT RANCHO SECO NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-312 I.
INTRODUCTION By application dated June 20, 1984, as revised by letter dated February 25, 1985, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (the licensee) requested changes to the Rancho Seco Technical Specifications to (1) change the closure times of several containment isolation valves in Table 3.6-1 and (2) require that leak rate testing of the equipment hatch and fuel transfer tube seals after each opening be performed prior to when containment integrity is required by Specification 3.6.1.
II. EVALUATION A.
ContainmentIsolationValveClosureTimes(TSTable3.6-1)
The licensee proposes to change the maximum closure times of several containment isolation valves by +4 to -3 sec, as a result of valve modifications required by IE Bulletin 79-018. For example, the closure time of the purge system valves has been reduced from 8 see to 5 sec. We have reviewed the complete listing of valves involved and the corresponding changes in the closure times and find that the changes do not adversely affect the containment functional performance. We, therefore, conclude that the proposed change in containment valve closure times is acceptable.
R.
Section 4.4.1.2.5(a) of the plant TSs states:
"The equipment hatch and fuel transfer tube seals shall be additionally tested after each opening."
However, the licensee has found that when containment integrity is not required, such tests are not necessary. Therefore, the licensee's June 20, 1984, submittal proposed to revise the above statement as follows:
"The equipment hatch and fuel transfer tube seals shall be addition-ally tested after each opening when containment integrity is required in Specification 3.6.1."
We concur with the licensee's view that local leak testing of the equipment hatch and fuel transfer tube seals need not be done when B500080696 050730 PDR ADOCK 05000312 P
pyg
o I '
containment integrity is not required. However, paragraph III.D.2 of Appendix J to 10 CFR 50 states that containment penetrations subject to Type B testing, if opened following a test, shall be Type B tested prior to returning the reactor to an operating mode requir-ing containment integrity.
In order to clarify that the proposed TS change meets the above requirement in Appendix J, the licensee, in its February 25, 1985 submittal, revised the proposed TS change to read as follows:
"The equipment hatch and fuel transfer tube seals shall be addition-ally tested after each opening. This testing shall be done prior to containment integrity being required by Specification 3.6.1."
We conclude that the revised proposed change to the equipment hatch and fuel transfer tube seal leak rate test TS is acceptable.
I!!. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes a surveillance requirement. We have detemined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of.any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding tlat this amendment involves no signific..nt hazards consideration and there has been no,
public coment on such finding Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
IV. CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will notbeendangeredbyoperationintheproposedmanner,and(2)suchactivities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: July 30,1985 Principal Contributors:
C. L1 and S. Miner c
e W-m m
.