ML20149K222
| ML20149K222 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 02/17/1996 |
| From: | CENTERIOR ENERGY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149K220 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9602220049 | |
| Download: ML20149K222 (3) | |
Text
_ _. _ _ _ _ _ ~
AttcClument 2 PY-CEI/NRR-2027L Page 1 of 1 CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS PRIMARY CONTAINMENT LEAKAGE LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION 3.6.1.2 Primary containment leakage rates shall be limited to:
$g%
An overall integrated leakage rate, except for the main steam line kh$
a.
isolation valves #, of less than or equal to 0.75 L where L is 0.20 d
5 percent by weight of the primary containment air p,,r 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />,s at P,.
u 1
e 30g
{
b.
A combined leakage rate of less than or equal to 0.60 L,i aw for all g" S j I
penetrations and all valves, except for main steam line solation A
i valves # and valves which are hydrostatically leak tested, subject to u!T Type B and C tests when pressurize 1.*4 y.
Less than or equal to 25 scf per h c.
$0#
any one main steam line through the isolation valves when tested at P,.
,e{$f m 8 % b'()
d.
A combined leakage rate of less than or equal to 0.0504 L, for all i
penetrations that are secondary containment bypass leakage paths when o d e o.
- gV4 pressurized to the required test pressure.
Ye0#
A combined leakage rate of less than or equal to 1 gpm times the gyew e.
8*5h total number of containment isolation valves in hydrostatically tested lines which penetrate the primary containment, when tested at
, I w,,o greater than or equal to 1.10 P,.
jglc OPERATIbNAL CONDITIONS 1, 2, AND 3, with the reactor coolant APPLICABILITY:
)
- g y *$ {
system temperature greater than 200 'F.
e ACTION:
J j,5 o i
With: a.
The measured overall integrated rimary centainment leakage rate, except for the main steam.line i$olation valves #, exceeding 0.75 L l
or
,ag0 3 egg b.
The measured combined leakage rate for all penetrations and all a n.c a valves except for main steam line isolation valves # and valves which g"uo.
are hydrostatically leak tested, subject to Type B and C tests
. 8. &
- j % $"
I exceeding 0.60 L,, or agg!
c The measured leakage rate. exceeding 25 scf per h ur f Jg c.
Id8 steam line through the isolation valves, or any one main j"
gea,j i
d.
The combined leakage rate for all penetrations that are secondary j
a
)
containment bypass leakage paths exceeding 0.0504 L,, or i
Exemption to Appendix J of 10 CFR 50.
J 1
i ss
~
PERRY - UNIT 1 3/4 6-3 Amendment No. (i, H, (q, 76 9602220049 960217 PDR ADOCK 05000440 p
PDR k
E qw.g.
Att:ctunent 3
'pr-CEI/NRR-2027L Page 2 cf 1 PCIVs 3.6.1.3 SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS (continued)
- ]
SURVEILLANCE FREQUENCY SR 3.6.1.3.9
NOTE-------------------
Only required to be met.in MODES 1, 2, and 3.
Verify the combined leakage rate -for all
NOTE------
secondary containment bypass leakage SR 3.0.2 is not paths is s 0.0504 L, when pressurized to applicable 2 P,.
In accordance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, as modified by approved exemptions SR 3.6.1.3.10
NOTE-------------------
Only required to be met in MODES 1, 2, 3
and 3.
Verify leakage rate through each main
NOTE-----
steam line'is s 25 scfh when tested at SR 3.0.2 is
~
a plicable
~
Until the end of Operating cycle 6, the leakage rate through one main steam gg line is limited to s 35 scfh when 10 CFR 50 tested at Pa, as long as the total AppendiXb leakage rate through all four main as modified steam lines is s 100 scfh.
by approved N
exemptions (continued)
PERRY - UNIT 1 3.6-18 Amendment No. 69
.~
i PY-CEI/NRR-2027L Page 1 of 1 SIGNIFICANT BAZARDS CONSIDERATION The standards used to arrive at a determination that a request for amendment j
involves no significant hazards considerations are included in the Commission's Regulations, 10CFR 50.92, which state that the operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of J
safety.
The proposed amendment has been reviewed with respect to these three factors and it has been determined that the proposed change does not involve a significant hazard because:
1.
The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed TS change requests a relaxation of the leakage rate requirements for one main steam line while preserving the overall leakage rate limit for the main steam line penetrations. The proposed leakage rate limit is well below any steam line leakage rate that is used as an accident assumption, and the proposed change would not increase the probability that a steam line rupture would occur. Therefore, the probability of an accident previously evaluated has not changed. In addition, the proposed j
overall leakage rate limit is the leakage rate limit used in the accident analysis, and that limit is not being changed by this proposal.
Therefore, the proposed change does not increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2.
The proposed change vould not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The proposed change increases the allovable leakage rate for one main steam line, without changing the combined leakage rate for the four main steam lines. This request does not change the method for operation of the plant.
Thus the requested change cannot create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3.
The proposed change vill not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The proposed change does not revise the overall leakage rate permitted in the present Specifications for leakage through the main steam lines. An increase in the leakage rate of any one main steam line is not considered 3
in any accident analysis.
It is the combined main steam line penetration leakage rate that is assumed in the accident analysis. Thus, since this assumed leakage rate is not being revised, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
-